MASTERING WRITTEN MATERIALS: UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS IN FAMILY CHAMBERS PRACTICE

Transcription

1 INTRODUCTION: MASTERING WRITTEN MATERIALS: UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS IN FAMILY CHAMBERS PRACTICE Gwen V. Goebel, BA, LLB It is the duty of every family law lawyer seeking relief in Chambers to approach the preparation of their written materials thoughtfully, deliberately and professionally in each and every case. This paper addresses some specific issues that arise in family law chambers practice which have been flagged as areas of concern by the judiciary. In particular: 1. Meeting filing deadlines that are distinctive to family law proceedings; 2. Preparing affidavit materials that are clear, organized and relevant; 3. Special considerations that apply when appending electronic communications as exhibits; and 4. Deciding how, and when, to object to affidavit materials. MEETING FILING DEADLINES IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS: Missed filing deadlines frustrate the parties, the Court and the process. Adhering to prescribed deadlines will advance your reputation with the Court and ensure that opposing counsel has adequate time to respond thereby enhancing collegiality. Meeting filing deadlines will also minimize late requests for adjournments which are frustrating for clients who are anxious to have their matters addressed and often have to reschedule work or child-care arrangements to accommodate attendance in Court. Appendix A is a one page table which can be used as a guide to filing deadlines for applications in family law proceedings 1. PREPARING AFFIDAVIT MATERIALS: Affidavit materials are the starting point in any Chambers motion. They are your first opportunity to communicate with the Court and they are the building blocks you will use to build an argument that favours your client s position. To be useful, they must be relevant to the issues and provide evidence in a clear and organized manner. 1 The Appendix references the current Rule numbers and Practice Directive. The new Court of Queen s Bench Rules scheduled to come into effect in July 2013 have incorporated the current family law rules without amendment other than numbering. 1 P a g e

2 Family court applications are often brought in emotional situations. Clients want to focus on the conduct of the other spouse, Lawyers must retain objectivity and assist their clients in focussing on the information relevant to the issues before the Court. As stated by Mr. Justice P. Foley in Antoine v. Campbell, 2010 SKQB 466, [i]t is the duty of counsel as an officer of the court to act as a gatekeeper against any client s predilection to use an affidavit as an instrument of illtemper, revenge or abuse. Family law practitioners must set boundaries with clients from the outset, recognizing that clients can neither be expected to provide information in an objective way nor be familiar with the law of evidence or the Rules of Court. A. Affidavit Preparation: A list of Dos and Don ts is appended to this paper (Appendix B ). This list includes all of the practical considerations identified by Madam Justice D.L. Wilson in her paper entitled Affidavit Dos and Don ts 2 as well as additional suggestions that I have added following a review of the sources identified in this paper. One area that bears emphasis is the focus of affidavit evidence in custody applications. In all matters involving the care of children, lawyers should ensure that the affidavit includes detailed information relating to the children s needs, interests, activities, and schedule rather than focusing on the conduct, personality, and behaviour of the other parent. Where evidence of conduct is being tendered, be prepared to argue how it is directly relevant to the issues raised in the proceeding. There are also practical and substantive considerations that a lawyer must consider when deciding what documents to append to their witness affidavit. Since the goal is to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of your client, the exhibits you file must enhance your client s chance of success. Practically, they must be understandable and provided in a clear and compelling way. Additionally, they cannot offend the rules of the Court or the laws of evidence. Exhibits which do not adhere to such guidelines may not be of any assistance to your case and may even serve to confuse, frustrate, or detract from your client s position. B. Appending Electronic Communications as Exhibits to Affidavits: The growth of social media as a means to express oneself, and the prevalence of electronic communications generally, has resulted in a volume of real evidence that did not exist a decade ago. For example, Facebook currently has 955 million active users, Twitter currently has over 500 million registered users including 140 million active users, and Instagram has accumulated more 2 Affidavit Do s and Don ts, The Hon. Madam Justice D.L. Wilson, The Art of Persuasion: Written Advocacy, Law Society of Saskatchewan, May 9 and 10, 2012, this list is reproduced with her consent. They are reproduced at Appendix B of this paper along with additional suggestions respecting exhibits and objections. 2 P a g e

