Evidence; procedure; costs

• Author: Julien D. Payne/Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 495-527



   

EVIDENCE; PROCEDURE; COSTS

A. CREDIBILITY

Several criteria should be considered by a court in assessing credibility, including the rea-

sonableness of theevidence; contradictions in the evidence (internal consistency); whether

or not the witness’ ch aracter has b een impugned; pers onality a nd demeanour; corrob ora-

tion (external con sistency); self i nterest; powers of obser vation, and recolle ction; and cap-

acityofexpression.



Amotionsjudgemaybefoundinerrorbyanappellatecourtbecauseofafailureto

order a viva voce hearing to resolve the issue of credibility generated by conf‌licting af‌f‌i-

davits.Notwith standi ng the dif‌f‌ic ulties of judic ially deter minin g credibility in the fac e of

conf‌licting af‌f‌idavits, however, such conf‌licts are not an absolute bar to making f‌indings

of fact.A court is entitled to make necessary fact and credibility f‌indings, notwithstand-

ing conf‌licting af‌f‌idavits, where counsel have agreed that the matter should proceed to a

determination on the af‌f‌idavit material already f‌iled rather than being adjourned to await

answerstointerrogatories.



Asingleuntruthleavesthecourtonguardformore.



An appellate cou rt should not dist urb an application judge’s f‌indi ngs as to the husband ’s

lack of credibil ity, which constit utes the basi s of the judge’s rejection of the hus band’s ap-

plication to va ry an ex isting con sent order that provides for support payments i n excess of

the Federal Child Support Guidelines.Where the rights of the parties are dependent on

conf‌licti ng issues of credibilit y, the trial judge should g ive reasons for h is decision. I n the

absence of such f‌indi ngs, an appel late court ca nnot properly determ ine the merit of t he

L.L. v. S.B.,[] N.B.J.No.  (Q.B.);Pas sarello v. Passa rello, []O.J. No.  (S.C.J.).

Steele v. Koppanyi,[]M.J.No. (C.A.).

D’Ambrosio v. D’Ambrosio,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.)(submissionssoughtfromcounselastowhether

the case should proc eed on af‌f‌idavit evidence or be placed on t he trial list).

Schipper v. Maher,[]M.J.No. (Q.B.).

Wels h v. Wel sh, [] O.J. No. (Gen. Di v.).

Jacobucci v. Jacobucci, MBC A ,[] M.J. No. .

 CHILD SUPPORT GU IDELINES IN CANADA,  

appellant ’s appeal and t herefore the trial judgment mu st be set aside and a new tria l ordered

before another judge.

B. PROOF OF PATERNITY; BLOOD TESTS AND DNA TESTS;

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION

A husband, whose w ife has been a rtif‌ici ally in seminated by a n anonymous donor, may be

entitledto a declarationof paternity under the OntarioChildren’s Law Reform Actand may

be granted access privileges and ordered to pay child support.

Where a mother is ma rried and has acknowledged her husba nd as the father of the

child but later seeks blood tests to conf‌irm that another man is the father for the purpose

of obtaini ng support, t he equitable doct rines of laches and the applica nt’s failure to come

with clean hands are irrelevant.

Where paternit y is disput ed, provincia l statutor y provisions may emp ower the court

to order blood tests. It is open for a judge to draw an adverse in ference from a refus al to

submittoabloodtest,althoughwhethersuchaninferenceshouldbedrawnmaydepend

on the circumstances of theparticular case. Provincial statutory prov isions that empower

a court to order blood tests and to draw an adverse inference against a party who refu ses to

submit to such tests do not violate sections  and  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.

Section  of Ne wfoundla nd and Labrador’s Interjuri sdictional Support Orders Act

prescribes t he only orders that ca n be granted when a court is considering conf‌i rmation of

an extra-prov incial order for ch ild support . ey are as follow s: (i) a support order; (ii) an

interim order and a n adjournment of the hearing to a spec if‌ied date; (iii) an adjournment of

thehearingtoaspecif‌ieddatewithoutmakinganinterimorder;and(iv)arefusaltomake

a conf‌irmat ionorder. W here the court refuses to m ake a support order, the court must give

reasons for th at decision. Section  of the Interjurisdiction al Support Orders Act empow-

ers the court to deter mine the issue of a child ’s parentage where it has not been prev iously

determined . An order of a judge of the Unif‌ied Fam ily Cour t that simply orders p aternity

testing andadjourns the conf‌irmation hearingwith a direction to the allegedfather to seek

a court date after receiving the report of the testing does not fall with in the established

categories of orders perm issible under sec tion  of the Interjuri sdictional Support Orders

Act. Further more, while patern ity test ing may be ordered, the cou rt has no jur isdiction to

orderthecostoftestingtobesharedbybothparties.Consistentwithsection()ofthe

 Mi tro v. Mitro (),  R.F.L. (d) (Ont. C .A.).

 R.S.O. ,c.C..

 T.D.L. v. L.R.L.(),  R.F.L. (th)  (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.).

 D.(J. S.) v. V.(W.L .) (),  R.F.L. (th)  (B.C.C.A.).

 Re H. (), R .F.L. (d)  (Ont. H.C.J.).

