Originally posted by Tayken
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What to do - Do I call my D18 as witness to defend myself ?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tayken View PostThen what are these changes that prevent you from relying upon statue? Really, the only one that changed in the time frame you said was sexual assault claims.
16 (1) There is no limitation period in respect of,
(h.2) a proceeding based on an assault if, at the time of the assault, the person with the claim was a minor or any of the following applied with respect to the relationship between the person with the claim and the person who committed the assault:
(i) they had an intimate relationship,
(ii) the person with the claim was financially, emotionally, physically or otherwise dependent on the other person;
Comment
-
Ethically no you shouldn't. Your ex's relationship with her children may be strained at the moment but hopefully will change over time. Using your daughter as a witness will be detrimental for any future reconciliation. Secondly, your daughter is not an expert witness. Her testimony will only be of what she saw that day. Not what she thinks the injuries should have been. Your ex's lawyer will have the police investigation and if you went to court, they will have the transcripts as well and any medical records. A minor testimony from a child of the marriage won't be worth much and will come at a huge personal cost to your daughter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by plainNamedDad44 View PostStatute of Limitations 16 (1) h2
16 (1) There is no limitation period in respect of,
(h.2) a proceeding based on an assault if, at the time of the assault, the person with the claim was a minor or any of the following applied with respect to the relationship between the person with the claim and the person who committed the assault:
(i) they had an intimate relationship,
(ii) the person with the claim was financially, emotionally, physically or otherwise dependent on the other person;
If I believe what you said... A single occurrence happened. You admitted to it and you now have custody and majority access of the children. Res judicata from your previous family law court orders criminal court etc... may block the tort. Not sure if you have looked into this?
Have you considered making an offer to settle for 5,000. The awards for this stuff are generally, about 10,000. Offer half just to get it done. Furthermore, they can't use the offer to settle in court. And if it goes against you, your offer to settle at 5,000 may have a significant impact on the costs you would pay.
Are you in the trial right now? Or are you still waiting to be called? I am sure if you have "lots" of lawyers they explained all this to you.Last edited by Tayken; 02-14-2018, 10:39 AM.
Comment
-
Taken, firstly a big thank you for your time. Please see below.
Originally posted by Tayken View PostWas the person "financially, emotionally, physically or otherwise dependent" on you at that time? That is a clause that only a "child" could qualify under generally. You didn't "abduct" the other adult in the relationship. They were of their own free will. To meet the criteria of dependency in (ii) requirement is hard. Very hard. The other party has to admit that they were incapable of being an adult.
What about clause (i) - "in an intimate relationship".? We were married and although did not share a bed for many years, I am assuming that this one will likely stick. - unfortunately.
Originally posted by Tayken View PostIf I believe what you said... A single occurrence happened. You admitted to it and you now have custody and majority access of the children. Res judicata from your previous family law court orders criminal court etc... may block the tort. Not sure if you have looked into this?
Originally posted by Tayken View PostHave you considered making an offer to settle for 5,000. The awards for this stuff are generally, about 10,000. Offer half just to get it done. Furthermore, they can't use the offer to settle in court. And if it goes against you, your offer to settle at 5,000 may have a significant impact on the costs you would pay.
They are trying to shake my tree. I know.
Originally posted by Tayken View Post
Are you in the trial right now? Or are you still waiting to be called? I am sure if you have "lots" of lawyers they explained all this to you.
I have had multiple lawyers look at the statute - they all interpret it slightly differently.Last edited by plainNamedDad44; 02-14-2018, 11:10 AM.
Comment
-
Taken, firstly a big thank you for your time. Please see below.
Originally posted by Tayken View PostWas the person "financially, emotionally, physically or otherwise dependent" on you at that time? That is a clause that only a "child" could qualify under generally. You didn't "abduct" the other adult in the relationship. They were of their own free will. To meet the criteria of dependency in (ii) requirement is hard. Very hard. The other party has to admit that they were incapable of being an adult.
What about clause (i) - "in an intimate relationship".? We were married and although did not share a bed for many years, I am assuming that this one will likely stick. - unfortunately.
Originally posted by Tayken View PostIf I believe what you said... A single occurrence happened. You admitted to it and you now have custody and majority access of the children. Res judicata from your previous family law court orders criminal court etc... may block the tort. Not sure if you have looked into this?
Originally posted by Tayken View PostHave you considered making an offer to settle for 5,000. The awards for this stuff are generally, about 10,000. Offer half just to get it done. Furthermore, they can't use the offer to settle in court. And if it goes against you, your offer to settle at 5,000 may have a significant impact on the costs you would pay.
They are trying to shake my tree. I know.
Originally posted by Tayken View Post
Are you in the trial right now? Or are you still waiting to be called? I am sure if you have "lots" of lawyers they explained all this to you.
I have had multiple lawyers look at the statute - they all interpret it slightly differently.
Comment
Comment