M. Jill Gamble

A father sought expanded parenting time with three children following separation and divorce.

The mother sought continuation of the existing access schedule, which provided limited unsupervised daytime access within a restricted geographic area.

After reviewing evidence from family members, a counselor, and other witnesses, the court applied the best interests test under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act.

While concerns existed regarding the children’s emotional responses to access, the court found that the father had demonstrated improving relationships with the children and that a modest expansion of access would be beneficial.

The court ordered incremental increases including occasional overnight access at the paternal grandparents’ residence and additional holiday contact, while maintaining safeguards and scheduling a review within six months.

In a family law trial concerning parenting time, the court considered a voir dire on the admissibility of hearsay statements allegedly made by the parties’ children to a counsellor.

The responding party sought to admit the statements for the truth of their contents.

Applying the necessity and reliability framework from R. v. Khelawon, the court found that statements from the two older children were not necessary because they were capable of testifying and there was no evidence that doing so would harm them.

Those statements were therefore inadmissible for the truth of their contents but admissible to show that the statements were made.

Statements from the youngest child were admitted for their truth because the child’s young age established necessity and the counsellor’s evidence satisfied threshold reliability.

During a family law trial, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of hearsay statements allegedly made by a child to his mother accusing the applicant of hitting him.

The respondent sought to admit the statements for their truth despite the child not being called as a witness.

The court held that the respondent failed to establish the necessity requirement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, as the child was available and capable of testifying.

As necessity was not established, the court declined to assess reliability.

The hearsay statements were ruled inadmissible for the truth of their contents but admissible only to show that the statements were made.