CITATION: Caron v. Holman, 2022 ONSC 3412
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21-2662 DATE: 20220601
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
R.S.J. Ellies, Swinton and J.A. Ramsay JJ.
BETWEEN:
Jinny Caron
Pamela Barron for Jinny Caron
Applicant (respondent in appeal)
– and –
Jason Holman
Sarah Kennedy for Jason Holman
Respondent (appellant)
HEARD at Ottawa (by videoconference): June 1, 2022
J.A. Ramsay J. (Orally)
[1] We do not accept the appellant’s contention that the motion judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence and in finding that there had been a material change of circumstance.
[2] In a motion to change a final order under Rule 15 of the Family Law Rules, hearsay evidence is admissible: Rule 15(24) adopts by reference the provisions of subrules 14(18) and (19). Rule 14(19) permits an affiant to include hearsay evidence if the source of the information is identified and the affiant states that he or she believes that information to be true. The judge made no error in admitting the evidence. Once it was admitted, what weight to give it was up to him.
[3] In any event, the bulk of the evidence before the motion judge was not hearsay. It consisted of the first hand evidence of the parties. The respondent deposed extensively as to the child’s behaviour. The appellant agreed in his response to the motion to change that the child’s behaviour was worsening.
[4] The statement of the children’s aid society of its intention to bring proceedings under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 if the situation did not change was not hearsay.
[5] The judge’s conclusion that there had been a material change in circumstance was supported by compelling evidence. At the time of the original order the child was troubled, but by the time of the motion to change his behaviour had escalated to the point that he was in crisis. The judge said:
The degree to which the boy's behaviours have worsened; the level of inability on the part of this couple to meaningfully communicate and problem-solve; and the result of that intransigence on the part of [the appellant] resulting in possible intervention by the Children's Aid all, in my estimation, amount to a material change in circumstances requiring this Court to now reassess the lay of the land with an eye toward determining whether the proposed motion ought to be allowed, as consistent with the best interests of the child.
[6] Moreover, the judge found that the decision-making process was gridlocked because of the parents’ inability to communicate. Finally, it was obvious that the parties did not agree on how to address the child’s manifest problems and that as a result he was not getting the support he needed.
[7] The judge’s decision as to how to resolve the impasse is due deference. The change he made, to give sole decision-making authority to the respondent, was both restrained and reasonable.
[8] The appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant to the respondent Jinny Caron in the agreed amount of $6,000 all inclusive.
J. A. Ramsay J.
I agree. ___________________________ Ellies R.S.J.
I agree. ___________________________ Swinton J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: June 1, 2022
Date of Written Release: June 8, 2022
CITATION: Caron v. Holman, 2022 ONSC 3412
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21-2662 DATE: 20220601
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
R.S.J. Ellies, Swinton and J.A. Ramsay JJ.
BETWEEN:
Jinny Caron Applicant (respondent in appeal)
– and –
Jason Holman Respondent (appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J.A. Ramsay J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: June 1, 2022
Date of Written Release: June 8, 2022