Toronto Injury Lawyer Blog
At Goldfinger Injury Lawyers, we tell our clients to be very careful about what they post on social media. Whatever gets posted, past, present or future can, or will be used against you by an insurance company at Court in order to defeat your case, or test your credibility.
When we tell people this sort of thing, they roll their eyes in disbelief. How can anything I say, or post, ever be used against me in the context of my personal injury case?
Our personal injury lawyers see this sort of thing all of the time. Here are a few examples of how social media posts can hurt a personal injury case:
- Client says under oath that they can’t walk or run for a long period of time on account of their injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. Going for long walks and jogs has been out of the question ever since their car accident. Defence counsel then disproves this statement referencing Strava Posts of the Plaintiff’s hiking and running data. This data is publicly shared online via Facebook or on Instagram. It costs nothing for the Defendant to access these posts because they’re public. No private investigator was required. Just a quick internet search. The data shows the Plaintiff routinely going for bi-weekly runs and hikes in excess of 20km at a fast pace. The Plaintiff is dressed in running gear and is seen flexing their muscles after the workouts. #TrainHard is the hashtag in each post. Not a good look for a Plaintiff who swore under oath the exact opposite.
- Plaintiff says they don’t go out, they no longer go on vacation, and that they no longer socialize with friends as much since the subject accident; they don’t like being in big crowds of people due to social anxiety developed as a result of the accident. But, social medial tells a completely difference picture. It shows the Plaintiff away on a Caribbean vacation post accident. It shows the Plaintiff smiling and socializing at a friend’s wedding. It shows the Plaintiff out at a professional sporting event attended by 40,000+ people (post accident). These images discredit the Plaintiff’s injuries, and call into question his/her veracity and credibility. Everything which the Plaintiff says will be taken with a large grain silo of salt moving forward (along with his/her past statements and allegations)
- Clinical notes and records of the family doctor show that the Plaintiff is not supposed to life objects of 10 pounds or greater. Plaintiff testifies under oath that s/he cannot lift objects of 10 pounds or greater, nor can they do any heavy lifting, bending or squatting. Images of the Plaintiff circulate online of him/her participating in a rock climbing event; and a curling tournament. The average curling stone weighs between 38-44 pounds. So much for the statement that the Plaintiff cannot lift; or should not be lifting objects over 10 pounds.
But, it’s not just Plaintiffs in personal injury cases who get tripped up by social media or their published works online. It can happen to Judges and Adjudicators too!
Here is the recent case of Economical Insurance Co. v. Abou-Gabal, 2026 ONSC 42 released on January 7, 2026.
In this case, the claimant Abou-Gabal was involved in a car accident. Her injuries were deemed “catastrophic” at a hearing held at the License Appeals Tribunal. That decision can be found here.
The insurer, Economical Insurance appealed the catastrophic determination at Divisional Court. Interestingly, the appeal was not based on the merits of the injuries. Rather, it was based on whether or not there was a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Adjudicator in favour of the Applicant Ms. Abou-Gabal.
The insurer did their own research on the Adjudicator, Jeremy Roberts. What they found was that he had a significant employment and volunteer history in advocating for people with autism. The Adjudicator’s younger brother has autism. The Court commended Mr. Roberts volunteer work and advocacy in the area. The Adjudicator penned articles advocating for increased support for caregivers of those with autism spectrum disorder. Vice-Chair Roberts advocated for greater resources to be extended to caregivers and endorsed the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence and the National Caregiving Summit. The Divisional Court stated:
“the Adjudicator’s ongoing advocacy efforts following his LAT appointment to support caregivers for people with autism, previously described as his “driving force”, is sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias when he is deciding a case specifically determining whether the claimant, who suffers from severe autism, is entitled to attendant care benefits.”
As a result of this finding, the hearing was remitted back to the License Appeals Tribunal for a new hearing. The catastrophic finding in favour of the Applicant was no more, pending the results of the new hearing, before a different Adjudicator.
It is so rare to see this sort of thing happen. An adjudicator was iced out of deciding on a case involving benefits for an autistic person, because he previously advocated on behalf of people with autism and their caregivers.
How far would this extend? If a Judge or Adjudicator makes it publicly known online that they’re a fan of the Toronto Blue Jays, are they now excluded from deciding any case involving or impacting the Toronto Blue Jays? If a Judge or Adjudicator speaks at a conference against Anti-Semetism; are they now excluded from deciding any cases involving a Jewish party or a hate crimes against the Jewish Community? I suppose the Divisional Court answers this question by stating:
“Judges and adjudicators all have backgrounds prior to their appointment. However, once appointed, we “divorced ourselves from our past and dedicated ourselves to our new vocation”: Fogal v. Canada, 1999 CanLII 7465 (FC), [1999] 164 F.T.R. 99 (F.C.),”
I guess it’s hard to have a public opinion outside of the law once you’re appointed to the bench, or to a some sort of government board where you have to decide cases. That’s why you don’t hear a lot publicly outside of the law from judges. Most judges keep things to themselves because they have to. They know that what they say publicly can be used against them. The same applies to Plaintiffs in personal injury cases. Keeping quiet and out of the limelight is a good litigation strategy so long as the case is ongoing.
