Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice Pazarataz Does it Again!

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

  • 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)

    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

  • #2
    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"?

    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Something I have theorized on some people's reactions to getting a letter from a lawyer is materialized in para 99:

      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!

      Comment


      • #4
        Brilliant statement by Justice Pazaratz:

        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!

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              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!

              Comment


              • #8
                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!

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In Québec judges can limit the length of trials this would never happen here. It's ridiculous, 36 days....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        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.
                        Perhaps his decision will be used as a go-to manual for future judges. I really do appreciate his writing style.

                        I shudder to think of how much money this trial will have cost once all the final numbers are in. Neither of the parties would be considered large income earners.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Wow, that case gives me and other parents dealing with control freaks on here a list of what to watch out for in the future!

                          That poor little girl throwing up at exchanges breaks my heart!

                          S2 has been giving his mom and I the gears lately when I pick him with tears and choking, I know that's pretty normal for a toddler, but I sure hope my ex isn't getting him wound up before I arrive.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Great case, great judge, great judgement.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                              Something I have theorized on some people's reactions to getting a letter from a lawyer is materialized in para 99:


                              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!
                              Unfortunately, lawyers are trained to argue and, given what is often at stake, it is only natural that a lawyer's letter comes off as a threat. Lawyers have are there to represent their client, not to reach a "fair" or "just" solution. Considering what the courts can do to you, someone taking you to court is definitely a threat.

                              None of this is as it should be, especially in family law, but in our system, this is the reality.

                              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