Do Child Protection Societies who hire private investigators need to provide the other side with resulting surveillance tapes?
The case of Chatham-Kent Children's Services v. T. (R.) from the Ontario Court of Justice speaks to this issue.
Facts
The mother in this case discovered that she was under surveillance by the Society and wanted the Society to disclose the surveillance evidence.
Ruling on Motion
The surveillance did not need to be disclosed given that the Society did not seek to rely upon it. He states that "[t]he fact that surveillance took place at certain times with negative results is ... irrelevant and a waste of the court's time and resources ..."
Held on Appeal
The Appeal judge applied to test enunciated in Stinchcombe and determined that the mother was entitled to receive the information with respect to the surveillance so long as it was not protected by litigation privilege (which attaches to documents obtained by a lawyer or his or her agent from third persons, if they were obtained for the dominant purpose of litigation). The Judge found that even if the work products were protected by litigation privilege, the Society was still required to provide the mother with the particulars surrounding the surveillance, including:
- Dates, times, and location of surveillance;
- Specifics relating to the activities and the observations that were made; and,
- The names and addresses of the individuals that conducted the surveillance.
Accordingly, Justice Heeney ordered that the Society provide the mother with an Affidavit outlining the above-noted particulars.
Should you require more information on the issue of surveillance in your family law case, contact Krol & Krol, a boutique law firm specializing in family law at 905.707.3370 for a consultation today.