3 than 50 million users over the past 2 years with 300 million pictures uploaded to Facebook each day 3. According to one online source 4, every minute of every day: 100,000 tweets are sent 684,478 pieces of content are shared on Facebook 48 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube 3,600 photos are shared on Instagram 571 websites are created. The printed form of electronic communications is commonly accepted as relevant and admissible evidence. This evidence can be very compelling, particularly when a party has made statements in such communications which are adverse to their interests or contradict their sworn evidence. In fact, it is rare to see affidavits that do not exhibit such communications in family court. In their quest for justice, it is not uncommon for family law clients to produce hundreds of s, texts, Facebook posts, and tweets involving the opposing party or the children. Some of those communications may be innocuous while others may contradict the information to which the other party has deposed, compromise the legal position being taken by the other party or put the opposing spouse in an unfavourable light. As stated by Mr. Justice N. Sandomirsky in Legien v Legien, (2012) SKQB 326, "[t]he thoughtless behaviour and comments which are posted on Facebook, and responded to by individuals of lesser or like minds, opens the door to a new form of evidence and window into the lives of future litigants. As tempting as it may be to delve into this window, family lawyers must balance this opportunity with a full consideration of relevance and admissibility, privacy laws, professional duties, and relevant provisions of the Criminal Code provisions. Such material is often voluminous and could dramatically increase the cost and time to obtain a litigated result. Furthermore, emerging legal issues related to this technological change force us to consider how the communications were obtained and its impact upon the use of the evidence. C. Admissibility of Intercepted Electronic Communications: When communications are not sent directly to or from your client, it is necessary to determine how there were obtained and the resulting impact upon their admissibility. In S.C. v. J.C., 2009 S.J. No. 121, a party sought to tender text messages he had secretly copied without the consent of the person who sent the messages or the person who received them. In particular, the father had copied text messages forwarded from his daughter s phone in an attempt to illustrate the mother s manipulation with respect to a proposed move out of province. Mr. Justice G. Dufour identified the relevant case law and summarized the legal analysis to be applied when exercising discretion to admit or exclude intercepted communications as follows: 3 Social Media and Internet Statistics (September 2012), 4 AllTwitter 3 P a g e

4 1. There is a limited discretion to exclude relevant evidence, regardless of how it was obtained; 2. The judicial exercise of that discretion involves a balancing of competing interests; and 3. The court should consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect on the party opposite and/or the reputation of the administration of justice. (para. 70). After applying this analysis, Justice Dufour excluded the text messages finding that the prejudice of admitting surreptitiously obtained evidence outweighed the moderate probative value of the messages. He indicated that his decision may have been different if the intercepted communications showed that the child was at risk in some fashion. He also commented that there was no way of knowing whether or not these messages are representative of the entirety of the communications between the two or whether they are out of context and misleading (para 72). For another recent review of the Court s analysis of the admissibility of taped recordings of telephone conversations between a parent and child see B.D.C. v. B.J.B., 2012 YKSC 64. D. The Emerging Law Respecting the Tort of Invasion of Privacy 5 : In addition to admissibility concerns, seeking to tender intercepted evidence could risk a civil claim against your client. Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces in Canada with privacy legislation that creates a claim for breach of privacy, The Privacy Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-24. Section 2 states: It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person wilfully and without claim of right, to violate the privacy of another person. The legislation provides further guidance on whether privacy rights have been violated and the remedies available when a breach has occurred. In Bigstone v. St. Pierre, 2011 SKCA 34, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal recently considered the elements of the statutory tort for the first time. In that case, the plaintiff commenced an action under section 2 of The Privacy Act and the defendants applied to strike the claim as disclosing no cause of action. Their applications were dismissed in Chambers and they appealed. The majority of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. The Court noted that to date there has been very little judicial consideration of the Act. After a review of the case law in and out of Saskatchewan, the Court of Appeal identified five essential elements required to maintain a claim for breach of privacy under the legislation as follows: 5 The Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association hosted a teleseminar on September 20, 2012 entitled Family Law Affidavits during which Madam Justice Y.G.K. Wilkinson addressed issues relating to the use of social media in affidavit evidence. In preparing this paper, I have referred, in part, to some of the cases that she referenced as notable in the area of privacy and which she indicated should be of significant interest to family law lawyers. I have also incorporated many of her comments in the list of Dos and Don ts at Appendix B. 4 P a g e

