The Hidden Risks of Using a Joint Document Brief Without a Clear Agreement
Using a Joint Document Brief (JDB) at trial can save time and promote efficiency—but only if the parties are absolutely clear on how each document can be used. For many Ontario personal injury claimants, an unclear JDB agreement can be the difference between success and disappointment in court.
At Auger Hollingsworth Accident & Injury Lawyers, we’ve seen how a seemingly small misunderstanding can turn into a major evidentiary issue. For example, just because a document is admitted as “authentic” doesn’t mean it can be used for the truth of its contents. That distinction is crucial in personal injury litigation, where medical records, expert reports, or accident reconstructions often form the basis for damages claims.
In cases like *Girao v. Cunningham*, Ontario courts have been critical of sloppy or incomplete agreements between lawyers about what documents in a JDB actually mean. If you assume a document will be accepted at face value without clarifying its purpose, the judge may rule it inadmissible—forcing you to scramble for a witness or alternate proof.
Our firm takes extra steps to avoid that problem. We make sure the JDB agreement is detailed and in writing. We go over it document by document with the opposing lawyer before trial and again with the judge at the outset of the case. That attention to detail helps protect our clients from costly surprises.
We also advise caution when dealing with self-represented parties. Courts expect represented lawyers to avoid pressuring or confusing self-reps into agreeing to a JDB they don’t fully understand. Auger Hollingsworth plays by the rules—and protects your interests in the process.
Don’t let a technicality derail your personal injury case. Choose a law firm that understands the fine print and fights to protect your evidence. Contact us today for experienced trial advocacy.
