Quick answer
Yes. Insurers and defence lawyers in Ontario may review public social media, seek relevant private content during litigation, and use lawful surveillance to question a claimant’s credibility or limitations. A photo rarely proves that someone is uninjured, but it can be used out of context. Do not delete potentially relevant posts without speaking to your lawyer.
Published August 2026. Legally reviewed August 2026 by Miryam Gorelashvili, LL.B.
Vacations, weddings, sports, family events, and everyday activities generate photos and videos that may be reviewed while an injury claim is open. A harmless image can look different when an insurance adjuster compares it with reported symptoms or limitations. MG Law is an Ottawa personal injury firm, and we see how ordinary online activity can become evidence in Ontario injury claims. You do not need to delete your accounts. What matters is understanding how social media and surveillance may be used, what the law permits, and how to protect a legitimate claim while you continue living your life.
Social media can become relevant in many personal injury and disability disputes. The accident benefits, Licence Appeal Tribunal, serious impairment threshold, and statutory deductible discussed below apply specifically to Ontario motor vehicle claims. Other types of claims, such as slip and fall, disability, or medical cases, follow different rules.
Key Takeaways
- In Ontario motor vehicle claims, insurers may use social media and surveillance in accident benefits disputes and tort claims to challenge a claimant’s credibility, reported limitations, or damages.
- Covert surveillance can be lawful, but it is restricted. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner says there should be a demonstrable evidentiary need, a strong likelihood the surveillance will achieve a legitimate purpose, proportionality, and consideration of less privacy-invasive alternatives.
- Privacy settings do not automatically protect relevant content. Ontario courts may order production of relevant private posts, but generally require a proper evidentiary basis and limit it to material connected to the case.
- The 2026 statutory deductible on pain and suffering awards is $47,913.01, and it does not apply once an award exceeds $159,708.71.
- The defence generally must disclose the existence of surveillance and provide the required particulars before trial. Whether the footage itself must be produced depends on privilege, how the defence intends to use it, and the Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Before posting while your claim is open, assume that an insurer may eventually see the content. Do not delete or alter potentially relevant posts without first obtaining legal advice.
Can Insurance Companies Check Your Social Media After an Accident?
Yes. Insurers and defence lawyers may review publicly available posts, photos, videos, comments, tags, and check-ins. During litigation, they may also request the production of relevant private content when there is a proper evidentiary basis. Their aim is usually to raise doubt about your credibility rather than to prove outright fraud, because once a decision-maker questions you on one point, that doubt tends to spread across the rest of your claim. In our experience, the posts that cause the most trouble are almost never staged or dishonest. They are ordinary moments that look different once someone lines them up against a list of injuries.
The gap they look for: what you say you cannot do versus what a post shows
Say you have reported that you cannot sit for long, lift more than a few pounds, or get through a full day without rest. Then a weekend photo shows you holding a toddler, carrying a cooler, or standing through a wedding reception. The insurer will point to that image and argue your limits are not as real as you have described, and a single frame can shape how an adjuster reads your whole file. Why one photo is weaker evidence than it looks is something we come back to further down.
Why vacation and activity posts attract attention
Travel, sports, celebrations, and everyday outings all produce the kind of content an adjuster looks for, and it lands while your claim is active. A photo of you boarding a flight or standing on a paddleboard is not proof that you are fine, but it is the sort of image that invites a closer second look. Photos or videos showing physical activity may be compared with the limitations reported in your claim.
Two claims your posts can affect: accident benefits and the right to sue
After an Ontario motor vehicle collision, an injured person may have two separate claims: an accident benefits claim and, if another person was at fault, a tort claim. The claims may involve the same insurer or different insurers, and disputes are decided in different forums. Understanding the distinction helps explain why social media and surveillance may matter in both.
Ontario’s Insurance Act contains statutory rules for determining which insurer is responsible for accident benefits. Accident benefits are available regardless of who caused the collision.
