The Vanishing Act of Quality Independent Legal Advice Online

[rockscan]

There is an easy and straight forward recourse for getting child support paid by parent's who don't want to pay. Mind you, there are situations where child support is paid to mothers, yet fathers (on top of paying child support) pay for all things such as extra curricular activities, winter clothing/boots, school activities, etc. while the mother lives it up collecting money as though it belongs to her and not the child(ren).

Yes, you do sound like a fool, but we knew that in reading your posts.

In these instances I don't understand why dads just don't pay. Mom knows you are going to do it so why do it? Say no. Ignore. If it works for her it works for him. Kid won't suffer. Mom will get it through their head and do something.

If dad is going to be manipulated into doing it then he shouldn't complain.

[StillPaying]

Woe is me. Everything is so easy for you except being a man. A victim of your own soikemstance. I hope to be manly one day so court can target me instead of being fair. Fingers crossed I'll get to be a pushover loser too.

[DivorcedDad51]

...But this probably makes me sound like a fool since this scenario is already covered under the first 4 points.

There is an easy and straight forward recourse for getting child support paid by parent's who don't want to pay. Mind you, there are situations where child support is paid to mothers, yet fathers (on top of paying child support) pay for all things such as extra curricular activities, winter clothing/boots, school activities, etc. while the mother lives it up collecting money as though it belongs to her and not the child(ren).

Yes, you do sound like a fool, but we knew that in reading your posts.

[StillPaying]

Please add:
5. Mothers who are vindictive against the father and try to use the court system to hurt father by trying to deny parenting time or bankrupting them in legal costs.

Number 5 happens much more often than you think

Or 6. Fathers who are vindictive against the mother and try to use the court system to hurt mother by trying to deny her and kids their support.

Number 6 happens much more often than you think.

...But this probably makes me sound like a fool since this scenario is already covered under the first 4 points.

To be fair the stay-at-home spouse would have likely benefited from seeking legal counsel more quickly (initially). However, I would imagine that the challenge of legal representation without personal income complicated matters for them.
[/I]

No legal counsel was needed here - the Respondent simply had to file an answer and all his unnecessary troubles would have been averted.

I'm upset I lost my pity party groups and are now looking to recruit new members - the system isn't just against men, it's against everyone!

Unfortunately the lamenting continues...

[newerwavers]

What you possibly interpret is straight talk is possibly condescending. They "British Style" that most Barristers operate under "my friend" is condescending by nature.

If you can't take the condescending tone of 99% of Barristers and respective Justices who themselves were Barristers by profession then you should probably Solicit resolution through settlement. Court is not friendly nor is it a "safe place" for emotions.

Tayken,

I agree that legal communications, including interactions between lawyers, often involve a certain "horse and pony show" with potentially some elements of subtle condescension, passive aggressiveness, and even threats—this much seems to be part of the professional territory--and is something that needs to be learned when going pro-se. What confuses me, however, is when this behavior seems to degenerate into what could be described as elementary school-level name-calling. Phrases like "You're upset you lost your pity party groups and are now looking to recruit new members - the system isn't just against men, it's against everyone!" seem to veer away from professional decorum into childish personal attack territory and I would argue would not fly in court.

[newerwavers]

Hey StillPaying have you seen this recent case law from Justice Pazaratz. Its quite good.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...4onsc1755.html

)

Thanks for the link good read Tayken. God bless Pazaratz.

Summarizing it:

One spouse, the sole earner who traveled for work over ten times a year, gets primary custody, gets child support, gets the family home, and and has spousal support requirements waived. The other spouse, after a decade as a stay-at-home parent, is kicked out from the home and resorts to sleeping on an air mattress at their sister's place.

Justice Pazaratz later corrects the matter of spousal support.

To be fair the stay-at-home spouse would have likely benefited from seeking legal counsel more quickly (initially). However, I would imagine that the challenge of legal representation without personal income complicated matters for them.

[DivorcedDad51]

Slight modification and I agree with StillPaying on points provided already in this thread.

"it's against everyone"...

I would change this statement to:

"it's against bitter angry parents who attempt to use the system to get what they *believe* is justice"

Those being:

1. Mothers who believe that they are primary caregivers by default;
2. Fathers who believe the system is against them;
3. Parents who believe that their interests are more important than those of the children and their rights;
4. Parents who do not truly understand the "best interests" test and cannot put their children first.

Please add:
5. Mothers who are vindictive against the father and try to use the court system to hurt father by trying to deny parenting time or bankrupting them in legal costs.

Number 5 happens much more often than you think

[StillPaying]

The "British Style" that most Barristers operate under "my friend" is condescending by nature.

