Source: http://familyllb.com/category/privacy/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:22:42+00:00

Document:
Although that brief marriage and subsequent divorce are otherwise unremarkable – and while there is no legal impediment to the upcoming Royal nuptials – in this case it requires the input of the Church of England, which religious organization was chosen by the couple to officiate their vows.
The website for the Church of England advises that “In certain circumstances the Church of England accepts that a divorced person may marry again in church and this has been the case since 2002.” As long as the betrothed couple have the legal capacity to get married in the first place, under the civil law of England a member of the clergy is entitled to officiate, but is advised to give greater pause when marrying those who have walked down the aisle before. Clergy are advised to make inquiries of the couple about how committed the couple are to each other, whether they intend to be faithful, and whether they intend for the marriage to be for life.
It seems to pose no real impediment in modern-day Britain. In contrast, when Harry’s father, Prince Charles married the previously divorced Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005, they were married in a civil ceremony, rather than in a church, because their extra-marital affair was adjudged to have contributed to the breakdown of their respective marriages. (However, their marriage was later “blessed” by the church).
In Meghan and Harry’s case, the process will likely be simpler, and will require them to fill out a form, and to provide it to the officiating priest with proof that the Meghan’s divorce is “absolute”. It may also require the couple to engage in multiple interviews with the priest before the required official consent is given by the Church.
And leaving aside the religious requirements, it has been noted that the Royal rules and protocol must have relaxed somewhat, since Kate Middleton and Harry’s brother, Prince William, lived together before getting married.
I have reported previously about a case called M.M.B. (V.) v. C.M.V., the background facts of which are not terribly unique: After their split in 2013 the parents had agreed to a “parallel parenting” and equal-time arrangement for their three children. The mother now claimed that in the time since, the father had been engaging in a concerted effort to alienate her from them. She asked for sole custody and an order that the father undergo therapy.
What’s more noteworthy is the rather epic court ruling in their case, which spanned over 1200 paragraphs, where the court recounted a dizzying array of tactics by each of the parents; overwhelmingly, however, the ruling focused on the misconduct of the father, who the court repeatedly noted had viewed himself as being “in a war” with his former spouse and determined to “win” at all costs.
During the last two years of the relationship prior to separation, her evidence is that the [father] became more volatile and threw things at or near her. The [mother] testified that he was obsessed with the idea that she was having an affair. Her evidence is that she had never had an affair during the marriage.
She further testified that the [father] had a constant need to be “in control” and that he utilized a feature on her cell phone to be able to track her whereabouts. Two examples that she cited were, on one occasion when she attended at a lawyer’s office in July 2011, he telephoned her four times during her appointment with the lawyer, knowing exactly where she was at the time. The second example she gave happened in August 2011. They were in New York for a few days and she left early to return to school. While the [mother] was still in New York, she claims that he was able to track her whereabouts and knew that she had taken a different route home. She says that she did so in order to look at possible housing for her and the children. He accused her that she was travelling to a residence for purposes of having an affair.
When asked about the allegation of tracking the [mother] on her cell phone, his explanation for his knowledge of her going to a lawyer is that their cleaning lady told him this in July 2011 when the [mother] was going to the lawyer.
When asked about the feature of “find my phone” so that he could allegedly track her whereabouts from his phone, he has a very “plausible” explanation. He claims that because he was using his phone for Association work they jointly downloaded this app so that she would be able to find his phone in the event that he lost it.
Regarding the knowledge that he had that the [mother] was on a different route on the way home from New York City, the [father] once again has a “plausible” explanation. His brother who is a real estate agent, by happenstance, was showing a house across the road from where the [mother] was driving. His brother took it upon himself to call the [father] to report that he had seen his vehicle, thinking that it was the [father] but of course it was the [mother].
This court views each of these explanations with a great deal of cynicism.
In response to the [mother’s] concern that the [father] was tracking her and the children’s whereabouts, the [father’s] response is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, he “denied this” and stated that he “doesn’t care where she goes”. On the other hand, on several occasions, he admitted to “wanting to locate the children and not her”, which he believes to be a safety issue. He said he ”was able to locate the children by their cell phone devices”.
