View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2017, 10:04 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future

Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Has your ex tried to better herself in any ways since last trial.
That is the jist of the trial and the major question that needs to be answered by her to the court.

In reviewing the order that has spawned this unprecedented 3rd trial:

1. The Father is to have sole custody of the child;

2. The present order of supervised access to the child shall continue;

3. The Mother is found in contempt of the order of Pazaratz J. dated November 9, 2011.

4. Pursuant to the Family Law Rules to enforce my finding of contempt, I sentence The Mother to 6 months of probation. The terms of her probation being that she shall comply with all the terms of probation as set out below :
a. She is to engage in counselling or therapy in order to deal with her blind obsession with The Father and her search to prove that he is abusive to their child;

b. She is to not speak negatively about the childís father during access periods;

c. She shall not feed the child during access, other than small snacks;

d. She shall not change the childís clothing;
5. The Mother may return to court in order to seek expanded access only after she has evidence that she has successfully completed her counselling and therapy sessions to the satisfaction of the court.
The onus now falls on the mother to demonstrate to the court that she has purged the contempt. This is no small feet for a lawyer to do let alone a self-represented litigant. The "satisfaction of the court" is a very high test to meet.

Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
She may come in with a ton of material proving how she's improved her life and outlook on the situation. I'm not sure that supervised access is meant to "stick" for a long period of time.
Material != (does not equal) Evidence

Furthermore, the test for the evidence for counseling and/or therapy has a pile of very complex and sophisticated rules on top of it. It needs to conform with:

1. Rules 4.1.01 (1) and 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 20.1 of the Family Law Rules.

2. Their clinical practice guidelines and other medical legislation in the Jurisdiction of Ontario.

Qualifying an expert before the court is not a walk in the park. Nor is qualifying the evidence of an expert. In addition, expert evidence is often treated as opinioned evidence. The ultimate (and only) trier of fact is the judge. So, as stated in the order above... The evidence to any change needs to meet the satisfaction of the court which encompasses both #1 and #2.

But, in consideration that by the time this makes it to the 3rd trial it will have been 3 years, 2 months, 20 days since this order clearly something has been amiss with the mother's position.

And Justice Pazaratz confirms this in an order in 2015...

[23] Within months of Justice Harperís February 18, 2014 order, the Applicant started returning to court claiming she had taken all necessary counselling and seeking a radical change in the current order. The Applicantís materials and strategies were confusing. At times she had counsel. At times she initiated and then withdrew her requests.
I think it is safe to assume that this pattern of behaviour has continued to this date and the next justice will have the same issues that Justice Pazaratz, Master Jean, Justice Harper and Justice Chappel (in all had with the mother. Although this matter is not a "slam dunk" for the father.

Justice Chappel said this about the mother:

I have concerns, however, regarding his sister, the mother in question, given the Respondentís uncontroverted evidence that the mother in question has only supervised access to her son due to concerns that she intended to abduct the child. Given this evidence, I consider it necessary in the best interests of the children to include a term in the order that she not be left alone with either child at any time.

That is all a very steep wall to climb. You better bring a lot of rope. Either you will get over the wall or hang yourself trying. 3rd strike and you are out.

Good Luck!
Reply With Quote