Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blanchard v. Walker - Cost

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blanchard v. Walker - Cost

    Hello All

    Blanchard v. Walker, 2012 ONCJ 799 (CanLII)

    Date: 2012-11-28
    Docket: D30888/03
    URL: CanLII - 2012 ONCJ 799 (CanLII)
    Citation: Blanchard v. Walker, 2012 ONCJ 799 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fvm6b>

    The mother who had no present ability to pay any costs was nevertheless ordered to pay $30,000 in costs. It is really a very excellent summary on the law of costs.

    Not to mention it refers to one case we all know by now

    WD

  • #2
    This is a great post!

    My ex has been ignoring all the judges' recommendations and is refusing very fair offers while we await trial. I always thought these actions were simply a delaying tactic knowing that she wouldn't be able to afford and therefore wouldn't be ordered to pay costs.

    This definitely puts my mind at ease as I'll be hiring a lawyer shortly to prepare for trial.

    Congrats!

    Comment


    • #3
      i appreciate the underlying EMOTION behind this.

      But will it ever be paid?

      My advice to people in this situation (yes, you too WD) is to simply accept the losses and move on.

      In your case WD, the loss could easily be forfeit for the other VERY considerable loss of relationship to your ex.

      It is a good idea to examine the opposite perspective.

      Right or wrong - that is what the other person fought for, and therefore actually believes is the right thing.

      Persaonally, thats a point of view I find to be more and more relevent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
        i appreciate the underlying EMOTION behind this.

        But will it ever be paid?

        My advice to people in this situation (yes, you too WD) is to simply accept the losses and move on.

        In your case WD, the loss could easily be forfeit for the other VERY considerable loss of relationship to your ex.

        It is a good idea to examine the opposite perspective.

        Right or wrong - that is what the other person fought for, and therefore actually believes is the right thing.

        Persaonally, thats a point of view I find to be more and more relevent.
        I respectfully disagree complicatedly with this one.
        WD

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
          My advice to people in this situation (yes, you too WD) is to simply accept the losses and move on.
          ....
          Right or wrong - that is what the other person fought for, and therefore actually believes is the right thing.

          Persaonally, thats a point of view I find to be more and more relevent.
          I don't understand this point of view. If ocl, cas, and judges all recommend one thing, and the ex still disagrees and forces it to trial, why shouldn't they have to pay for wasting time and money... Even if it is something they believe is right.

          The whole point is to avoid court and save time/money. Stubbornness should pay.
          That is fair and why costs are apart of the rules.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
            Hello All

            Blanchard v. Walker, 2012 ONCJ 799 (CanLII)

            Date: 2012-11-28
            Docket: D30888/03
            URL: CanLII - 2012 ONCJ 799 (CanLII)
            Citation: Blanchard v. Walker, 2012 ONCJ 799 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fvm6b>

            The mother who had no present ability to pay any costs was nevertheless ordered to pay $30,000 in costs. It is really a very excellent summary on the law of costs.

            Not to mention it refers to one case we all know by now

            WD
            Excellent order. Did anyone other than me notice the font they used for the posting? It is rather interesting choice of fonts. It looks like the Comic font.

            Edit: Just confirmed with cut-and-paste technology that it is "Comic Sans". I don't think CanLII probably intended for that one.

            More interesting than this is the reflex on the record to the main order that this costs one stems from that may be more interesting to the OP:

            http://canlii.ca/t/fvm6b

            [110] The mother shall not bring a motion to change the custody or access arrangements until she has become involved with a psychiatrist to assess her mental health issues and has followed up with any suggested medication and counselling.
            Never seen that kind of order in CanLII before. Not to say that there are not others. Just that I haven't seen one that someone could rely upon in a book of Authorities for an upcoming trial.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken
            Last edited by Tayken; 05-12-2013, 08:54 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
              i appreciate the underlying EMOTION behind this.

              But will it ever be paid?
              The real question to ask is... Will the court battles ever end? Costs are an extreme mechanism that often stops the highly conflicted litigants. In many cases though this doesn't work and they continue on the path of calling CAS, filing motions to file motions, calling the police, etc...

              So, the enforcement of a costs order is important as part of the tools that the courts impose on people when they are found to be acting in "bad faith".

              Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
              My advice to people in this situation (yes, you too WD) is to simply accept the losses and move on.
              But, those loses continue to stack in many cases. These highly conflicted people call CAS, police, have their children drink holy water at "supervised" visits, and continue to cost the justice systems thousands (and possibly 10s of thousands) of dollars.

              Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
              In your case WD, the loss could easily be forfeit for the other VERY considerable loss of relationship to your ex.
              If it was only that easy for many people. See my other post about the order that the justice made regarding the other parent found to be acting in good faith...

              Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
              It is a good idea to examine the opposite perspective.
              Unfortunately, for many whom have had to get extreme orders of protection like the resulting one from the example given they are dealing with a scope of conflict that is far beyond what most can truly understand. It crosses into the boundaries of having to have an order for psychological clearance potentially.

              Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
              Right or wrong - that is what the other person fought for, and therefore actually believes is the right thing.
              But, as we see in this example WO is that the parent in question was ordered to make no further motion in court until they have clearance from a psychologist. I really applaud the justice in putting that very controversial statement into the order in this matter and recognizing that the system of family law can't help that parent... only the medical system can.

              Originally posted by wretchedotis View Post
              Persaonally, thats a point of view I find to be more and more relevent.
              In the majority of cases yes, I would agree with you. We are on a fringe case though of extreme conflict requiring an order for the medical attention prior to the legal system becoming engaged again.

              Good Luck!
              Tayken

              Comment


              • #8
                From the original case:

                101. There will be no child support order for the mother to pay support, as she is currently on social assistance. It was not clear at trial if there were any arrears of child support owing by the father for the period when the child was with the mother. If there are, the father should not be unduly burdened with paying these arrears. The father will now have four children living with him, and all the children and his wife are now being supported on his one wage, and he will not be receiving any child support from the mother. An order for a modest monthly amount towards arrears (and the payment of this order) will also ensure that the Family Responsibility Office does not take enforcement measures regarding any arrears.
                So, the non-custodial mother doesn't have to pay any child support, but the custodial father has to pay arrears?

                Actually, the judgement is full of nonsense.

                b) The child attends school often in dishevelled clothing and in an unclean state. Jewel has told the teacher that she does not get a bath every day
                Horrors, neither do my kids.

                d) The mother’s family (the mother, Mr. Ellis, Jewel and Nancy) lives far below the poverty line. The unemployment of the mother and Mr. Ellis has contributed to their inadequate housing and food accessibility, as the children Jewel and Nancy are not supplied with nutritious foods
                Since when does poverty affect custody?

                Yeah, the mother could easily win a crappy parent of the year award, but the reasoning in this case is scary.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  So, the non-custodial mother doesn't have to pay any child support, but the custodial father has to pay arrears?
                  Actually, if you read the paragraph the justice doesn't know if the father has any arrears paying and sets out how they should be paid if there are any. In fact, the justice identifies that it should be done in a way that doesn't disadvantage the father who now is the custodial and primary residential parent.


                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  Horrors, neither do my kids.
                  The evidence being heard was regarding neglect. This is only one of the many paragraphs reviewing the evidence presented on neglect. So to focus on the one paragraph is a bit miss leading. The evidence from the various programs and compounding evidence to neglect is what determined the outcome. Not the single paragraph you highlighted.

                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  Since when does poverty affect custody?
                  It isn't about poverty it is about neglect. The parents neglected their responsibility to provide for their children. Even with the massive amount of assistance from government and other social services the child was not demonstrating a better outcome and behaviour and other issues were evident.

                  The justice leveraged the evidence of neglect and possible maltreatment of the child in question in the determination. Again, just one of more than a 100 paragraphs of a decision that should be read as a whole.

                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  Yeah, the mother could easily win a crappy parent of the year award, but the reasoning in this case is scary.
                  Scary? In that a child whom has had intervention has failed to thrive with the parent and that the OCL, other agencies and programs provided evidence that the parent in question was the source and that a change in custody and residence should happen?

                  What I find "scary" is that it took this long to get a proper change put in place to protect the children. What is really scary is that this was not brought forward by the CAS through the Family Services Act considering the evidence provided by the service providers, clinicians and teachers who were all saying the same thing. That is the really scary part... Not the order itself...

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken

                  Comment

                  Our Divorce Forums
                  Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                  Working...
                  X