This was an admission by the [father] that the court finds is consistent with the evidence given by the [mother] at trial; that she knew that the [father] was tracking her movements through her cell phone. The court finds that this is inconsistent with the [father’s] “explanations” of how he knew the [mother’s] whereabouts on two separate occasions at about the time of the separation. He specifically denied under oath at trial that he was tracking her whereabouts through her cell phone. Undoubtedly, he had forgotten what he said during the assessment, or did not expect this court would take the time to read all of the exhibits.
Particularly as it relates to the father’s highly misguided win-at-all-costs focus, the M.M.B. (V.) v. C.M.V. decision is a virtual judicial textbook on “How Not to Behave” in the post-separation phase. It could be interesting reading for those who can get through the 1,200-paragraph judgment.
Are Surreptitious Recordings Admissible in Family Court?
A recent Alberta case called St. Croix. v. St. Croix gave the court an opportunity to review the Canadian law on whether surreptitious telephone recordings could be admitted in Family court.
The background facts that sparked this review featured a mother who had asked the court to admit her evidence of recorded telephone conversations between her and the father of a child they had together. They were embroiled in a dispute over custody and parenting issues, and she had recorded some of their conversations using her smartphone. She alleged that in those recordings he had uttered threats to kill her (including a vow to “rip her head off” if she ever tried to take their child from him).
On a motion as to the recording’s admissibility, the court noted that it had not been provided with a copy of the recording, and was merely advised by the mother that it contained a threat of physical violence, and that it was relevant to the broader issues before the court. The parents disagreed on how relevant it might be.
Courts generally view surreptitiously-recorded telephone conversations with repugnance.
However, short of certain specific privacy expectations, there are few if any restrictions on the admissibility of surreptitious recording of conversations or events. They are generally not prohibited or illegal.
Under the common law (which includes Family Law), it does not generally matter how the evidence is obtained and as long as the other person in the recording knows, prior to the hearing date, that the recordings exist and are being relied on, they can amount to real evidence of conversations or events.
However, those restrictions do exist on various facts, and the cases go both ways.
In short: There’s no clear yes-or-no answer, since it depends on the facts.
Returning to St. Croix v. St. Croix, the mother sought to have the recordings admitted as evidence on the basis that they were relevant to determining the child’s best interests. But the court pointed out that this might actually heighten the acrimony between her and the father, and reward her for being the better “documentarian” in their interactions. More to the point, this was likely to prolong their litigation and increase expenses, since it would catapult both of them toward providing the court with longer and more numerous affidavits and court exhibits.
In the end, the court in St. Croix decided not to allow the telephone recording, and added that it would be a rare case where this kind of evidence should be admitted, and only after the court holds a voir dire to determine whether it is admissible in all the circumstances.
 Scarlett v. Farell. 2014 ONCJ 517.
 Mazur v. Corr, 2004 ABQB 752.
 And for those reading, it’s important to seek the advice of an experienced Family lawyer, before trying to use recorded phone conversations in your litigation.
It should be noted, however, that additional procedural steps were still pending, whereby the trial judge would determine whether that decision was final.
This blog builds upon our previous blogs Saving the Golden Goose: Part I and Part II to discuss the importance of privacy, protection, and planning in managing the effects of separation and divorce on family businesses. One illustration of this arose in a case whereby both spouses owned shares in the family company. As an additional wrinkle, a third business partner was involved and actively expressed concerns about the effect of the separation and divorce on the business.
One spouse actively managed the finances of the business, and the other was less involved. This created an unbalanced feeling for the second spouse, who felt that they were open to being taken advantage of financially. The spouse in active management of the business was incredibly concerned about market changes and the viability of the business going forward into the future. This vulnerability split into discussions around how the business should be properly valued.
