How have the courts considered the admissibility of photographs?

The defence also submitted the case of Draper v. Jacklyn, 1969 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1970] S.C.R. 92, in which the admissibility of photographs was an issue. This, again, was a civil claim for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Spence J., speaking for four out of five judges, stated (at pp. 96-98): The occasions are frequent upon which a judge trying a case with the assistance of a jury is called upon to determine whether or not a piece of evidence technically admissible may be so prejudicial to the opposite side that any probative value is overcome by the possible prejudice and that therefore he should exclude the production of the particular piece of evidence. In the case of photographs, this occurs more frequently in the trials of criminal offences and more usually in murder trials. The matter is always one which is difficult for the trial judge and in itself essentially a decision in which the trial judge must exercise his own carefully considered personal discretion. In the present case, there is no doubt that these two photographs were relevant and were therefore admissible. They show graphically, although I am strongly of the opinion not horribly, the condition of the plaintiff as the result of his injuries and treatment in the few weeks after the accident. The surgeon, in his evidence, stated that he found it difficult to describe in words the appearance of the appellant. Reference was made during the course of the trial to their evidentiary value as showing the condition of the scar at that time, and it was the opinion of the learned trial judge that he understood thoroughly the treatment and the type of pin employed without the pictures. The difficulty, of course, was not whether the learned trial judge would understand the treatment and the type of pain but whether the members of the jury would, and if there were some photographic material which would illustrate that treatment without being overly prejudicial in its effect, then that material should be available to the jury. … Therefore, I believe that the photographs were admissible and should have gone to the jury unless their prejudicial effect was so great that it would exceed their probative value. . . . . . .... It is my respectful opinion that the decision as to what would and what would not shock the jury can best be determined by the trial judge who sits in the court room with them and who charges them and can appreciate their reactions. I would be slow to express a contrary opinion to that of the trial judge upon the subject.