Event and Time
Event Description
In this family law case, a father, unrepresented by counsel, sought to cross-examine a family consultant (Ms N) regarding perceived bias against him during custody proceedings. This attempt occurred on Day 28 of the trial, following an agreement made in 2017 that neither party would raise questions of bias stemming from the consultant's involvement in the case.
Application and Claims
- The father claimed that the family consultant exhibited apprehended bias against him and sought to question her based on this claim.
- The mother’s counsel objected, asserting that the father was legally bound by his previous agreement from November 2017, which included a waiver of any future claims regarding bias.
Judicial Decisions
Justice Wilson ruled that the father was estopped from cross-examining the family consultant on grounds of alleged bias due to his earlier agreement. The court emphasized that it would be unconscionable for the father to resile from this promise after several years during which the consultant acted based on that assurance.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
Father’s Claims:
- Allegations of bias from Ms N, asserting that she had communicated information with her husband about the case.
- A claim that the family consultant had a duty to inform all parties properly concerning potential bias.
Mother’s Arguments:
- The objection that the father’s cross-examination directly contradicts his earlier waiver of bias claims.
- The position that allowing the father to question Ms N would undermine the integrity of the earlier agreement and the stability of the proceedings.
Judicial Minimal Discretion:
- The court performed an analysis on equitable estoppel, indicating that the father’s assumption and reliance on the representation made in 2017 bound him not to raise bias claims.