 PartIoftheConstitution Act, ,b eing Schedule B to the Canada Ac t  (U.K.), ,c.   [Charter].

See Lavasseur v. Ewanchuk (),  A.R.  (C.A .);Woods v. Ca dy (),  R.F.L. (d)  (Alta. C. A.);

Fallon v. Rivers (),  R.F.L. (d)  (B.C .S.C.); L.( F.A.) v. B. (A.B.) (),  R.F.L. (th)  (Man.

C.A.);P.( L.) v. J.( W.) (), N.B.R. (d)  (Q.B.); Francis v. Robertson (),  O.R. (d)  (U.F.C.);

S.(E .A.) v. B .(K.M .) (),  R.F.L. (d)  (Ont. Dis t. Ct.). Compare J. v. N.(),  R.F.L.  at

– (Man. C .A.).

 Pakka v. Nygard (),  R.F.L. (d) (Ont. H .C.J.); L.L.D.S. v. W.G.F. (),  R.F.L. (th)  (Ont.

Ct.Gen.Div.);T.W. v. J.C ., [] O.J.No.  (Ct. J.).

 S.N.L. ,c. I-..

Evidence; Procedure; Costs 

Children’s Law Act, where paternity testing is ordered, the costs shall be borne by the

party requesting the t est.

Ahusbandisentitledtobloodtestswheretheevidenceindicatesthepossibilityof

extram arital paternity.

If paternity of a child is disputed with respect to child support, custody, or access, and

blood tests have prove d inconclusive, a cou rt may order the par ties to re-att end for DNA

teststoresolvetheuncertainty.



Ahusbandmaybeestoppedfromraisingtheissueofpaternityonanapplicationto

vary interimsupport, notwithstanding the results of DNAtests indicatingthat he is not the

fatherof the child. An obligor is not entitled to contest the paternity ofthe child after sev-

eralyearshadelapsedduringwhichtimechildsupportarrearshaveaccumulated.

 Where

childsupporthasbeenorderedafteraf‌indingofpaternity,intheabsenceofanyresponse,

the issue of patern ity is not rev iewable on an application to vary t he child suppor t order.

e proper procedure for reopen ing the issue of paternity is by way of an application to s et

aside the default judgment as to paternity a nd the support order t hat is corollar y thereto.

A long-standing paternity agreement may constitute no bar to an order for DNA tests to

determine patern ity.

Inaclaimforchildsupportagainstanallegedfather,theonusofprovingpaternityon

the balance of probabilities m ay not be satisf‌ied in l ight of the contr adictory evidence of

the parties andthe mother’s admissionof sexual relations with anotherman whose where-

aboutsareunknown.epublicinterestisnotservedbysuperf‌icialdeterminationsofpa-

ternity ba sed on a min imum of evidence, si mply to comply with t he insistence of social

assistance granting authorities that civil proceedings be instituted against the father. If

forced to make such a cla im, the mother should be furn ished with su f‌f‌icient resources to

have necessary blood tests undertaken.

Where paternity is disputed in a child support proceeding, the court may decline to

drawanadverseinferenceagainsteitherparty,eitherfromtherespondent’srefusaltosub-

mittobloodtestsorDNAtestsorfromtheapplicant’sdecisiontoproceedwithoutsuch

tests. An applicant has the onus of proving paternity on a balance of probabilities. is

onusmaybedischargedwheresexualintercoursewithoutcontraceptionisadmittedby

both parties and the child was born af tert he normal gestationperiod of approximately nine

 R.S.N.L . , c. C-.

 B.P. v. K.N.,[]N.J.No.  (C.A.),appealwasallowedandcostofpaternitytestingwasorderedto

be borne by alleged father.O theri ssueswere referred back to Unif‌ied Family Court for reconsideration,

includingwhetheraconf‌irmationorderoranoriginalorderoughttobegrantedbecauseofthemother’s

return to Newfou ndland and Labrador.

 C.(M.) v. C.(L.A.)(),  R.F.L. (d)  (B.C.C.A.).

 S.(C .) v. L.(V.) (),  R.F.L. (d)  (Ont. Prov. Div.),a f‌f’d (),  R.F.L. (d)  (Ont. Ct. Gen.

Div.).See also R .(L.) v. S.(L.) and E.(R.) (),  R.F.L. (d)  (Man. C .A.); compare M.(B.B.) v. M.(W.

W.) (),  R.F.L. (th)  (Alta. Q.B.); T.(S.J.) v. D. (S.) (), B.C.L.R. (d)  (S.C.); Ketchum v.

Ketchum (),N.B.R.(d) (C.A.).

 S.(P.K.) v. S.(J.S.) (),  R.F.L. (th)  (B.C.S .C.).

 M. v. M.,[] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.);G.L. v. C.E., [] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.).

 Bergen v. Procner, []S .J. No. ,(sub nom.B .(T.L.) v. P.( R.))  R.F.L. (th)  (Q.B.).

 J.A. v. E.D.S., [] A.J. No.  (Q.B.).

 A.S.M. v. R.S.,[]N.S.J.No. (Fam.Ct.).eapplicationwasdismissedwithoutprejudicetore-ap-

plicationifbloodtestsundertaken.