In Gale v Purcell, the Court, partly because of social media evidence, found that the plaintiff did not prove beyond a balance of probabilities that her injuries were more than minor.
In Mullens v Toor, the Court denied the relevance of evidence that included the plaintiff’s internet blog and subsequent social media content when assessing damages.
In Moretto v Nicolini-Femia, social media evidence was used to discredit the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff was bit by a dog at a party. An action was brought forth for damages related to post-injury scarring, specifically as it related to the plaintiff’s psychological well being.
Social Media Evidence Used in Limited Capacity on A Ruling for The Future Loss of Income – Nova Scotia
In MacVicar Estate v MacDonald, a ruling on damages for future loss of income used social media evidence in a limited capacity through the “snapshot” in time approach.
In Mudinger v Ashton, social media evidence was used against the plaintiff to cast doubt on the seriousness of her physical limitations post-accident.