Videotaped Recordings

Many clients seeking to capture a pattern of behavior demonstrated by either their spouse or children, attempt to videotape the behavior with the expectation of presenting the videotaped recording in court. However, the admissibility of videotaped recordings is not straight-forward, and judges are usually reluctant to watch the recording and admit it into evidence.

In the case of Scarlett v. Farrell, a father who had been accused by his wife of sexually abusing the child, attempted to record his access meetings with the child on three occasions. The father wished to convey to the courts that the child was not frightened by interacting with her father, and that his wife had fabricated the allegations.

The wife argued that the videotaped recordings of the supervised access meetings with the child were recorded surreptitiously and without her consent. She sought to disallow the evidence from being admitted.

Justice Spence reviewed the case law on the issue, and after much deliberation ruled that in cases where the admissibility of videotaped recordings is at issue, the question the court must ask is whether it probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

In this particular case, Justice Spence ruled that because the mother was present during these access meetings with the child, the videotaped recordings were not made surreptitiously. He also found that the recordings did have a requisite degree of probative value, and thus allowed the recordings to be admitted into evidence.

To learn more about the admissibility of videotaped recordings as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.