At the trial level, the Crown used prior inconsistent examination for discovery evidence from the accused's civil suit at his criminal trial to impeach/test his credibility.
The accused could not remember anything about the accident at his examination for discovery, but then testified at the criminal trial that he remembered pretty much everything.
The accused was found to be unreliable regarding the inconsistent evidence he gave at the criminal trial and he was convicted.
The accused argued that the Crown's use of his examination for discovery evidence violated s. 13 of the charter of rights and freedoms protection against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court of Canada found that the inconsistent examination for discovery evidence was non-incriminating evidence, and therefore could be used to impeach/test his credibility. This use did not violate s. 13 of the Charter.
As a result of this case, parties in civil actions need to be aware that their testimony can be used in a subsequent and related criminal matter to their detriment.
Decision available here: R v. Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59