“The father in this case submitted that the psychotherapist’s letter should be approached with caution as it was not in affidavit form, its’ contents hearsay and it was devoid of helpful details such as the date when the mother began consulting him and her complaints (such as an assault, as opposed to marital unhappiness, depression). I agree with the father. In Lucreziano v Lucreziano, 2021 ONSC 4106, Nakonechny J. reflected on the caution that the court must adopt when dealing with untested doctor letters:
[49] Rule 14(19) allows for hearsay only in restricted conditions. The case law identifies potential issues with the admissibility of the doctors’ letters attached to a party’s affidavit. In some cases, courts have rejected unsworn doctor’s letters as inadmissible because the letters contained no evidence as to the doctor’s qualifications and there was no opportunity to cross-examine the doctor. While a doctor’s letter or report will not be excluded solely because it is not in the form of an Affidavit, the Court must be satisfied of the truth of the facts contained in the letter or report. [Citations omitted].