Accident benefits (no-fault) and the Licence Appeal Tribunal
Accident benefits are available regardless of who caused the collision. The insurer responsible for paying them is determined under Ontario’s statutory priority rules, so it is often, but not always, the injured person’s own insurer. Beginning July 1, 2026, medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits remain mandatory. Other accident benefits, including income replacement, are optional. Existing policies generally renew with the same coverage and limits unless the policyholder agrees in writing to make changes. However, who is covered by newly optional accident benefits changed on July 1, 2026, regardless of the policy’s renewal date, and FSRA says newly optional benefits generally cover the named insured, their spouse and dependants, and people specified in the policy as drivers. An insurer may investigate eligibility and require examinations permitted by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Disputes over accident benefits are generally decided by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, and surveillance and social media are used here to question whether an injured person still needs the benefits being paid.
The tort claim, the serious and permanent threshold, and the deductible
Separately, an injured person may sue an at-fault driver for losses that are not fully covered by accident benefits. The statutory threshold applies specifically to non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering. To recover those damages, the injured person must establish a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, or permanent serious disfigurement. For 2026, the deductible for these non-pecuniary damages is $47,913.01. The deductible does not apply when the award exceeds $159,708.71. Other categories of damages have different requirements and are not governed by this same threshold and deductible. This is why insurers work hard to show an injury is less serious than claimed. An injury that does not meet the statutory threshold may result in no pain-and-suffering award, and even when the threshold is met, a lower award can be substantially reduced by the deductible.
The table below shows how the two claims differ and where your posts can hurt in each.
| What to compare | Accident benefits (no-fault) | Tort claim (lawsuit) |
| Who pays | The insurer responsible under Ontario’s accident-benefits priority rules, often the injured person’s own insurer | The at-fault driver’s liability insurer |
| Does fault matter | No, benefits are paid regardless of fault | Yes, you must prove the other driver was at fault |
| Where a dispute is decided | Licence Appeal Tribunal | Ontario courts |
| What you must show | Ongoing injury and a continued need for the benefit | For pain and suffering damages, a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function, or permanent serious disfigurement |
| How surveillance and posts are used | To question whether you still need the benefits you receive | To attack how serious the injury is and shrink the award |
| A 2026 figure to know | Medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care are the mandatory core coverages | Pain and suffering deductible of $47,913.01; does not apply when the award exceeds $159,708.71 |
Is insurance surveillance legal in Ontario?
Covert surveillance can be lawful in Ontario, but it is not unrestricted. A person acting as a private investigator must hold the appropriate Ontario licence. A licensed investigator may generally observe and record activities visible from a lawful public vantage point, but the purpose, scope, collection, and use of the information remain subject to privacy law and other legal limits.
Ontario’s Private Security and Investigative Services Act prohibits a person from acting as a private investigator without the appropriate licence.
What a licensed private investigator may generally record
An investigator may generally record activities that are visible from a lawful public vantage point. This could include someone leaving a home, loading a vehicle, walking a dog, carrying groceries, or participating in an activity. They are looking for activity that does not fit the limitations described in a claim, and they tend to focus their effort on the times and places where that activity is most likely.
The limits: PIPEDA and the Privacy Commissioner’s four-part test
Because an insurer that collects your information is doing so commercially, it operates under the federal privacy law known as PIPEDA, which permits collection only for purposes a reasonable person would consider appropriate. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada describes covert video surveillance as extremely privacy-invasive and says it should be considered only in limited circumstances, after four conditions are met.
| The condition | What it means in your claim |
| Demonstrable evidentiary need | There should be specific, evidence-based grounds for using surveillance rather than a routine hunch |
| Likely to achieve the stated purpose | There should be a reasonable likelihood the surveillance will produce information relevant to a legitimate investigation |
| Proportionality | The expected benefit should be proportionate to the loss of privacy |
| Less privacy-invasive alternatives | Less intrusive means should be considered and, where reasonable, used before covert surveillance |
When surveillance crosses the line
The limits have teeth. In a 2009 finding, the Privacy Commissioner examined an insurer’s investigator who had been surveilling a woman in a motor vehicle claim and, in the process, recorded her sister and the sister’s young daughter, who had nothing to do with the claim. The complaint was well founded, and the Commissioner recommended that the firm destroy the information it had collected about the bystanders. It is also worth knowing that being out in public does not erase your privacy. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that a person does not automatically give up control over their personal information just because they can be seen by others.
When do insurance companies start surveillance, and how long does it last?
