Global News: Using Recordings as Evidence - Featuring Laura Paris, Shulman & Partners

A recent segment on The Oakley Show featured Associate Lawyer Laura Paris of Shulman & Partners LLP in a discussion about how digital recordings influence family law disputes. The conversation was prompted by a widely circulated Ring doorbell video involving American media personality Steven Crowder and his pregnant wife, which raised public questions about whether such footage could affect separation or parenting matters. Laura explained why these situations resonate beyond the headlines, offering clarity on how Ontario courts assess recordings, the importance of context, and why evidence must form part of a broader pattern rather than a single moment. The segment highlighted the growing intersection between technology, privacy, and family law, and why informed legal guidance is essential when recordings surface during conflict.

“This recording alone wouldn’t be enough. It would have to be shown in conjunction with several other pieces to actually show that this is more than just a heated argument between spouses that perhaps aren’t getting along.”
— Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer, Shulman & Partners LLP

In a segment, host John Oakley examined the viral attention surrounding a Ring doorbell video featuring American podcaster Steven Crowder and his pregnant wife. The footage captured a tense confrontation, prompting widespread discussion about whether such recordings could influence separation or divorce proceedings. To break down the legal realities in Ontario, Laura provided a clear and practical explanation of how courts handle recordings in family law disputes.

She noted that both audio and video recordings can be presented as evidence, but their impact depends on several factors: who is in the recording, what it shows, how it was obtained, and whether it is relevant to the issues before the court. In parenting matters, a recording may be significant if it supports claims about verbal or physical abuse, emotional instability, or conduct that could affect the best interests of children. However, she stressed that a single recording almost never stands on its own. Courts look for patterns supported by additional evidence, such as witness accounts, documentation, or earlier incidents.

Laura also explained how judges balance probative value against potential prejudice. This means weighing the usefulness of the recording in proving a fact against concerns like privacy or the context in which it was captured. For example, a recording taken secretly may still be admissible if it reveals serious safety concerns, but a judge may give it less weight if it shows only a momentary argument between spouses. In the Crowder example, Laura indicated that although the video may be admissible, its significance would be limited unless paired with other evidence suggesting a consistent pattern of harmful behaviour.

She further noted that rulings on admissibility often occur only at trial, which many family cases never reach. As a result, lawyers frequently hold onto recordings as potential evidence but may not have an opportunity to argue their admissibility unless the matter proceeds to a formal hearing.

The segment underscored how digital technology continues to shape modern family disputes and why legal guidance is critical when navigating what can and cannot be used in court.

Listen to the full Global News segment here. 

This media appearance is part of Shulman & Partners LLP’s ongoing contributions to Canadian family law discussions. Explore more of our media features in our In the Media  archive.