5 1. The action is brought pursuant to the Act; 2. There is an act which is claimed to be a violation of privacy which comes within the arguable scope of the Act; 3. The privacy is that of a person; 4. The type of privacy interest violated is generally identifiable; and 5. The violation is willful and without claim of right. It is not difficult to see how such a claim could be advanced between litigating parties in a family law matter. In Lane v. Lane, 2011 MBQB 26, a jurisdiction with similar legislation, the husband had sought to tender into evidence pages from his estranged wife s diary. The wife brought an application for relief under the privacy legislation and the court found that the wife s privacy rights had been violated by her spouse and ordered that he return the journals to her. The issue of damages was adjourned to trial as was the admissibility of excerpts from the journals. In addition, while not a family law matter in the true sense, in Fillion v. Fillion, 2011 BCJ No. 2230, the court held that one extended family member (an adult child) had breached the privacy of another (her parent). The breach consisted of the daughter reading and taking a copy of a Will document which she came across during a search for her own files and by reading and copying a letter addressed to her parent. The damage award was nominal. Finally, it is now also possible that a client could be subjected to a claim for damages arising out of the common law. In the landmark decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, the court recognized for the first time a common right to privacy and confirmed the right of individuals to sue for civil damages when they can prove they have been the victim of a breach. In that case the new spouse was repeatedly accessing the ex-wife s banking information at the bank where they both worked. The ex-wife sued her for $90,000 in damages including punitive damages. A chambers justice granted summary judgment to the defendant on the basis that there was no cause of action and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal considered cases from several jurisdictions as well as privacy legislation and Charter jurisprudence. It also considered the acceptance of the tort in the United States and other commonwealth countries. At paragraphs 66 and 67 the Court stated: In my view, it is appropriate for this court to confirm the existence of a right of action for intrusion upon seclusion. Recognition of such a cause of action would amount to an incremental step that is consistent with the role of this court to develop the common law in a manner consistent with the changing needs of society. In modern times, the pace of technological change has accelerated exponentially. Legal scholars such as Peter Burns have written of the pressing need to preserve privacy which is being threatened by science and technology to the point of surrender. 5 P a g e

6 The court identified the necessary elements of the tort to be (i) proof of an intentional act, (ii) which involved an intrusion upon private affairs without lawful justification, (iii) which a reasonable person would regard as highly offensive and causing distress, humiliation or anguish. The court clarified that once a breach is established, it is not necessary to prove pecuniary loss to justify damages and set the upper range at $20,000. These are important considerations when advising clients who may be tempted to intercept electronic communications or in those situations where your client s privacy interests have been offended by the opposing party. Clients should be reminded that irrelevant information tendered with the intention of embarrassing the other party will not only be struck by the Court, often with a penalty of costs, but may also result in civil damages being payable. As recently stated by Madam Justice Wilkinson, it is possible that the evolution of tort law will indirectly achieve what the Rules have been unable to accomplish thus far. OBJECTING TO AFFIDAVIT MATERIALS: The formal objection process is governed by Practice Directive No. 17 which came into force on April 1, A copy is attached as Appendix C. It has streamlined the process required to raise objections, respond to objections and to have them ruled upon. It is simple to use and provides clarity to the opposing party and the Court. For example, it directs parties to copy and append the offending materials to a Notice of Objection, to highlight the alleged objectionable provisions and to hand-write the objection in the margin. It does not require affidavit evidence and no arguments are to be made. The ruling is made at the commencement of the chambers hearing before oral arguments begin on the merits of the application. Where the objections are sustained, it is common for an order of costs to follow. This has resulted in a higher standard of affidavit materials in family law chambers and increased confidence among family law practitioners that egregious materials will be struck by the Court. A party who insists on including irrelevant allegations in an effort to put the opposing party in an unfavourable light will be held to account: Antoine v. Campbell, 2010 SKQB 466. A party who holds back allegations to ambush the other party in the reply affidavit will have that information struck: Johnson v. McAlaster, 2001 SKQB 112. A party who confuses the affidavit with a Brief of Law, and inserts numerous paragraphs of argument, may have costs assessed against them: Gusikoski v. Gusikoski, (2001) SKQB 139. On the other hand, when the objection process is over-used in an effort to parse every adjective, remove topic headings, or strike narrative intending to provide neutral statements of context, the process may unnecessarily increase the costs of litigation and detract from the legal issues at hand without justification. This is particularly frustrating when the party applying to strike has similar or more objectionable material in his or her affidavits. 6 P a g e