I still remember early on being nervous at a motion, studying the lawyers going up before me, then copying them referring to the respondent as "my friend" - Timms J. chewed me out saying "that's your wife - not your friend."

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...4onsc1755.html

The mother’s lament that she never approved her partner’s dependency would likely resonate with many male support payors who advance the same faint submission
...

Further evidence in support of the argument that the system works. Hopefully this case law will resonate with the male posters in this and other threads on this forum who lament about the system and conduct of the other party in these matters.

It's written so well to show regardless of gender the laws remain true. And that the system works!

1. Respondent ignored the application so the system gave the Applicant everything she wanted. Extreme but effective.

(Respondent was severely affected by this - but it all would have been avoided if he submitted an Answer.)

2. Respondent learnt the importance of not ignoring court, wanted to partake, and so the previous orders were overturned. This was fair and just given his situation.

3. At a motion - interimly, Applicant was ordered to pay spousal, Respondent had their imputted income and cs stopped, and Mat home sold.

4. Both parties cared for the kids, making this case simple to see that the proper outcome was made. It's emotions driving these cases to court - and yet a motion was done a few months after the application filed and trial is already booked within 2 years.

It may suck to have to go through it but the system works; man or woman - rich or poor.

[InsideOut]

You give Legal Aid too much credit. 99% of certificates won't get you past your first motion these days let alone to trial. The wings have been clipped. Also the financial requirements for LAO are so awful now that even people making 20k won't get anything. Most LAO stuff now is forced settlement and the hands of the LAO lawyer are cuffed hard to resolve and compromise as to not risk further Judicial criticism like Justice Pazaratz has unleashed on them.

The days of blaming LAO are over. At best there is only enough in a certificate for two (2) LAO settlement conferences and everything has to have an allegation of DV attached to it now and yet those files have little to no funds. As well, the # of lawyers willing to take on a client with a LAO certificate has drop SIGNIFICANTLY. Try and find a lawyer who will take a LAO certificate. Few and far between today.

Furthermore, a party that has sufficient funding for very competent legal advice (Barrister) will drown a lawyer taking a LAO certificate to the point that it will drain out fast. Ultimately, the majority of LAO clients are left unrepresented if they try to go to trial.

Trial assessment process for LOA is awful.

See some basics on how restricted getting a certificate is these days:

https://www.legalaid.on.ca/wp-conten...ervices-EN.pdf

In that link you can find the sub-links to the tests. They are awful these days. All updated after the "wings" were "clipped".

I think what happens is that the litigants end up unrepresented by the LAO lawyer ahead of trial; then a trial focused lawyer swoops them up and takes them to trial on a case that should have clearly settled ahead of trial.

One Toronto lawyer I know, has 3 or 4 trials running in parallel during each trial sitting. All orphaned litigants he's picked up last minute.

The litigants get the money from a family member refinancing a home or giving a loan.

The problem in these situations is the litigant.

[Tayken]

You give Legal Aid too much credit. 99% of certificates won't get you past your first motion these days let alone to trial. The wings have been clipped. Also the financial requirements for LAO are so awful now that even people making 20k won't get anything. Most LAO stuff now is forced settlement and the hands of the LAO lawyer are cuffed hard to resolve and compromise as to not risk further Judicial criticism like Justice Pazaratz has unleashed on them.

The days of blaming LAO are over. At best there is only enough in a certificate for two (2) LAO settlement conferences and everything has to have an allegation of DV attached to it now and yet those files have little to no funds. As well, the # of lawyers willing to take on a client with a LAO certificate has drop SIGNIFICANTLY. Try and find a lawyer who will take a LAO certificate. Few and far between today.

Furthermore, a party that has sufficient funding for very competent legal advice (Barrister) will drown a lawyer taking a LAO certificate to the point that it will drain out fast. Ultimately, the majority of LAO clients are left unrepresented if they try to go to trial.

Trial assessment process for LOA is awful.

See some basics on how restricted getting a certificate is these days:

https://www.legalaid.on.ca/wp-conten...ervices-EN.pdf

In that link you can find the sub-links to the tests. They are awful these days. All updated after the "wings" were "clipped".

As an FYI now you have to exhaust RRSP prior to getting a LAO certificate. In the VAST majority of high-income earning partnerships there are RRSPs on both sides to do tax deferrals. In one case in Ontario a litigant failed to disclose their very large RRSP got a certificate and was whacked hard for doing so. They had to pay back LAO the full value and at the lawyer's bill rate not the LAO rate! As well, that lawyer can no longer take certificates. :O

[InsideOut]

Clearly you have not read enough case law. I would start with Justice Quinn and then move on to Justice Pazaratz, Justice Mossip, Justice Cztrin, and then Justice Chappel. What you possibly interpret is straight talk is possibly condescending. They "British Style" that most Barristers operate under "my friend" is condescending by nature.

