From a legal standpoint, the court assessed the nature and features of Skype against the existing Rules of Civil Procedure relating to video conferencing, which it considered analogous. It also assessed the suggestion to use Skype against the requirements and objectives of the Family Law Rules, which included the desire to be fair to all parties, and to save time and expense.
In the end, the court had no concerns about the ability to assess credibility during a Skype session with the mother and her new husband, accepted their evidence relating to their constrained financial circumstances, and found that the overall balance of convenience - including the lack of prejudice to the father - favoured allowing the cross-examination via Skype to proceed.
For the full text of the decision, see:
Paiva v. Corpening, 2012 ONCJ 88 http://canlii.ca/t/fq6h9
