Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (
-   Divorce & Family Law (
-   -   Markham Ambert Alert Appears to Be False Allegation by Parent (

HammerDad 03-20-2019 05:01 PM


Originally Posted by Janus (Post 234651)
To be clear, I know there are some minor consequences, but by "actual consequences" I mean "consequences that provide some sort of deterrent value".

I'm willing to bet the BIL's wife didn't spend two nights in jail :). Many years ago, I would happily have paid a fine to send my ex to jail for a night or two. I'd still be happy with her in jail, but I would no longer pay for it.

well, I wouldn't pay that much

From what I was told she was sentenced to a handful of weekends in jail. The weekends were scheduled so that they landed on my BIL's parenting time with their kid.

She was a piece of work for sure.

That kid sure did suffer thanks to the protracted litigation. 8 or so years, hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the kid is a mess now.

Tayken 03-20-2019 10:16 PM


Originally Posted by Janus (Post 234647)
The mom caused an amber alert. That's about as public as it can possibly get. He needs to defend himself publicly, it needs to be in the paper. If the mother did indeed make this up she is going to be spinning stories like it is going out of style. The dad needs some newspaper reports so that when the daughter looks this up ten years from now, she can understand the truth.

That said, this is still early. The mom put her story out there, the dad is putting out this version, and perhaps we will find out which is accurate shortly :)

I suspect the Honourable Mr. Justice Quinn would agree with your statement Janus as he is often quoted saying:


Originally Posted by Pazaratz
80. As Justice Quinn recently commented in a footnote in Stirling v. Blake 2013 ONSC 5216 (CanLII):

When parties involve police in their access disputes, they might as well climb onto the roof of their house, straddle the peak, and, with outreached arms, proclaim to the heavens that they have failed as parents and as human beings.”

Source: Patterson v. Powell, 2014 ONSC 1419 (CanLII), par. 80,

Found in:

Patterson v. Powell, 2014 ONSC 1419 (CanLII)
Date: 2014-03-05
File number: D915/12
Other citations: 44 RFL (7th) 458; [2014] WDFL 1940; [2014] CarswellOnt 2627; [2014] OJ No 985 (QL); 238 ACWS (3d) 912
Citation: Patterson v. Powell, 2014 ONSC 1419 (CanLII),

Which is a very well cited case for police enforcement clauses. I believe that I reviewed this caselaw on this site.

Good Luck!

Tayken 03-20-2019 10:57 PM

Custody and access orders or agreements are civil law. Unless the courts specifically order the police to act in the matter they can't do much. Under the CLRA the father has joint custody and has every right to pickup his child from school.

This matter is significantly different than the previous and very unfortunate one. Do not mix the two matters. In that matter their was an access order, the parent called the other parent and made very direct comments that lead to the amber alert. There was evidence and an access order was in violation. This case had NONE of those elements.

The problem that leads to the delays in parental child abductions is rooted in the Criminal Code of Canada section 282 and 283 respectively. 282 is for situations of parental abduction when there is no custody and access order / agreement in place. 283 is when there IS a custody and access order in place.

A good review of how it all works can be found here:


and here

I remind everyone that this kind of conduct is actually recognized by the courts, as far back as 1990 as "common".

R. v. McDougall (C.A.), 1990 CanLII 6788 (ON CA)
Date: 1990-12-19
Other citations: 1 OR (3d) 247; 42 OAC 223; 3 CR (4th) 112; 62 CCC (3d) 174; [1990] OJ No 2343 (QL)
Citation: R. v. McDougall (C.A.), 1990 CanLII 6788 (ON CA),


The events leading to the charges against the appellant in February 1988 are all too familiar to persons who have had to deal with family break-ups and the bitter disputes which occur between separated spouses.
As well the court also has dealt with the no-return-phone-call and has explicitly said:


Common sense and decency would dictate that the appellant should have called Caroline McDougall on Monday morning to tell her of his plans, since he had not heard from her on the previous evening. Unfortunately, neither common sense nor decency are always in good supply when parents are having custody and access disputes.
It is important to note that criminal charges for "abduction"...

Quote: not aimed at parents who refuse to act in a responsible and co-operative manner in the administration of the terms of a custody order. It targets parents who abduct their children...
The Justice concludes with:


It is very common in custody and access disputes that each parent feels terribly wronged and makes the most serious allegations against the other. It is not the usual case that all of the fault is one one side. More often, both parties have acted from time to time in a spiteful or vindictive fashion. A criminal prosecution is not the appropriate means of settling accounts or obtaining an advantage in a long and ongoing unpleasant custody or access dispute. Criminal prosecutions cannot become a weapon in the arsenal of parties to acrimonious family disputes. Conduct which is mean, petty, uncooperative, and spiteful is not the stuff of the criminal law. The abduction of children is. It is important that a crime created to punish the latter not become a means of responding to the former.
I have linked the guidelines ("MODEL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION CHARGING GUIDELINES - OCTOBER/98") on how 282 and 283 should be applied. I note that they have not been updated since 1988!

