Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/index.php)
-   Domestic Violence (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Another landmark DV case (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23996)

Stillbreathing 05-21-2022 05:49 PM

Another landmark DV case
 
There is an article in the Globe and Mail today that reads:

Supreme Court says one incident of family violence may justify child’s relocation in divorce cases.

It involved a BC mother who had shared parenting with the father of their 6 and 8 year old children. After an incident of domestic violence she was allowed to relocate 10 hours away despite the fact they previously has shared parenting!

The father appealed and lost!

The judge was justice Andromache Karaktsansis.
The mother’s lawyer was Darius Bosse
And the father’s lawyer was Georgialee Lay. There was no direct link to Canlii but maybe one of you sleuths can find it.

This makes the second Landmark divorce case finally in favour of domestic violence victims. Perhaps there is hope for the court system after all!

iona6656 05-25-2022 11:40 AM

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ustify-childs/

and here is the SCC case:

https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-...Barendregt.pdf

bottom line: Keep your hands to yourself.

It's the first thing they teach you in kindergarten no?

Edited to add: Just finished reading the decision- it's major in that it validates that abuse can go beyond physical. Controlling behaviour- continued animosity.

rockscan 05-25-2022 11:49 AM

I missed this thread. I posted the case in the other DV thread.

iona6656 05-25-2022 12:15 PM

Also- if you want a laugh- but in like a sad you-have-to-laugh-cause-misogyny-is-scary kinda way- read the comments under the globe and mail article. The menfolk aren't having it!

rockscan 05-25-2022 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iona6656 (Post 250684)
Also- if you want a laugh- but in like a sad you-have-to-laugh-cause-misogyny-is-scary kinda way- read the comments under the globe and mail article. The menfolk aren't having it!


Which goes back to a comment I made in the other thread. These women were successful in arguing their cases in court and thereby proving they suffered abuse and it is taken away from them by men who want to reduce their experience. But god help if a woman says anything negative about a man because we are simply hormonal, angry and wrong.

StillPaying 05-25-2022 12:41 PM

This case makes more sense. An incident happened post-separation which is affecting everyone real time, and a move was allowed. This wouldn't be complaining after the fact or a money grab type thing. This is normal.

blinkandimgone 05-25-2022 12:54 PM

Holding people accountable for their actions is not a money grab, it sets precedent and moves towards chamg3.

StillPaying 05-25-2022 02:07 PM

At the risk of going off topic, the other thread is 100% a money grab - not this one.

Family court should have an objective, no fault view. Kids, support, equalization. Abuse has always been around and is taken into consideration within custody/access. Like this case. Emotionless.

pinkHouses 05-25-2022 02:46 PM

If my neighbor assaults me, I end up with injuries like r severe bruising the Justice system ends up directing me to a peace bond against them that keeps them 100m away and that lasts a couple of years. If I am threatened with violence that is about the best I can do too.
I can't get them evicted or anything.

For whatever reason one party was tight with money and it was an unequal relationship leadership wise (overbearing) and some one "likely" gave the other a bruise over the eye.

Result: loosing your kids and also the financial consequences that go with that forever.

My ex hit me, I even took a photo of the damage and they did other things to like instigation of verbal confrontation that sometimes I must have feel for. I never thought that it could result in me getting my kids full-time; it would seem like cheating.


This and the "overbearing statement" is what I am focusing on :
Quote:

Given her demeanour while testifying, I largely accept Ms.
Barendregt’s account of being assaulted by Mr. Grebliunas during the
argument that precipitated the separation. At trial she found it extremely
upsetting to give her evidence of the assault. It is likely she was assaulted
and traumatized emotionally. Further, there is in evidence a medical record
of her attendance at the Bulkley Valley District Hospital on November 16,
2018, for assessment of bruising over her left eye. Mr. Grebliunas’
evidence of the argument did not account for this bruising, and I do not
accept his counsel’s argument in closing submissions that the bruising may
simply have been caused by them “wrestling”. Mr. Grebliunas’ continuing
blame of Ms. Barendregt for the argument, his portrayal of her as the
aggressor, and his insistence that her story of being assaulted was a fiction
concocted by Ms. Barendregt and her mother to provide a pretext for the
separation, seem likely to be an ongoing source of acrimony;

I am not grasping why supervised exchanges and restraining orders were not enough here or even tried. Maybe it was because the court found the aggressor also conspired with others to manipulate the court to get their kids previously? Will someone help me understand?

pinkHouses 05-25-2022 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iona6656 (Post 250684)
Also- if you want a laugh- but in like a sad you-have-to-laugh-cause-misogyny-is-scary kinda way- read the comments under the globe and mail article. The menfolk aren't having it!

I read through virtually all of those 71 comments
I am assuming 1/2 the poster are male so it would seem a vast majority of male posters were "having it" and there was nothing said specifically against the woman in the case.

Janey7 sounds like a woman, I don't know how to tell for sure but they said a couple of things.

"laughing" at people that feel marginalized doesn't make things better and feels a lot like misandry here.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:21 AM.