Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-18-2017, 02:42 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,217
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default Legal Aid and How much judges get paid

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...7onsc1609.html

Quote:
1. The next time anyone at Legal Aid Ontario tells you they’re short of money, don’t believe it. It can’t possibly be true. Not if they’re funding cases like this.
Now, that said, this case actually bothers me less than most legal aid cases, because at least both sides were getting represented for their pointless battle. It only really rankles me when one side gets legal aid and the other has to self-represent or go bankrupt.

Judge (Pazaratz) discloses his salary in the ruling. Any guesses? No points if you read the ruling first of course
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:26 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,351
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

are you kidding?

People who have never worked a day in Canada get themselves represented by Legal Aid Ontario not once but twice????? Living off of welfare for 5+years?????

Yep. Sucking the life out of our country's social welfare system.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,770
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
are you kidding?

People who have never worked a day in Canada get themselves represented by Legal Aid Ontario not once but twice????? Living off of welfare for 5+years?????

Yep. Sucking the life out of our country's social welfare system.
Infuriating isn't it? I'm all for helping people that need help but as someone who's worked there whole life (and pays the extreme taxes to prove it)...the amount of reward that's out there to incentivize people to be lazy and useless drives me crazy.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Kingston, ON
Posts: 161
Bellbaby is on a distinguished road
Default

This was a legal mess in itself (insurance, human rights at the workplace, etc)....

But I had a girl friend who had generalized anxiety disorder and was prone to (minor and very short term) depression. One day, she had a very bad thing happen to her plus a family situation that occurred. Her anxiety was out of control. I watched her go from having the occasional bouts to just being a mess and unable to even go through the steps to make herself a cup of tea.

She went off on workplace short then long term disability. In her plan, after three years without improvement there was some type of clause that they would no longer provide benefits. I guess it wasn't "true" long term benefits.

The girl could not work, she could barely function. And she is a really, truly nice person. Very responsible most of the time, prior to this incident that occurred. After 8 years of employment plus 3 years on disability, she was forced off benefit plan, fired from the workplace. Then she tried to get ODSP. Denied. Needless to say her mental health has gotten worse.

That's what gets me. And what are the chances of two relatively young people to be married and both be on ODSP. Maybe it's legit but seems pretty fishy to me. If it looks, swims and quacks like a duck...
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:24 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,351
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

^if the "very bad thing that happened to her" involved another person, and is well-documented, then is it possible your friend could take legal action?

Also, she could perhaps reapply for ODSP. It seems that the non-deserving people manage to work the system so they qualify. Maybe she simply completed the forms incorrectly or something else a lazy bureaucrat was unwilling to resolve? How does she survive?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:53 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,340
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 Janus View Post
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...7onsc1609.html



Now, that said, this case actually bothers me less than most legal aid cases, because at least both sides were getting represented for their pointless battle. It only really rankles me when one side gets legal aid and the other has to self-represent or go bankrupt.

Judge (Pazaratz) discloses his salary in the ruling. Any guesses? No points if you read the ruling first of course
I wish this would have happened.

Quote:
31. Pursuant to my duty to manage cases, after outlining my concerns I suggested that everyone should go out into the corridor to talk. To see if maybe they could reach a sensible resolution. To add motivation, I explained that if they didn’t come to their senses I would formally request that the Area Director of Legal Aid Ontario attend before me to justify the obscene expenditure of tax money on a simple case with such an obvious solution.

Source: Abdulaali v Salih, 2017 ONSC 1609 (CanLII), par. 31
http://canlii.ca/t/h1r0n#par31
I wish that he would have called the LAO Area Director before him to explain the stupidity. This is just insane. But, it isn't the first time Pazaratz has had to deal with the "wings" of Legal Aid Ontario.

I guess that Legal Aid Ontario didn't hear his previous call out to them to stop being stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazaratz
59. With Legal Aid tightening eligibility rules, it is likely that just about any litigant retaining counsel on a certificate will have trouble paying costs if they lose. But combining a “free lawyer” with a perceived immunity from costs is a dangerous mix. Dangerous for opposing litigants. Dangerous for children like Maxeem, whose lives are needlessly disrupted by bitter and unnecessary litigation. And dangerous for a Family Court system whose resources are already strained.

