Peter Francis Burnet

Mid-trial evidentiary ruling in a family law custody and access dispute concerning the admissibility of a custody and access assessment prepared in a prior proceeding between the same parties.

The respondent argued the report was inadmissible under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court held that although the report could not be admitted automatically under s. 30(9), that provision does not displace the general law of evidence.

The assessor was not prohibited from testifying and may provide factual or opinion evidence if common law expert evidence requirements are met.

However, the report itself was ordered removed from the trial record and may only be tendered when the witness testifies.

The applicant brought contempt motions alleging that the respondent failed to comply with disclosure obligations and misled the court regarding ownership of property pledged as security for child support arrears.

The court applied the established three‑part test for civil contempt, requiring a clear and unequivocal order, deliberate breach, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence showed the respondent had sold the property more than a year before representing to the court that he still owned it and agreeing to secure support payments with it.

The court found that the respondent deliberately misled the court and failed to comply with the order securing child support.

A finding of contempt was entered and a separate hearing on sanctions was scheduled.