The spouses had several adult children who had been supported by the family business in various ways throughout their teenage years and adulthood, either through part time jobs or full time employment. These children had very vocal views on how the couple’s separation should proceed. The children also felt that the family cottage should remain in the possession of the spouse who was in active management of the family business, as it was a retirement plan.
In this matter, a full team approach was utilized to create a creative solution which met the spouse’s needs amidst the “background noise” of the children and the business partner. The family professional was able to mitigate any backlash from the children expressing their feelings about the family business and the cottage, and the financial professionals were able to ensure that the non-managing spouse felt competent enough to actively participate in the financial negotiations.
Associated issues such as the capital gains liability of each scenario, as well as the valuation dates for transferred property were also taken into account. Notably, these options would not be available in the traditional court context. Perhaps most importantly, the spouses would not have had the “luxury” of being supported by an interdisciplinary team and provided time to process and decide which option made the most sense to themselves, their family, and their business.
The above case examples illustrate the ability of collaborative family law to shape a resolution with the best interests of the family business at the core. The collaborative process emphasizes privacy, protection, and planning. By keeping the matter outside of the courtroom, families can maximize their privacy with respect to the highly personal matter of restructuring their family and business. The collaborative process offers a respectful alternative to the court system for those wishing to ensure that their legacy remains intact for generations to come through estate and succession planning for the business. The business does not need to be destroyed by family restructuring. Minimizing the financial and emotional impact of a separation and divorce on both the family and their business is a tall order, but it can be done with the support of an interdisciplinary team who is specially trained to identify creative solutions with the goal of resolution. This process allows spouses to take back control of your family’s future from impartial third party adjudicators. Divorce and separation may represent both an ending and a beginning. Collaborative practice helps spouses anticipate and include their need to move forward, and makes the future of their business a key priority.
Can Canadians ever reasonably expect the text messages they send to remain private, even after the messages have reached their destination? Or is the state free, regardless of the circumstances, to access text messages from a recipient’s device without a warrant?
The accused, Nour Marakah, had been charged and convicted of trafficking in handguns. Among the evidence used against him were certain incriminating text messages that he had sent to an accomplice’s iPhone. The messages on his own phone (from where those messages to the accomplice were sent) had already been ruled inadmissible, since their use was found to have breached his Charter right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the text messages that had been intercepted from the accomplice’s phone were private in the circumstances, and also inadmissible on the same Charter-based grounds.
The Court quickly added that outcome was not automatic: different facts may have led to a different result. Among other things, the matter hinged on whether Marakah had a reasonable expectation that the texts would remain private.
From a general standpoint, the Court discussed the relevant legal analysis to be applied in these cases. This involved evaluating the “totality of the circumstances” including the elements of whether the sender has control over the messages once they are sent. Someone who sends texts messages has meaningful control over what they sent, and how and to whom they disclose the information. For the purposes of the Charter’s s. 8 protections against unreasonable search and seizure, that control is not lost merely because another individual possesses or can access it. In other words, even though the sender does not have exclusive control over his or her personal information – only shared control – that does not preclude him or her from reasonably expecting that the information will not be subject to state scrutiny.
Returning to Marakah’s specific case, he had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy of the text messages on the iPhone of his accomplice. He fully expected their conversation to be private, and had repeatedly asked the accomplice to delete the incriminating messages from his iPhone. The “place” of the police search (i.e. the accomplice’s iPhone) was a private electronic space accessible the accomplice, so this factor also heightened Marakah’s legitimate privacy expectations.
There is nothing in the record to suggest that the justice system cannot adapt to the challenges of recognizing that some text message conversations may engage s. 8 of the Charter.
The Court found that there had been a breach of Marakah’s Charter rights in this case, and that admitting the text messages from the accomplice’s iPhone as evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Without those texts, he would have been acquitted; to allow the conviction to stand would be a miscarriage of justice.
Although this Supreme Court ruling germinated from a criminal case with Charter implications, it may have eventual repercussions in the civil realm, including Family Law trials.
What are your thoughts on this ruling? Should text messages be considered private at all times?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.