‘Odious practice’: Judge slams secret recordings in family court case

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – A mother’s secret recordings “undoubtedly resulted in harm” to her children’s security and wellbeing, a provincial court judge has ruled.

In a January 21st judgment for a family court trial heard partially in Fort St. John, Judge Darin Reeves called the recordings a breach of faith in the privacy of communication with her estranged husband and their two teenage children. 

“This breach itself is a form of family violence, as it evidences an aspect of coercive and controlling behaviour directed at everyone in the family and has undoubtedly resulted in harm to both children’s psychological and emotional security and wellbeing,” wrote Judge Reeves.

The woman, identified in the judgment only as C.C., sued a male identified as C.H.C. after their marriage broke down in 2021 over allegations that C.H.C. was having an extramarital affair. 

The judge said it would be “a significant understatement” to describe C.C. and C.H.C.’s relationship as acrimonious and dysfunctional. 

Reeves also noted C.C. accused C.H.C. “of potentially criminal and workplace-related acts for which he was investigated but no charges were laid and no job action was taken”.

Evidence included 17 audio recordings C.C. made of family conversations and arguments between March 28, 2022 and July 7, 2022. C.H.C. testified he was unaware the recordings were being made, but agreed they were accurate evidence. 

“In admitting these recordings I highlighted that the surreptitious recording of household conversations is an odious practice that should be discouraged, and that creating them raises questions of the parent’s judgement,” Reeves wrote.

But, Reeves also noted the evidence “can cut both ways”, by disclosing matters about parenting skills and fitness to be a parent. 

Reeves ordered C.H.C., who has a $146,640 annual income, shall pay $2,166 in monthly spousal support beginning February 1st and $21,620 in arrears plus interest. 

C.C., with an annual income of $54,587, was ordered to pay $502 monthly to C.H.C. 

Additionally, the judge’s lengthy final order contains a clause against recording any participant while engaged in non-residential counselling and therapy “unless previously agreed to by the counsellor and all parties”.