The parties were involved in a family law dispute over custody and access.
The applicant obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order and an order for supervised access based on evidence from a witness (C.B.W.) alleging the respondent solicited sexual services from minors.
The respondent brought a motion to question C.B.W. before filing responding evidence, citing concerns about self-incrimination in an ongoing police investigation.
The applicant brought a cross-motion to compel the respondent to file responding evidence and attend questioning.
The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding it would be unfair to allow questioning without reply evidence.
The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to file responding affidavits and attend questioning, holding that the best interests of the child outweighed the respondent's self-incrimination concerns.
