View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2012, 11:36 PM
kidsRworthit kidsRworthit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 131
kidsRworthit is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
1. The cogent and relevant evidence to that "truism" being complete and utter bogus claim to make as an excuse can be found in the following case law:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post

Date: 2011-11-09
Docket: F-2172/09
URL: CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)

Notable quote from this very well cited case law:





Suffice to say... You should read the case law from the link to see what the final result was on prior to "believing" that no judge goes against the OCL... That truism died many years ago with the hole "truism" that mothers always get sole custody.

Key point. Dedicated, educated and good parents are who get sole custody of their children. NOT GENDER!

2. No substantive issue can be ordered at a case conference and whatever you ended up with as a result of the case conference was agreed to on CONSENT. So you consented to moving away and not moving to trial for the child's best interests to be actually determined by the court.



You should have went to trial if your evidence for the move being in the child's best interests was as good as you state often in your correspondence rather than consenting to something else you didn't agree with at a case conference. You were under no legal obligation to consent nor could a judge at a case conference order against you.



I disagree 100% with the above statement. The system is not broken. Litigants fail to understand the system, educate themselves, throw away their rights in "fear" at case conferences and don't bother to invest any personal time in understanding the basic fundamentals of what defines a child's "best interests" before the court.

For the other parents that actually do... Actually read the link provided in this response in full to see the "truth" of what happens before the Superior Court, Family Law quite often.

Good Luck!
Tayken
______________________________

Insightful read - thanks for sharing Tayken.

In my opinion, this case is certainly worth the read, and is highly pertinent addressing many issues in this thread.
Like a good movie, I won't spoil the ending...

Wanted to draw attention to The Order...
specifically:

1. OFW is being ordered unless both parties agree otherwise in writing.
2. Costs seemingly haven't been raised as a claim, and the door is being left open to arrange a claim for costs (presumably by party on balance who "won" more of the case).

569.Regular Communications: Unless both parties agree otherwise in writing, all ordinary communications shall be in writing using the Our Family Wizard website (the cost of which is to be paid by the Respondent, until the Applicant obtains employment income, at which time the cost shall be shared in proportion to their respective incomes). If that website is no longer available, the parties shall use e-mail.

570.Urgent Communications: For anything of a truly time sensitive or urgent nature, the parties shall call or text and a response shall be provided as soon as the parent receives that communication.

603.Other Claims: All other claims, except costs, are dismissed.

606.Residual Issues: Apart from the issue of a possible redetermination of child support, either party may arrange further time to address any other issues, including costs.
Reply With Quote