7 The Court has addressed this balance with a view to providing guidance to practitioners. The most oft cited case in this regard is the decision of Mr. Justice Laing in Gusikoski v. Gusikoski, supra. Although this decision was made prior to the implementation of the Practice Directive, Justice Laing described the purpose of Rule 603 as the prevention of carpet bombing the Court with irrelevant material. He reviewed the rule in detail and, in so doing, emphasized that the rule should not be used to parse every sentence in an affidavit. This principle was also adopted by Madam Justice Wright in Clavelle v. Clavelle, 2004 SKQB 177 (para. 13). Given legitimate concerns relating to access to justice, costs and delay in family law matters, I recommend that counsel apply the following considerations when deciding when to object to affidavit materials: 1) Reserve raising objections for those situations where the material is flagrantly offensive, where a reply affidavit clearly offends Rule 602(8) or the reputation of the justice system would be compromised by allowing the material to remain. This will build credibility in those instances when you bring a Notice of Objection forward. 2) Do not routinely raise objections to innocuous statements or narrative which is not detrimental to your position;, explanations that provide context; or zealous adjectives. Trust that the Judge is capable of focusing on the essential evidence and assessing weight accordingly. 3) Consider whether your client s interests are served by raising an objection. Before doing so consider the increased cost, potential delay, and strength of your objection. An objection which achieves nothing but added work for the chambers judge will not serve your client s interests. 4) Before raising an objection, consider whether you are coming to the Court with clean hands. In my experience, it is not uncommon for a party who raises technical or minor objections to have similar objectionable materials in the affidavits that they have tendered. Finally, it is common for parents or other witnesses to depose to something that the children have told them in their affidavit materials. It is also common to see objections to such evidence on the basis of the rule of hearsay. This type of evidence may be admissible on the basis that it is not being tendered to establish the truth of the statement but rather the fact that the statement was made by the child. This is common in situations where it is alleged that a teenage child is raising an issue and a Voices Assessment may be appropriate to determine if the allegation has substance. In addition, the evidence may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule by applying the general requirements of "necessity" and "reliability" as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Khan, 1990 CanLII 77 (SCC) and R. v. Smith,1992 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R P a g e

8 In family law Chambers, the element of "necessity" is commonly found in the reluctance of the Court to directly involve children in proceedings. The determination of "reliability" will consider the circumstances under which the statement was made and whether it can be said that there is a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness established : R. v. D.R., 1995 CanLII 3972 (SKCA). In most instances, the Court will admit the evidence with a view to determining what weight to apply in the circumstances: J.R. v. A.I., (1987), 60 Sask. R. 81, (Sask. U.F.C.), R. v. B., 38 R.F.L. (2d) 113, (Sask. C.A.), Pierce v. Pierce, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 572,), P. v. W. (1987), 56 Sask. R. 256 (Sask. C.A.). Depending upon the import of the evidence to the issue at hand, counsel would be wise to adduce affidavit evidence as to the timing of the statement, the demeanour of the child at the time, the personality, intelligence and understanding of the child, and the absence of any reason to expect fabrication when the statement was made. This will ensure that a foundation exists upon which you can argue trustworthiness. Alternatively, where such evidence is tendered by the opposing party and may be detrimental to your client s position, you may wish to advance a detailed objection calling upon the Court to consider and apply the legal test. CONCLUSION: As lawyers, we hold the burden of persuasion. Our role is to assist the Chambers Judge to dispense justice and, to the extent possible, persuade her to rule in our client s favour. Anything we can do to promote that result is consistent with our professional duty to our client. Anything which detracts from that outcome is inconsistent with that duty and could be detrimental to our client s case. As such, it is our obligation to approach the preparation of chambers materials thoughtfully, deliberately and professionally in each and every case. 8 P a g e

