Order for insurer to produce all surveillance information reversed

A Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) decision came down on the side of an insurer appealing an arbitrators order that it produce all its current and any future surveillance information, supporting correspondence and reports regarding any surveillance of a policyholder.
In the case Security National Insurance Co. v. Noel Morgan, Noel Morgan claims statutory accident benefits for injuries arising out of a 2002 vehicle accident. At a pre-hearing in May 2006, production issues included whether Security National should be required to inform Morgan if surveillance existed and, if so, to produce them.
Security National acknowledged that surveillance had taken place, that it continued, and that any reliance on it would be determined within 60 days of the hearing.
It relied on Rule 40 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code to otherwise keep its surveillance secret, David Evans, FSCO directors delegate, explained in his decision.
But, the arbitrator decided, Securitys litigation privacy zone is clearly trumped by Mr. Morgans interest in knowing the nature of the surveillance.
Evans, in the appeal, reversed the decision.
I find that the purpose of Rule 40 is to simplify the procedures in FSCO arbitrations, he wrote. Side-stepping the rule will lead to unnecessary complications.