Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 03:13 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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
Default Justice Pazarataz Does it Again!

Jackson v Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 72 (CanLII)
Date: 2016-01-05
Docket: F67/13
Citation: Jackson v Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 72 (CanLII)
CanLII - 2016 ONSC 72 (CanLII)

Quote:
1. Why would we need a 36 day custody trial where the basic facts are pretty straightforward?
a. One child. A delightful eight year old girl with minor academic issues but no special needs.

b. She loves both parents equally. She wants to spend as much time as possible with each of them.

c. Both parents are equally capable and dedicated to meeting all her needs.

d. But the parents can’t get along or communicate with one another. Not at all.
2. Not such a tough set of facts, really. Nothing we don’t see in family court every day.

3. So why did we need a 36 day trial?

4. Why did we need 20 witnesses, including teachers, a principal and vice-principal, CAS workers, a family doctor, and a custody/access assessor?

5. Why did parents of modest means choose to impoverish themselves – and their daughter’s future -- for a needlessly destructive three-year court battle?

6. For the sake of the child?

7. Not a chance.

8. Custody trials are supposed to be about children. But 36 days – that speaks volumes about the parents.
Still reading this one but, the opener was too good to wait to post!

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 03:29 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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
Default

Mess... If you are still reading this site... Remember that debate on how people address "my children" and that judges do pay attention as to how parents address "their children" or "our children"?

Quote:
50. The Respondent tended to use the language of entitlement and ownership.

a. Paige was “my daughter” or “my child”.
b. The matrimonial home was “my house.”
c. Conversely, this court case was “his ruthless litigation”, “his trial”, and “this circus he created.”
This one is a great read... so far.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 03:39 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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
Default

Something I have theorized on some people's reactions to getting a letter from a lawyer is materialized in para 99:

Quote:
99. The Respondent testified about the lawyers’ letters.

a. She didn’t want lawyers involved. She felt the Applicant was escalating the conflict.
b. She said the mere fact that the Applicant had a lawyer send her a letter inviting her to get her own lawyer was an act of intimidation. “That’s a threat and that’s how I perceived it.”...
Many people think that hiring a lawyer is a "threat" when it in fact is allowed and recommended. To have such a reaction to someone getting legal advice often demonstrates the immaturity of the litigant in my opinion.

Hiring a lawyer is not a threat. Telling someone you will take them to court to resolve an issue is not a threat. They are all allowable under law and good ideas!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 03:51 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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
Default

Brilliant statement by Justice Pazaratz:

Quote:
273. The Respondent’s glib distancing of herself from this sad phone message highlights a fundamental concern about her sense of parental responsibility.

a. Parents are supposed to provide support for young children.
b. Not seek support.
c. They are there to provide reassurance. Confidence. Peace of mind.
d. Not seek an ally. Not manipulate the child into doing their bidding.
No need to elaborate on this... It is that well written!

Thank-you Justice Pazaratz!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 03:55 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,843
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Waste of a good judge IMO - must have been EXTREMELY boring for him.

I can't get myself to read the whole thing. Perhaps one Sunday morning sigh.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 04:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,890
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

I only read the custody stuff. Holy jumping.

Although I find it interesting about the name registrations and putting notes in the files to not share info and also the not giving dads name as the emergency contact. These are all things my partners ex has done over the last two years!!!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 04:18 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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
Default

Quote:
672. I feel I have sufficient information to make a final custody/access order which contemplates the aforementioned transitional circumstances.

673. It is in Paige’s best interests that a sole custody determination in favour of the Applicant be implemented immediately. It will be final, and unaffected by any changes in the Respondent’s residence or behaviour.
One wonders how much WorkingDad's current and ongoing issue impacted Pazaratz's decision to order this. It is a great thing to do but, one can only hope that when the next trial (which is coming) for WorkingDad a justice in Hamilton does this for him as well.

Quote:
680. Undoubtedly, the Respondent will be disappointed by her loss of custody. That chapter is now closed. Hopefully the Respondent will take it as a sobering warning about the consequences of obsessive and exclusionary parental behaviour.
Excellent!

Concluding comments run from para 759 to 764 - WORTH THE READ.

822 paragraphs folks... 822!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 04:18 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
I only read the custody stuff. Holy jumping.

Although I find it interesting about the name registrations and putting notes in the files to not share info and also the not giving dads name as the emergency contact. These are all things my partners ex has done over the last two years!!!
Did you read the mothballs stuff yet? I have heard of parents pulling stunts like this but, this Respondent mother takes the cake!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 04:20 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Waste of a good judge IMO - must have been EXTREMELY boring for him.

I can't get myself to read the whole thing. Perhaps one Sunday morning sigh.
He does address all the common nonsense that is in custody and access disputes and gives some real insight into how a judge evaluates the "evidence".

Attention to detail on this one is awesome. He lays it all out and demonstrates what not to do in a custody and access dispute. More importantly what will happen if you do it.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2016, 04:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,890
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Did you read the mothballs stuff yet? I have heard of parents pulling stunts like this but, this Respondent mother takes the cake!

All of it. That poor kid.

I wish cases like this were held up and publicized to better inform people that behaving in this manner results in losing more than money on lawyers. Parents who do this to their children should be charged!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Justice Craig Perkins of the Newmarket, Ontario court steps out of bounds as a judge logicalvelocity Political Issues 2 09-12-2011 07:28 AM
Ontario Justice Bruce Pugsley's recent comments in family court logicalvelocity Political Issues 7 09-22-2010 05:10 PM
Brampton, Ontario court officials continue to obstruct justice by misleading and misi logicalvelocity Political Issues 0 05-23-2010 08:31 AM
A long hello SillyMe Introductions 20 05-16-2008 12:30 PM
Justice Jack speak out about CAS interviews of children logicalvelocity Political Issues 0 02-28-2008 05:57 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:50 PM.