During a family law trial involving mobility and allegations of family violence, the applicant father sought to introduce evidence regarding a hidden bedroom camera.
He had previously refused to answer questions about the camera during pre-trial questioning, citing an active criminal proceeding for voyeurism.
The respondent mother objected to the evidence as trial by ambush.
The court compared the Family Law Rules with the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that Family Law Rule 20(20) creates a presumption of admissibility unless harm is demonstrated.
Finding that the mother would suffer prejudice but not sufficient harm to exclude the evidence, the court admitted the testimony.
However, the court ordered the father to pay $2,500 in costs and a $2,500 fine for his strategic failure to correct his refusal prior to trial.
