Dr. Louise Sas

The parties separated after a short marriage and sought resolution of custody, access, child support, and property division.

The mother was awarded sole custody of their young daughter, while the father was granted supervised access to be managed by a parenting coordinator, despite the mother's request for no access.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The court also ordered an unequal division of net family property in favour of the mother, finding that a $240,000 contribution from her parents was a gift to her alone and that equalizing it would be unconscionable.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

At trial, the Crown did not call the child to testify, but instead introduced out-of-court statements made by the child to others.

The trial judge admitted the statements without conducting a formal inquiry into whether it was necessary to rely on hearsay rather than calling the child.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the trial judge erred in failing to make a formal finding of necessity, the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The uncontradicted expert evidence established that the child would have been traumatized by testifying and lacked testimonial competence, meaning a trial judge would inevitably have found the necessity requirement met.

The appeal was dismissed.