Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Royal Road To Trial

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

  • You could be right Arabian. Perhaps LAO has suggested .. hey try settling this to ex (especially after the first motion).

    Its just a piss off that ex has no rules.

    MIP for instance...

    Mandatory: Definition:
    authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory:
    So why is she just able to skip it and its all good for her?

    Comment


    • My overall take on family law is that it's "loosey goosey" and exists so that the rules can be broken. No penalty for lying. No penalty for not adhering to deadlines. No penalty for not obeying court orders (forget contempt - that's another whole trial action unto itself).

      Once one is in the court process it seems to be a minimum 2 - 3 year process, particularly if child custody is involved, and that is just the start of things. All these endless case-conferences/settlement conferences/trial conferences just drag things out. In the end it's the little man/woman in the black robe who makes the decision unless everyone can settle things on their own. The road to trial is expensive.

      I realize all the conferences are supposed to be for narrowing the issues. I think that there should be a process where a person can opt to skip all of the conferences and go right to trial and instead pay an up-front court fee of 2k a day or something. If you had to pay 10k a week + your lawyer's fees I bet people would save money in the end and get through everything alot sooner.

      Just a thought.

      Comment


      • Research reasons given by Judges to dump cases or make orders under the Family Law Rules..Primary Objective.

        here's one of many cases

        https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/do...&resultIndex=5

        The OP activities at the Motion has pretty much put you back in a loop whereas 2014 SC rejected a OCL update but OP decided they still wanted one

        Round and round you go and all that was required was doing some more access.

        I wrote earlier on Summary Judgments or a Judge siezing the file and I suggested that because there is basically no reason for a Trial

        the secret recordings are banished....you don't have a criminal record with D.V...you passed drug tests...the first OCL was given the boot...goldilocks made up the allegations after she took off......whats left for a Trial?

        on top of it there has been more than half a year of access.

        LAO scumbag is at fault here pandering to his clients stories, at least in your future briefs you can request the Primary Objectives be invoked awarding you custody

        The upcoming SC Judge may be ripe for that once she is brought up to speed on OP recent antics twisting her words.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
          the secret recordings are banished....you don't have a criminal record with D.V...you passed drug tests...the first OCL was given the boot...goldilocks made up the allegations after she took off......whats left for a Trial?
          Good points. Seizing the file would make sense.
          I can prove I was an equal primary caregiver.

          I can prove I promote max. contact ..(ex can't).

          I took parenting after divorce classes. (Ex is having troubles parenting -- behaviors).

          Allegations squashed .. (but she still lives in the past and makes new ones-->High conflict)

          Arabian .. I like your "loosey goosey" take on family law. Made me smile.

          To continue on Mr. T's suggestion of further analysis of the Primary Objectives..in the caselaw he posts above https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/do...15oncj360.html

          I thought I'd outline the here:
          In addressing this issue of the most expeditious way to resolve legal issues without protracted litigation, rule 2 and subrule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, as amended (the “rules”) are worthy of consideration.
          [11] Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules outlines the primary objective of the Rules and how the primary objective is to be achieved:

          (2) Primary objective.— The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2(2).


          (3) Dealing with cases justly.— Dealing with a case justly includes,

          (a)ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;

          (b)saving expense and time;

          (c)dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and

          (d)giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2(3).

          (4) Duty to promote primary objective.—

          The court is required to apply these rules to promote the primary objective, and parties and their lawyers are required to help the court to promote the primary objective. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2(4).

          (5) Duty to manage cases.—

          The court shall promote the primary objective by active management of cases, which includes,


          (a) at an early stage, identifying the issues, and separating and disposing of those that do not need full investigation and trial;

          (b) encouraging and facilitating use of alternatives to the court process;

          (c) helping the parties to settle all or part of the case;

          (d) setting timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case;

          (e) considering whether the likely benefits of taking a step justify the cost;

          (f) dealing with as many aspects of the case as possible on the same occasion; and

          (g) if appropriate, dealing with the case without parties and their lawyers needing to come to court, on the basis of written documents or by holding a telephone or video conference. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2(5).

          [12] Subrule 1(8.2) of the rules requires the court to consider whether there is a proportionate, expeditious and less expensive means to achieve an end result in any litigation:

          (8.2) Document that may delay or is inflammatory, etc.— The court may strike out all or part of any document that may delay or make it difficult to have a fair trial or that is inflammatory, a waste of time, a nuisance or an abuse of the court process. O. Reg. 322/13, s. 1.
          OP wants to do the Hokey Pokey around the Primary Objectives. Judges will surely see this.

          This was also a good read:
          http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...&resultIndex=7
          Judge recognizes false status quo ... drug/alcohol false allegations, etc.
          Last edited by LovingFather32; 07-30-2015, 06:47 PM.