9 APPENDIX A FILING DEADLINES FOR APPLICATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS Days Before Hearing Date 37 days* 14 days 7 days 3 clear days 2 clear days 1 clear day Noon on day prior to hearing At the hearing Application Documents (Rule) Motion seeking support or variation of support with supporting material (Rule 602 (3)) * Note: there must be at least 37 days between the hearing date and the date of service of the document commencing the family law proceeding. If the commencing document seeking support has previously been served, the Motion seeking support may be served on 14 days notice pursuant to Rule 602(2) Motion claiming substantive relief, interim relief or variation of relief with supporting material (Rule 602(2) ) Affidavit(s) filed in response to Motion with proof of service (Rule 602 (7)(b)) Motion for procedural relief (Rule 602(4)) Note: provisions of Rule 602 respecting affidavits do not apply (Rule 602(4)(b)) Affidavit replying to new matters raised by the opposite party with proof of service (Rule 602 (8)) Objection Documents (Practice Directive No. 17) Notice of Objection to affidavit(s) filed in support of application (Practice Directive No. 17 (3)(i)) Response to the Notice of Objection to affidavit(s) filed in support of application (Practice Directive No. 17 (5)(i)) Notice of Objection to affidavit(s) filed in response to the application (Practice Directive No. 17 (3)(ii)) Notice of Objection to reply affidavit (Practice Directive No. 17 (3)(iii)) Response to the Notice of Objection to affidavit(s) filed in response to the application (Practice Directive No. 17 (5)(ii)) Response to the Notice of Objection to the reply affidavit (Practice Directive No. 17 (5)(iii)) NOTES: - Rules 530 and 531: clarify the calculation of days when notice period is less than 6 days, where days are not expressed to be clear days and where days are expressed to be clear days - Rule 602(6) : provides that an ex parte application for leave to abridge time - Rule 602(5): provides that parties may consent to an earlier hearing date 9 P a g e

10 APPENDIX B FAMILY LAW AFFIDAVIT DOS AND DON TS General: Do think about the relief you are seeking and what facts you need in your affidavit to obtain the relief. Do use headings if your affidavit needs to be fairly lengthy or where the Notice of Motion raises numerous issues. Do stick to facts. Opinion, arguments, and conclusions are inappropriate. Don t file 200 paragraph affidavits. Don t say never and avoid always. It usually comes back to bite you. Don t file numerous affidavits when one or two will do. (There is no percentage in volume filing five affidavits of family members alleging someone is a good parent just annoys the Court). Do cross-reference affidavits properly by being specific. Avoid saying in reply to paragraph Instead, say at paragraph 15, Mary says... I say. Do include detailed information relating to the children s needs, interests, activities, and schedule in applications involving children. Where your affidavit includes allegations of conduct or inappropriate behaviour by the other parent, be prepared to argue how the evidence is directly relevant to the issues at hand. Where the affidavit includes hearsay statements made by a child, do include evidence as to the timing of the statement, the demeanour of the child, the personality, intelligence and understanding of the child, and the absence of any reason to expect fabrication when the statement was made. Re: Exhibits: Do number the pages of the affidavits and the exhibits (Income tax returns should be numbered on cases where there is a self-employed business person or farmer whose taxes are in issue). Do use tabs if there are numerous exhibits. Do ensure that the exhibits are legible on all copies. 10 P a g e

