There's an old saying: "
Two Heads Are Better Than One".
But not when it comes to trial judges.
The Motion
This was an inter-provincial motion to change.
The Applicant lives in Nova Scotia, so he told his side of the story to a judge in that province.
The Respondent lives in Ontario, so now she's told me her side of the story here in Hamilton.
Two judges. Each hearing different parts of the case. On different dates, many months apart. Having to make decisions on the same case.
It may sound good on paper.
It may even seem like the only practical way to deal with motions to change support, where parties live in different parts of the country and neither can afford to travel.
But except in the simplest of cases, it creates an almost impossible task for judges who are:
a.
Accustomed to hearing both sides of the story at the same time.
b.
Unaccustomed to wading into the realm of advocacy, by leading or cross-examining the evidence.
Chree v. Chree |
2015 CarswellOnt 16089 |
Ontario Superior Court of Justice