          Comment


          • My ex didn't attend MIP either. No one asked about it at all. When I asked my lawyer about it, he said not to worry because judges wouldn't care and would focus on the big issues.

            What is it that you want LF that you do not already have?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by arabian View Post
              I realize all the conferences are supposed to be for narrowing the issues. I think that there should be a process where a person can opt to skip all of the conferences and go right to trial and instead pay an up-front court fee of 2k a day or something.
              lol .. totally Arabian. That would make things a bit easier for parties who don't use conferences appropriately ... like OP in my case. Cut to the chase.

              Comment


              • yes what IS left for a trial?

                Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
                ...

                The OP activities at the Motion has pretty much put you back in a loop whereas 2014 SC rejected a OCL update but OP decided they still wanted one

                Round and round you go and all that was required was doing some more access.

                I wrote earlier on Summary Judgments or a Judge siezing the file and I suggested that because there is basically no reason for a Trial

                the secret recordings are banished....you don't have a criminal record with D.V...you passed drug tests...the first OCL was given the boot...goldilocks made up the allegations after she took off......whats left for a Trial?

                on top of it there has been more than half a year of access.

                LAO scumbag is at fault here pandering to his clients stories, at least in your future briefs you can request the Primary Objectives be invoked awarding you custody

                The upcoming SC Judge may be ripe for that once she is brought up to speed on OP recent antics twisting her words.

                money... who pays the larger proportion of CS.... who gets to call the shots with regards to school (kid goes to school then mom has to to get a job and BINGO income is imputed); medical decision-making.... and Where the kid will reside - Ontario or Quebec (who has to do the driving).

                Comment


                • I get D4 again on Monday for a full 7 days. I can't wait. Miss my lil' girl. Have lot's of fun plans in store.

                  I can't wait for that run in to my arms "daddddyyyy!!". Just thinking about it gives me butterflies in my stomach.

                  On sidenote, my ex is still refusing to provide any info on playgroup times, locations...and the special events they hold, which I wouldn't mind attending.

                  I'm just glad I get to see her and do fun family things all week.

                  EDIT: btw ... here's another interesting motion that kind of mirrors my case. Wonder how it will end up in trial.
                  http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...&resultIndex=2
                  Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-01-2015, 07:58 PM.

                  Comment


                  • I would like some input on the topic of "holding OP's statement's accountable".

                    I was going through the CC transcripts and the LAO lawyer had this to say:
                    These are LAO's actual words in court, syllable for syllable!
                    With respect to access, I get the feeling that this is going to have to go to a motion, and part of the evidence of that motion will be this drug and alcohol test; they will be the factor which determines which party here is telling the truth in many ways.
                    So I went and got one voluntarily and illustrated that I was completely clean.
                    This was the only substantial issue for access at this time (Substance Abuse).

                    So did LAO just say that I a telling the truth in many ways .. and his client is not?

                    Pretty RELEVANT stuff here!

                    Oh .. and in case posters like ONdaddy require a refresher .. OCL was ordered because of material change in circumstances .. generous access, new home, family, etc. Not because of delays. Some ppl are so silly. Cute assumption though! lol

                    Also ONDaddy .. Im not sure posters want to hear about how you didnt attend your MIP.

                    Your credibility on this forum is questionable to say the least.

                    Nobody comes home, finds their faimly missing, goes to the police, goes to court, fills out all the paperwork, goes to an EM, has the police go to a shelter to forcefully remove the children from their mother's care .. ALL IN THE SAME DAY THAT THEY WERE FOUND MISSING.

                    You clearly haven't been through this. Because the above is in fact impossible.
                    Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-02-2015, 01:27 PM.

                    Comment


                    • My thought about "determining which party is telling the truth" is that her lawyer bought her claim about drug use and sloppily assumed you would test positive.

                      It's a great statement to use in future paperwork for court though!

                      Comment


                      • That is incredibly fast OntarioDaddy.

                        Is it safe to assume a) you are female and b) you had an amber alert?

                        Comment


                        • So did the police advise you to go to court? If not then how did you know to take the steps you did? I would think that you would have been a) worried about your kids but b) leery of going up against "the system" (false accusations) without a lawyer.

                          I find that it sometimes depends upon the officers who are involved at the time and whether or not you already have a lawyer.

                          Comment


                          • Sorry I haven't read all of your posts but did the abduction ever get addressed and/or affect your custody? Is custody resolved in your situation?

                            Comment


                            • I recall my ex did much better in bending the rules and houskeeping matters when he was self-represented and judges overlooked many things. Playing stupid paid off.

                              So since the time your ex abducted the kids to trial how long did it take?

                              Comment


                              • Wow that's a long time (almost 4 years). Did you end up with shared custody or did you get the EOW ?

                                Hopefully everything is concluded now (or is it ever in family law?).

                                I know if I never see another courtroom I will be very, very happy.

                                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