Hello,
So I don't normally write about legal issues between myself and my ex on the internet, but I felt the need to publicize what happened as it was a complete miscarriage of justice that goes against all law and well known public policy.
Jirova v. Benincasa, 2018 ONSC 534
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8942hi4s1s...ncasa.pdf?dl=0
I went through a family arbitration in September 2016 - the decision was for the choice of school for my son Alexander. It was a choice between a school in the catchment area where I live and a school in an area where the mother WANTED to live. Further investigation revealed that the home the mother was using for residency in the alternate catchment area belonged to the boyfriend, whereas she had a 1% interest on title in the property. It was also revealed that the property was condemned and not habitable.
The Education Act (section 32(1) ) is what governs our school decisions -- this is what determines why your child attends a school in the area he lives and why schoolboards enforce this policy. This law was never applied at either hearing, yet we agreed to have this decision based on the laws of Ontario, as per our Arbitration Agreement.
The arbitration conducted by the arbitrator Janet Claridge ignored all rules of evidence and civil procedure - it was essentially a kangaroo court and evidence proves that. If you search for Janet Claridge on case law, you will see some interesting cases that come up. As well, she is not accredited by the OCSWSSW.
Some of these arbitration issues include:
* She signed (and had witnessed) a declaration, indicating that she did screening. The screening document was dated before any of the parties even met. Screening never did happen, but the arbitrator confirmed it happened after the declaration was signed.
*A psychological assessment had been conducted in 2015 by a well known psychologist in Ottawa. It indicated that the mother had a multitude of negative personality traits and documented credibility issues. The arbitrator would not allow this paper to be introduced in the arbitration and mediation.
* The arbitrator would not apply the laws under section 32(1) of the Education Act and stated in an email that she could register the child in any school that she wanted.
* An adjournment was requested when significant evidence was presented a day before arbitration. It was subsequently denied.
* Requests for a court reporter were denied
* The mother's partner was allowed to attend and participate in the hearing. Further, the arbitrator allowed the mother to take breaks during cross-examination to consult with her lawyer on the phone.
*Unsworn evidence was accepted.
*The arbitrator initially did not want to allow a hearing.
*New evidence was presented and accepted at the arbitration. Furthermore, this evidence was not given to the opposing party, nor were they allowed to examine it. This was all allowed by the arbitrator.
*Significant hearsay evidence was allowed by the mother.
*Furthermore, after the hearing, the mother's boyfriend provided further evidence that contradicted what was presented in the affidavits and the hearing. This was allowed by the arbitrator.
*The Arbitration Award was based entirely on speculation. There weren't any references to the Education Act or the Children's Law Reform Act. The criteria under the best interests test were not listed. The only words on it were appended to the end 'the best interest of the child.'
After the arbitration, I contacted the OCDSB schoolboard who confirmed that my son would normally not be able to attend that school, given that it was overpopulated, he wasn't living in the area and the home wasn't habitable. However, they had to follow the Court Order.
I appealed this to the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa.
The Arbitration Award itself was not based on any law whatsoever and was entirely speculative. Furthermore, expert evidence was presented by a well known psychologist that indicated the mother was highly manipulative and had credibility issues. Furthermore, the mother chose to represent herself at the Appeal and felt the need to wear a body suit and make gestures to simulate that she was about 6 months pregnant.
The Superior Court of Justice made the decision that because I agreed to that process (as part of my Court Order), I fundamentally gave up my rights and that I was treated fairly and equally in that regard. Furthermore, by confirming the Award, the decision goes against all known case law regarding schooling and public policy. Evidence was also submitted that the Arbitrator may have have committed fraud / perjury by signing a sworn (and witnessed declaration) saying she performed screening, before she even met the parties. The Judge stated that this was allowed. You can't sign ( and witness ) a document, stating you have done something, before you do it.
The Arbitrator never showed up, never submitted any Affidavits. Further, a request was made for her notes as per the Arbitration Act (a legal requirement) -- she never delivered these and the Judge never commented on this requirement.
Courts are pushing people towards Alternative Dispute Resolution in an attempt to remove people from a bogged down court system. Yet when something like this occurs, it casts a bad light and removes public faith in an already seemingly biased and prejudiced system. The provincial government also does not have a watchdog or grievance procedure for this process.
Beware of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes -- they do not have to follow the law, as the court will not back you up.
Once you sign your name, you give up all your rights.
One of the memorable quotes:
[79] I get the clear impression that the appellant and his counsel, during the arbitration portion of the PC process, insisted on a very strict adherence to the rules of procedure and evidence that one would expect in a court proceeding. Unfortunately for the appellant, that is not the dispute resolution process that he agreed to engage in.
The decision is enclosed for whoever wants to enjoy it.
I am debating what to do with this at the moment...
