Shad McCooeye

The court issued an evidentiary ruling regarding the proper use and interpretation of Requests to Admit and Responses to Requests to Admit under Rule 22 of the Family Law Rules in a child protection status review case.

The ruling clarified that a Request to Admit should be tailored to each party's knowledge, and that gratuitous corrections or qualifications in responses are not permitted.

The court held that a fact or document is only deemed admitted if all served parties admit it or fail to respond; if even one party denies or refuses to admit with a reason, the fact or document is not deemed admitted and must be proven otherwise.

In a status review trial under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society sought to admit affidavits from a prior child protection proceeding as exhibits.

The respondent mother opposed this, citing hearsay and lack of cross-examination opportunity.

The court ruled against formally admitting the affidavits as exhibits, stating it would be tantamount to re-litigating a judicially decided matter.

However, the court affirmed its inherent authority and mandate to access and consider the entire prior child protection file to determine the continuing need for protection, especially in the absence of specific findings of fact from the original protection order.

This is a ruling on a voir dire held during a child protection status review application.

The Children's Aid Society sought to qualify Mr. John Dahl as an expert witness in parental risk assessment and child development.

The court declined to qualify Mr. Dahl, citing concerns regarding his academic and professional qualifications (Master's degree, clinical/counselling psychology background rather than forensic, lack of professional publications, and limited formal training in parenting capacity assessments).

More significantly, the court found Mr. Dahl's understanding of his duty as an expert to be flawed, as he believed he was working for the applicant society rather than the court, and his impartiality was questioned due to receiving materials predominantly from one litigant.

The ruling clarifies that while Mr. Dahl was not qualified as an expert, his parenting capacity assessment report remains part of the court record and may be cross-examined.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for production of hospital records from Sault Area Hospital relating to the father in a child protection proceeding.

The father opposed the motion on Charter grounds and argued the request was overly broad.

The court found that mental health records may be relevant to the child protection issues, including allegations of sexual abuse and concerns about the father's mental health.

The court rejected the Charter challenge, finding no evidentiary basis for a breach.

The court ordered production of records from January 1, 2006 to present, but elected to review the records itself before releasing them to the Society to balance the father's privacy interests against the Society's investigative needs.