There is no fixed schedule, and the honest answer is that it depends on the claim. Surveillance is often periodic rather than continuous. In our experience, it becomes more likely when a claim involves significant money, when the reported limitations are hard to confirm medically, or when a key date is approaching, such as an insurer examination, an examination for discovery, a mediation, or a trial. An investigator may watch for a few days, step away, and return weeks or months later to see whether the picture has changed. Because there is no set pattern, the periods around those milestones are the ones that deserve extra care.
Why privacy settings are not the shield you think
This is the part most people get wrong. Locking down your profile helps, but it does not put your content out of reach. The Privacy Commissioner is blunt about it and says privacy settings are not a silver bullet, and that once something is posted, you may lose control of what happens to it.
Anything public can be viewed and saved
An adjuster or investigator can generally view and preserve content that you have made publicly available without asking for access to your account. Public visibility, however, does not give an insurer unlimited rights over how information is collected, used, or disclosed. The simplest protection is to be deliberate about what stays public while your claim is open.
Private posts can still be produced in a lawsuit
Social media posts are considered documents for the purposes of litigation. Privacy settings do not remove the obligation to identify and produce posts that are relevant to the issues in a lawsuit. In Leduc v. Roman, the court also made clear that the mere existence of a Facebook account does not give the other party unrestricted access to everything in it. Relevance still controls what must be produced.
Tags, screenshots, and what other people post
Even a locked account leaks. Friends tag you, family posts group photos, and anything you share with a small circle can be screenshotted and passed along. Your privacy depends as much on the people around you as on your own settings, so it is fair to ask friends and family not to tag or post you while your claim is open.
Can an Ontario court order you to produce private Facebook or Instagram content?
Yes, but the court generally focuses on relevant content rather than unrestricted access to an entire account. The insurer must provide a proper evidentiary basis for believing that relevant material exists, and the request must be proportionate. The mere existence of a private social media account does not automatically entitle the insurer to everything in it.
Relevant content, yes; your whole account, no
Courts look for relevance and proportionality. If nothing suggests your private posts matter, a sweep through your whole profile will not be allowed. When production is ordered, it tends to be limited to the genuinely relevant material rather than every photo you have ever posted. Ontario decisions such as Stewart v. Kempster and Garacci v. Ross reflect this more careful, measured approach, refusing broad production requests that lacked a proper basis.
How public posts can support a request for related private content
Public posts that appear relevant may provide an evidentiary basis for requesting related private content. That does not automatically expose the entire account. Any production request must still be limited to relevant and proportionate material. What you leave visible can influence how much of the private side you may be ordered to produce.
Can an Insurer Surprise You With Surveillance at Trial?
Generally, the defence cannot keep the existence of surveillance secret and then use it unfairly at trial. Surveillance must be identified through the documentary-discovery process, and required particulars must be provided. If the defence intends to use footage as substantive evidence, it must waive privilege and produce the material within the time required by the Rules. Footage retained only for possible impeachment may remain privileged, subject to the trial judge’s assessment of fairness and admissibility.
Trial by ambush is not allowed
In Iannarella v. Corbett, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that surveillance is a document that must be disclosed. The defence has to reveal that surveillance exists and give particulars, even if it keeps the footage privileged until it decides to rely on it. The inadequate disclosure and handling of the surveillance contributed to what the Court of Appeal described as trial by ambush, and a new trial was ordered on the issue of damages.
Surveillance video must be fair, accurate, and properly assessed
Before surveillance video is admitted, the court must be satisfied that it fairly and accurately depicts what it purports to show and that its use will not undermine trial fairness. In Nemchin v. Green, the Court of Appeal for Ontario made clear that editing, missing footage, timestamps, and gaps may affect how much weight the evidence receives, but they do not automatically make the video inadmissible. The court should assess the specific footage and its context rather than treating every edited video the same way.
A single photo rarely tells the whole story
It is easy to look at one image and jump to a conclusion, and that is exactly the risk. A photo captures a moment, not a medical chart. Someone with a serious injury can smile, attend a family event, or have one good hour, and none of that erases months of pain or a permanent limitation. A picture may also predate the crash. Its real damage is quieter, planting a seed of doubt that colours how everything else in a claim is read. Honest context is the answer, and providing that context is a large part of what a good lawyer does for you.
