During a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a mid‑trial motion seeking to admit documents from another society’s file relating to a prior protection proceeding involving a different child of the respondent.
The court considered whether the documents qualified as business records under s. 35 of the Ontario Evidence Act.
Documents containing summaries of anonymous allegations and an agreed statement of facts from the earlier proceeding were excluded because they contained prejudicial hearsay and lacked reliability.
However, assessment and service plan documents prepared by a caseworker in the ordinary course of child protection work were admitted as business records.
The excluded materials could still be used for cross‑examination of the respondent.