So I don't normally write about legal issues between myself and my ex on the internet, but I felt the need to publicize what happened as it was a complete miscarriage of justice that goes against all law and well known public policy.
Jirova v. Benincasa, 2018 ONSC 534
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8942hi4s1s...ncasa.pdf?dl=0
I went through a family arbitration in September 2016 - the decision was for the choice of school for my son Alexander. It was a choice between a school in the catchment area where I live and a school in an area where the mother WANTED to live. Further investigation revealed that the home the mother was using for residency in the alternate catchment area belonged to the boyfriend, whereas she had a 1% interest on title in the property. It was also revealed that the property was condemned and not habitable.
The Education Act (section 32(1) ) is what governs our school decisions -- this is what determines why your child attends a school in the area he lives and why schoolboards enforce this policy. This law was never applied at either hearing, yet we agreed to have this decision based on the laws of Ontario, as per our Arbitration Agreement.
The arbitration conducted by the arbitrator Janet Claridge ignored all rules of evidence and civil procedure - it was essentially a kangaroo court and evidence proves that. If you search for Janet Claridge on case law, you will see some interesting cases that come up. As well, she is not accredited by the OCSWSSW.
Some of these arbitration issues include:
* She signed (and had witnessed) a declaration, indicating that she did screening. The screening document was dated before any of the parties even met. Screening never did happen, but the arbitrator confirmed it happened after the declaration was signed.
*A psychological assessment had been conducted in 2015 by a well known psychologist in Ottawa. It indicated that the mother had a multitude of negative personality traits and documented credibility issues. The arbitrator would not allow this paper to be introduced in the arbitration and mediation.
* The arbitrator would not apply the laws under section 32(1) of the Education Act and stated in an email that she could register the child in any school that she wanted.
* An adjournment was requested when significant evidence was presented a day before arbitration. It was subsequently denied.
* Requests for a court reporter were denied
* The mother's partner was allowed to attend and participate in the hearing. Further, the arbitrator allowed the mother to take breaks during cross-examination to consult with her lawyer on the phone.
*Unsworn evidence was accepted.
*The arbitrator initially did not want to allow a hearing.
*New evidence was presented and accepted at the arbitration. Furthermore, this evidence was not given to the opposing party, nor were they allowed to examine it. This was all allowed by the arbitrator.
*Significant hearsay evidence was allowed by the mother.
*Furthermore, after the hearing, the mother's boyfriend provided further evidence that contradicted what was presented in the affidavits and the hearing. This was allowed by the arbitrator.
*The Arbitration Award was based entirely on speculation. There weren't any references to the Education Act or the Children's Law Reform Act. The criteria under the best interests test were not listed. The only words on it were appended to the end 'the best interest of the child.'
After the arbitration, I contacted the OCDSB schoolboard who confirmed that my son would normally not be able to attend that school, given that it was overpopulated, he wasn't living in the area and the home wasn't habitable. However, they had to follow the Court Order.
I appealed this to the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa.
The Arbitration Award itself was not based on any law whatsoever and was entirely speculative. Furthermore, expert evidence was presented by a well known psychologist that indicated the mother was highly manipulative and had credibility issues. Furthermore, the mother chose to represent herself at the Appeal and felt the need to wear a body suit and make gestures to simulate that she was about 6 months pregnant.
The Superior Court of Justice made the decision that because I agreed to that process (as part of my Court Order), I fundamentally gave up my rights and that I was treated fairly and equally in that regard. Furthermore, by confirming the Award, the decision goes against all known case law regarding schooling and public policy. Evidence was also submitted that the Arbitrator may have have committed fraud / perjury by signing a sworn (and witnessed declaration) saying she performed screening, before she even met the parties. The Judge stated that this was allowed. You can't sign ( and witness ) a document, stating you have done something, before you do it.
The Arbitrator never showed up, never submitted any Affidavits. Further, a request was made for her notes as per the Arbitration Act (a legal requirement) -- she never delivered these and the Judge never commented on this requirement.
Courts are pushing people towards Alternative Dispute Resolution in an attempt to remove people from a bogged down court system. Yet when something like this occurs, it casts a bad light and removes public faith in an already seemingly biased and prejudiced system. The provincial government also does not have a watchdog or grievance procedure for this process.
Beware of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes -- they do not have to follow the law, as the court will not back you up.
Once you sign your name, you give up all your rights.
One of the memorable quotes:
[79] I get the clear impression that the appellant and his counsel, during the arbitration portion of the PC process, insisted on a very strict adherence to the rules of procedure and evidence that one would expect in a court proceeding. Unfortunately for the appellant, that is not the dispute resolution process that he agreed to engage in.
The decision is enclosed for whoever wants to enjoy it.
I am debating what to do with this at the moment...
Comment