obtain information, it was reasonable for Ms. McKenny to rely
on what she was being told”.
 Second, we see no reversible error in the application judge’s
finding that the estate trustee’s conduct was unconscionable.
 On April 29, 2013, estate counsel wrote to Sun Life inquiring whether Mr. Penner’s life insurance policy was in good standing. On May 9, Sun Life advised the deceased had no active
policies — his two policies had lapsed because of non-payment of
 Notwithstanding this clear information from the insurer,
on June 4 estate counsel informed Ms. McKenny’s counsel that
investigations were underway because Mr. Penner “had
expressed to Ms. Roulston and the deceased’s mother that there
was insurance in place. Upon receipt of such information, we
will provide correspondence to you”. In a subsequent September
25, 2013 letter to Ms. McKenny’s lawyer, estate counsel was only
prepared to go as far as to say that the insurer had “advised that
the policy may have lapsed”. Neither representation by estate
counsel was accurate; the estate trustee knew back on May 9
that Mr. Penner had let his insurance policy lapse.
 Ms. Roulston submits the evidence was more nuanced —
it showed counsel for the estate trustee was investigating
whether some other insurer might have issued a policy to Mr.
Penner. We see no merit in this submission. The record contains
no evidence of inquiries by the estate trustee or her counsel to
any insurer other than Sun Life.
 She also submits the application judge’s finding of unconscionable conduct cannot stand because he ignored a May 15,
2013 letter to her from counsel for Ms. McKenny. In that letter,
counsel inquired whether Ms. Roulston was in charge of Mr.
Penner’s estate. He continued: “I wish to put the estate on notice
that the insurance was not in place as required by the terms of
the Separation Agreement.” She submits that statement demonstrated Ms. McKenny knew she had a claim against the estate
as early as May 15 and, therefore, the application judge erred in
characterizing as unconscionable the subsequent conduct of the
estate trustee and her counsel.
 We are not persuaded by this submission. The mere
absence of any reference to a piece of evidence in reasons for
judgment does not establish the hearing judge failed to consider
that evidence; a party must point to something in the trial record that justifies the conclusion the trial judge failed to consider
certain evidence: Waxman v. Waxman,  O.J. No. 1765, 186
O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), at para. 343. Correspondence after May 15,
2013 from Ms. McKenny’s lawyer revealed uncertainty on his