60. In the case at bar, the Applicant conducted herself as if her Legal Aid certificate amounted to a blank cheque – unlimited resources which most unrepresented Respondents would be hard-pressed to match. A scheduled 3-4 day trial turned into 17 days, largely because the Applicant fought every issue and pursued every dubious allegation, to the bitter end. She appeared to make up evidence and allegations as she went along. She defied court orders directly impacting on the child, even while the trial was underway. There have to be consequences. Either we sanction this irresponsible and destructive behaviour, or we invite more of the same.

61. Encouraging settlement and discouraging inappropriate behaviour by litigants is important in all litigation – but particularly in family law, and most particularly in custody cases. No litigant should perceive they have “wings” – the ability to say or do anything they want in court, without consequences.
http://canlii.ca/t/fpd0d

Legal Aid Ontario is a sham.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:56 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,340
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

Finally, I am surprised how little judges make. If you consider that these are the top-notch lawyers that were making 500-600 an hour billable generally. Taking a position as a judge would be a downgrade from the top tier legal billing rates. But, they do get a massive pension that pays them out their salary for the rest of their lives I think. So, maybe it works out in the long run for them?

I wouldn't want to be a judge. Especially for that little money. Its a nightmare.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:54 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,351
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

I used to golf regularly with two retired family court judges. Yes they have wonderful pensions but their lives are kind of shrouded cause they are perpetually known as "the judge." No anonymity whatsoever if they retire in the community where they practiced law. I used to find it rather amusing to see the ass-kissing of lawyers who encountered them on the golf course. Needless-to-say, we never had a problem "playing through." (going ahead of 4-some of golfers in front of us who were slow). On the other hand, if one of the judges in our group happen to want to take 10 minutes to look for a ball in the trees, NO ONE would dare object. Nope, if you were behind one of the "your honors" on the course, and they happened to be slow, then you knew you just had to suck it up. Same sort of deference was given to priests.

Last edited by arabian; 03-19-2017 at 08:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:53 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 21
number1dad has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Was on the news!

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...-decision.html

I can speak to Legal Aid Ontario based on personal experience. They never funded me with any certificate when I was on welfare because they claimed they had funded the other side. They said I would have to be a victim of domestic violence to qualify. That completely contradicts what happened here. Why they prejudice against a parent, is still unknown to me. I think both sides should most always be funded so that there is no prejudice. One lawyer can't work for two litigants. If you're going to fund one side, you better fund the other side as well.

So in my situation, we have 2 welfare parents in the courts, one with a legal aid lawyer and the other bent over backwards by Legal Aid Ontario. Here I am back in courts as a result. I honestly feel that Legal Aid Ontario creates more problems then it resolves.

Do you guys think the judge would have made the same order as the one in the minutes of settlement if it actually proceeded to a trial ?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:48 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,340
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 number1dad View Post
They never funded me with any certificate when I was on welfare because they claimed they had funded the other side.
This case may be different as one litigant lived in Hamilton and the other in London. The funding is to clinics and this matter would have been funded from two clinics. May have been a loop hole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1dad View Post
They said I would have to be a victim of domestic violence to qualify.
Popular excuse they give. But, how do they even prove that the other party that they are funding is a "victim"? Unless there is a criminal finding of such they shouldn't be using this clause. This is how WD's nightmare got legal aid funding probably. False allegations of domestic violence. What is even more concerning is that real victims are not getting funded because lunatics are lying and getting the funding. There is only so much to go around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1dad View Post
That completely contradicts what happened here. Why they prejudice against a parent, is still unknown to me.
Their intake process is flawed. That is why it happens. They don't vet their clients at all. They take everything on face value. Even when a client is a nutjob they still throw money at it. They need to pull more certificates from long-running family law matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1dad View Post
I think both sides should most always be funded so that there is no prejudice.
Or in the alternative, the funding that the other party is getting should be made public knowledge in accordance with Rule 13 of the FLR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1dad View Post
One lawyer can't work for two litigants. If you're going to fund one side, you better fund the other side as well.
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...ed-goar-15625/

The difficulty with the term "abuse": http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...ase-law-16809/

More ranting on LOA by me:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...ir-role-12946/

Quote:
Originally Posted by number1dad View Post
I honestly feel that Legal Aid Ontario creates more problems then it resolves.
I agree.

Good Luck!
Tayken
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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27 AM.