If you can't take the condescending tone of 99% of Barristers and respective Justices who themselves were Barristers by profession then you should probably Solicit resolution through settlement. Court is not friendly nor is it a "safe place" for emotions.

The statement you quoted from my post is still accurate. Even if I have not read as much case law.

The implication that my willingness to acknowledge how condescending language impacts people is because I have not been desensitized to condescending language used by judges does not follow.

The discussion is about the language on this forum… not the language of a Judge.

Also, I note that you just pivoted from 'the language is not all that bad' to 'the conversations are straight talk and condescending because they are British style'...

[Tayken]

I don't think it's even the one with the larger coffer. It's the one with more potential at trial for a large financial transaction.

You give Legal Aid too much credit. 99% of certificates won't get you past your first motion these days let alone to trial. The wings have been clipped. Also the financial requirements for LAO are so awful now that even people making 20k won't get anything. Most LAO stuff now is forced settlement and the hands of the LAO lawyer are cuffed hard to resolve and compromise as to not risk further Judicial criticism like Justice Pazaratz has unleashed on them.

The days of blaming LAO are over. At best there is only enough in a certificate for two (2) LAO settlement conferences and everything has to have an allegation of DV attached to it now and yet those files have little to no funds. As well, the # of lawyers willing to take on a client with a LAO certificate has drop SIGNIFICANTLY. Try and find a lawyer who will take a LAO certificate. Few and far between today.

Furthermore, a party that has sufficient funding for very competent legal advice (Barrister) will drown a lawyer taking a LAO certificate to the point that it will drain out fast. Ultimately, the majority of LAO clients are left unrepresented if they try to go to trial.

Trial assessment process for LOA is awful.

See some basics on how restricted getting a certificate is these days:

https://www.legalaid.on.ca/wp-conten...ervices-EN.pdf

In that link you can find the sub-links to the tests. They are awful these days. All updated after the "wings" were "clipped".

[Tayken]

What's wrong with asking specific questions as they arise throughout the case? Even if you outted yourself, what's the issue and why care what OC thinks?

You're completely misunderstanding how to use case law the way you speak of it...

You're describing the old traditional marriage, where 1 has an income and the other makes little to no money. In your example, whoever keeps the assets will make the equalization payment - and cs + ss would be paid. With the new generation, both are high earners.

At the end of the day, there's no difference though. The rules and laws are the same regardless of income or behaviour. Assets/debts will be split, cs paid, and possibly ss. It's the same for everyone. Either side can fight for more and push trial.

The system is quite helpful to everyone except "it's against bitter angry parents who attempt to use the system to get what they *believe* is justice". Facts!

Hey StillPaying have you seen this recent case law from Justice Pazaratz. Its quite good.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...4onsc1755.html

21.(k) speaks to what we have been collectively saying in this thread sort of with regards to lamenting. But, its interesting as he flipped the table on the "male" tone as a female was trying to "lament" about a father and his right to SS.

k. I find that for purposes of an interim order the father has established an entitlement to spousal support, both on (obviously) non-compensatory and also compensatory grounds. The mother’s lament that she never approved her partner’s dependency would likely resonate with many male support payors who advance the same faint submission. It is of little utility to dwell on different choices each party might have made during their relationship. We have to address the financial reality of how things actually turned out. And in this case, during their lengthy cohabitation the parties’ lives evolved in a manner which arguably created an advantage for the mother, and most certainly an economic disadvantage and vulnerability for the father.

Further evidence in support of the argument that the system works. Hopefully this case law will resonate with the male posters in this and other threads on this forum who lament about the system and conduct of the other party in these matters.

Hi Justice Pazaratz. We all know you read this forum. Sorry I haven't gotten to posting stuff. (For those who are not aware Justice Pazaratz does read this forum in his spare time. I had the privilege of being in his court room randomly observing when he admitted this openly in proceeding I was auditing. LOL)

[Tayken]

I would say good advice given in a condescending manner discourages (some) people from posting. Makes others get their back up….

Clearly you have not read enough case law. I would start with Justice Quinn and then move on to Justice Pazaratz, Justice Mossip, Justice Cztrin, and then Justice Chappel. What you possibly interpret is straight talk is possibly condescending. They "British Style" that most Barristers operate under "my friend" is condescending by nature.

If you can't take the condescending tone of 99% of Barristers and respective Justices who themselves were Barristers by profession then you should probably Solicit resolution through settlement. Court is not friendly nor is it a "safe place" for emotions.

[InsideOut]

You're completely misunderstanding how to use case law the way you speak of it...

Can you please explain how you got to this conclusion? What specifically have I mentioned about case law that led you to this conclusion?