Example: A claimant reports that prolonged standing increases their pain. A wedding photograph shows them standing and smiling, but it does not show that they stood for only a few minutes, used medication beforehand, or needed several days to recover afterward. The photograph may still be used to raise questions, which is why medical records, timing, and context matter. This is a hypothetical illustration, not an account of a specific case.
What to understand before posting while your claim is open
You do not need to delete your accounts or hide from your own life. You do not necessarily need to stop using social media, but you should post cautiously and follow the advice of your lawyer while your claim is open.
Assume your insurer may see it
Before you share, picture an adjuster looking at the post beside your claim file. If an image could be read as contradicting the limits you have described, think twice about posting it, and stay mindful of check-ins and tagged photos that place you at an activity on a specific date.
Do not delete or alter relevant posts without legal advice
This one matters and often gets people into trouble. Once a claim or lawsuit is underway, deleting or altering relevant posts can be treated as destroying evidence, which can hurt you far more than the original post ever would. If something already online worries you, do not scrub it. Tell your lawyer and let them advise you on the right way to handle it.
A quick pre-post check
A few seconds of thought goes a long way. Ask yourself whether the post could be misread against your injury, whether you are tagged in someone else’s content, and whether it is set to public. When you are unsure, hold off and speak with your lawyer first.
Talk to our Ontario personal injury team
If you are recovering from a serious injury and worried about how your online life could affect your claim, our team at MG Law can help you think it through before a small misstep becomes a real problem. We handle serious and catastrophic injury claims across Ontario, and we know how insurers build these arguments and how to answer them with proper context. This article is general information about Ontario law and is not legal advice. Every claim is different, so please speak with a lawyer about your own situation.
About the author
Miryam Gorelashvili, LL.B., is the founder of MG Law and has practised personal injury law in Ottawa for over a decade, with a practice restricted to serious and catastrophic, life-changing injuries and wrongful death. Her work focuses on neurotrauma, spinal cord injuries, and other severe post-trauma conditions, and she has secured numerous catastrophic-impairment designations and millions in compensation for injured clients. Read Miryam Gorelashvili’s full biography.
Sources
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Tips for using privacy settings, 2019.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Your privacy and social media.
Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, section 267.5. Government of Ontario, e-Laws.
Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10. Government of Ontario, e-Laws.
Leduc v. Roman, 2009 CanLII 6838, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, via CanLII.
Stewart v. Kempster, 2012 ONSC 7236, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, via CanLII.
Garacci v. Ross, 2013 ONSC 5627, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, via CanLII.
Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110. Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Nemchin v. Green, 2019 ONCA 634. Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Frequently asked questions
Can I be required to disclose social media content in an Ontario injury lawsuit?
Yes. In a lawsuit, you may be required to identify and produce social media content that is relevant to the issues in your claim. The existence of an account does not give the insurer unrestricted access to your entire social media history. Tell your lawyer which platforms you use, and let your lawyer determine what must be preserved and produced.
Can the insurer use photos or posts from before my accident?
Yes, and older posts sometimes help you. Pre-accident content can show how active you were before the crash, which can cut either way, and it can also date an activity. If an image the insurer relies on was actually taken before your collision, the timestamp can undercut the argument, so preserving the original dates and files is worth doing.
Should I accept unfamiliar friend or follow requests while my injury claim is open?
No. Do not accept friend or follow requests from people you cannot verify. Anyone you allow into a private account may be able to view, save, or share its contents. Accepting requests from strangers is how private content most often ends up in the wrong hands.
Are private messages and direct messages fair game too?
An insurer cannot simply log into and read your private messages. However, messages that are relevant to issues in a lawsuit may have to be disclosed through the litigation process. Treat anything you type about your injury, your activities, or your case as something that could later be read by others, and keep detailed discussion of your claim to conversations with your lawyer.
Can I make my social media accounts private after an accident?
Before changing your privacy settings after an accident, speak with your lawyer. Tightening your settings may reduce casual public access, but it does not eliminate your obligation to preserve and disclose relevant material during litigation. Do not delete or alter potentially relevant content, misrepresent the existence of an account, or take steps intended to conceal relevant evidence.
What should I do if an insurer already has one of my posts or a surveillance video?
Do not try to explain it directly to the insurer or alter related content. Preserve the original post, photograph, date, and surrounding context, and speak with your lawyer. A lawyer can compare the material with your medical evidence, reported limitations, and the complete circumstances.