11 Don t assume that all forms of electronic communication will be familiar to the Judge. Some forms of social media are obscure and they are constantly changing. Even where it is a common form of electronic communication, ensure it is adequately explained in the body of the Affidavit to provide the necessary context. Do confirm that copies of any electronic communications are a trustworthy and accurate recording. Do ensure that it is clear who the communication is from and who it is sent to. Commonly printed copies of electronic communications are confusing. Do ensure that shorthand or code used in an exhibit is translated for the Court. Do not assume that the Justice will know how to interpret teen-text or will be able to make sense out of a string of untitled texts or s. Don t edit the documents without explanation. If you change a communication from reverse chronological order to chronological order for the ease of reference of the court, you must explain that you have done so. Do highlight a particular phrase that is relevant in a long string of s or texts. By underlining the information it in the exhibit (and explaining the alteration) or by repeating it in the body of the affidavit, you will ensure that the Justice s attention has been drawn to the specific communication that is of interest and is not lost in a long exchange of communications. Don t append one text message or one that is helpful to your client s position when it is part of a string of text messages or s that provide further relevant context or which may be unhelpful to your client. Include the entire string of electronic communications and draw the Court s attention to the communication that you suggest is pertinent. Don t attach documents to the affidavit that are inadmissible (e.g. unsworn letters of support). Do ensure that exhibits are directly relevant to an issue in the application, particularly where the focus of the exhibit is on the conduct of the opposing party. In that case, be prepared to argue how evidence of conduct is directly relevant to the issues at hand. Do consider how the information was retrieved and if its retrieval involved either a breach of privacy or the Criminal Code and, in the event you tender such evidence, be prepared to argue why the probative value outweighs any potential prejudice of admitting the document. 11 P a g e

12 Re: Objections: Do consider whether your client s interests are served by raising an objection taking into account the increased cost, potential delay, and strength of your objection. Do raise objections in situations where the material is flagrantly offensive, where a reply affidavit clearly offends Rule 602(8) or the reputation of the justice system would be compromised by allowing the material to remain. Don t routinely raise objections to innocuous statements or narrative which is not detrimental to your position, explanations that provide context, or zealous adjectives. Don t raise minor objections where your own affidavits include similar materials. Do consider whether it is appropriate and in your client s interests to object to evidence relating to statements made by children. Focus upon whether the elements of necessity and reliability are borne out by the evidence. 12 P a g e

13 APPENDIX C PRACTICE DIRECTIVE No. 17 PRACTICE DIRECTIVE ON OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS (Effective: April 1, 2008) 1 Objections to affidavits shall be raised by filing a notice of objection in the form attached hereto. 2 A copy of the affidavit objected to is to be attached to the notice of objection with those portions to which objection is taken highlighted or otherwise identified, such as by underscoring, and a notation in the margin as to the Rule upon which objection is taken and the grounds for the objection (example: hearsay, argument, opinion, irrelevant, etc.). 3 A notice of objection shall be served and filed: (i) when objecting to the affidavit(s) filed in support of the substantive motion: at least seven days before the return date; (ii) when objecting to the a f f i d a v i t (s) filed in response to the s u b s t a n t i v e motion: at least one clear day before the return date; (iii) when objecting to a reply affidavit: by noon the day before the return date. 4 A response to the notice of objection shall be filed in the form attached hereto. 5 The response to the notice of objection shall be served and filed as follows: (i) in reply to the objection to the affidavit(s) filed in support of the substantive motion: At least two clear days prior to the return date; (ii) in reply to the objection to the affidavit(s) filed in response to the substantive motion: 12:00 noon of the day before the return date; (iii) in reply to the objection to the reply affidavit: at the hearing on the return date. 6 There will be no argument in cha mb ers on the o b j e c t i o n unless the c h a m b e r judge requests further comment. This Practice Directive is issued on the authority of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen s Bench. New. Gaz. Mar. 14, P a g e

14 NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE TAKE NOTICE that an application is hereby made to the presiding judge in chambers at the court house in, Saskatchewan at o clock in the noon on the day of, 20 on b e h a l f of the p e t i t i o n e r (or respondent, as the c a s e may be) objecting to the f o l l o wi n g affidavit evidence: [(a) The affidavit of attached hereto with the material objected to identified;], a copy of which is ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: [(a) As noted on the attached copy of the affidavit(s)] DATED at the City of, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this day of, 20. TO: This document was delivered (etc. as in Form 589) RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF OBJECTION THE PETITIONER (or Respondent as the case may be) ACKNOWLEDGES the following affidavit material is to be struck or disregarded, as the case may be: [(a) Identify the affidavit and the specific provisions] AND TAKES I S S U E with the r e m a i n i n g material objected to ON THE F O L L O W I N G GROUNDS: [(a) Identify the affidavit, the passage in question and the reason.] DATED at the City of, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this day of, 20. TO: This document was delivered (etc. as in Form 589) Mastering Written Materials Family Law Supplement - 4:12 PM / December 17, 2012