The challenge is that both sections of the CCC fail is that for both charges to be laid requires for both:


Consent required

(2) No proceedings may be commenced under subsection (1) without the consent of the Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose.
If we want to solve these problems in Ontario with parental disputes we need to have special constables and a major update to the Children's Law Reform Act and the Child and Family Services Act that gives these constables the ability to act in these matters quickly and in an appropriate way.

Most of the educated parental abductors know the law and can get away with it. For example:

As many of you might not recall. Steven Watkins was a member of this forum for a while. He raised his concerns about child abduction possibilities and solid evidence. Courts wouldn't listen. Mother ran with the kids to Poland.

No parent, who has legal custody of their child should have guns drawn at them in a public place. The police should have realized when they pulled up to the restaurant that there wasn't an issue. It would have been much better if a constable went in. Talked to him and sorted things out.

The other issue lies in the fact that a parent can lie about there being a custody and access order. The police, CAS, etc... Have no public system to check up the record to see if a parent is lying. This whole fiasco is a complete systemic failure. The court system is terribly out of date. Court orders should be visible to the police and CAS. They shouldn't have to request them from parents. There should be a provision that all orders and agreements have to be registered with CPIC.

Had the police had access to the information that wasn't actually there. They would have probably totally handled this situation quite differently.

Also, this is the first time I have ever heard of a parent abducting a child in a taxi in Canada. I have read a lot. That should have been a tip-off for the cops to not go in all guns blazing.

A properly trained constable who focuses on family law and family situations would have known that the pattern of behaviour of the parent was not that of an abductor. There are common models for evaluating this stuff. None of them were applied.

Good Luck!

Tayken 03-20-2019 11:03 PM

Also, it is VERY COMMON for police to be called when the other parent doesn't answer their phone. If a parent is this anxious to call the police to report a child missing and elaborate (lie?) a story to get this level of intervention. Imagine how many times they called and texted the parent. The parent in this matter probably has been bombarded with communications.

To this day, a famous poster on this site, despite having sole custody and majority access where the other parent has supervised access 2 hours on Sundays every-other-week at a centre, gets 3-4 our family wizard messages from the other parent. This parent I note called the police and CAS consistently. That parent was found by the court to have been plotting to abduct the child!

It is very sad for the child that all this happened. This will not bold well for the parent who made the accusations should matters land in court.

rockscan 03-21-2019 07:32 AM

I watched another news story on it last night and the store owner of the place he was in when the police arrived said he had come in because his phone was dead and his car wouldn’t start. She contacted the police when she recognized him.

If anything this opens up a broader discussion on divorced parents using the police unreasonably. They called in the helicopter. How many resources and tax dollars did they waste? If I lived there I would be pissed.

YoungDad23 03-21-2019 10:34 AM


Originally Posted by Tayken (Post 234658)
I suspect the Honourable Mr. Justice Quinn would agree with your statement Janus as he is often quoted saying:

Found in:

Patterson v. Powell, 2014 ONSC 1419 (CanLII)
Date: 2014-03-05
File number: D915/12
Other citations: 44 RFL (7th) 458; [2014] WDFL 1940; [2014] CarswellOnt 2627; [2014] OJ No 985 (QL); 238 ACWS (3d) 912
Citation: Patterson v. Powell, 2014 ONSC 1419 (CanLII),

Which is a very well cited case for police enforcement clauses. I believe that I reviewed this caselaw on this site.

Good Luck!

Great Post Tayken! I will be filing that one away in my reference materials.

ifonlyihadknown 03-21-2019 10:59 AM


Originally Posted by iona6656 (Post 234638)
You know what we do know? That this idiot is dragging his kids mother in the news and over social media. If you did nothing wrong- then sit the hell down and shut up about it. Save it in your back pocket to show the courts (which no doubt will be involved) how irrational the mother is.

I have no problem with the father trying to salvage his reputation, especially if this was the case of a vengeful mother using the police as a weapon against him.

Here's an example of the articles that went out earlier naming the father and including a very unflattering mugshot-like photo.

"The father was not supposed to have access to his daughter, police said." Apparently this was false. What made the police think he didn't have access? Why didn't they verify this before issuing the amber alert.

Even the articles after the truth was known had headlines saying that "he wouldn't be charged."

The father has been seriously defamed by this whole incident and their daughter had to see the police arrest her father. If I was the father, I would be screaming my innocence from the rafters!

failed@life 03-21-2019 12:39 PM

When I got the alert, I looked it up and saw the articles. I immediately texted my spouse and we commented on the photo, how he looked like a psycho etc... With the unfortunate tragedy of the previous amber alert still fresh, based on that photo alone we both mentally labeled him in a way. I'm sure we are not alone.

Amber alert ends, tragedy averted, no extra thought goes into it. Had I not visited this forum today I would not have known any of the specifics about this matter. The girl was found safe and that was it. If someone were to mention anything to me about it at a later time, the first thing that would pop in my head would be that photo.

I would absolutely be doing the same thing as him if it were me. An alert was sent to who knows how many people, many of whom would judge him based on the initial media reports alone.

sahibjee 03-21-2019 08:33 PM

for those who actually care about justice, this is being shared

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 AM.