Does the Court have any authority or authority over the weight to be attached to a custody assessor's evidence?

Similarly, in Coyle v. Danylkiw, 2006 O.J. No. 2061, the panel, at para. 8, said: 8 With respect to the weight to be attached to the custody assessor’s evidence, in our view, there was no error by the trial judge. The weight to be attached to the evidence of any expert is a matter for the trier of fact. The trial judge did not simply dismiss the evidence out of hand. She gave detailed reasons for why she did not agree with the assessor’s conclusion and why she found it lacking in many respects. While the appellant submits that the trial judge misapprehended some of the evidence and gave unfair weight to some issues, we are satisfied that the conclusion was supported by the record. To take one example, the trial judge took an entirely different view of the impact of the July 2001 incident than did the assessor. The assessor did not consider it significant; the trial judge did. Whether or not we would have placed as much emphasis on the incident as did the trial judge is beside the point. The weight to be attached to the impact of the incident was for the trial judge. The trial judge could not simply delegate her fact-finding responsibilities to the assessor. Discussion