View Single Post
Old 03-16-2019, 03:37 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,148
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default Truisms Exposed: Justice Pazaratz in Plain English

Bishop v. Gabriel, 2019 ONSC 1004 (CanLII)
Date: 2019-02-08
File number: 3817/14
Citation: Bishop v. Gabriel, 2019 ONSC 1004 (CanLII),

The matter is the result of a very complex file where the Respondent parent in the matter is consistently and transparently trying to create a false status quo. It really is probably one of the best cases I have read in a while.

I highly recommend everyone read it... Consider Justice Pazaratz wise words and not do anything the Respondent parent in this matter is doing. It caught up to them and resulted in one of the best postings to CanLII I have read in ages.

1. The biggest challenge of Family Court motions days is that judges often have to make the toughest decisions on volatile and potentially dangerous parenting issues, based on untested and incomplete affidavit materials.

2. By the time matters get to trial, family dynamics have often stabilized; people have calmed down; patterns and routines have come to be established; and there is plenty of time to call (and scrutinize) as much evidence as may be required, at an oral hearing, to ensure that every possible fact and legal argument is thoroughly considered. The luxury of time allows trial judges to proceed slowly and cautiously.

3. In contrast, reading quickly and strategically prepared affidavits rarely gives a motions judge a complete (or accurate) sense of what’s really been going on – and more importantly what children will experience in the immediate future in each of the competing scenarios being advanced in urgent motions.
His patience with this file has been exhausted.

5. We go slowly whenever we can. We prefer to go slowly.

6. But today – as on most motions days – there will be files where each parent has filed lengthy affidavits effectively screaming: “SOMETHING TERRIBLE IS HAPPENING. YOU’VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING!”

7. Deciding can be extremely difficult.

8. But sometimes doing nothing is simply not a responsible option.

9. This is one of those cases.
Note to high conflict parents and those who are in a motion war. Pazaratz is warning you that what you are doing is common. Happens on most motion days. This is a warning to you.

Also, those false allegations are often transparent, repeated and that the conduct of a parent who makes false allegations often does not reflect how they conduct settlement. You can't go screaming into a courtroom throwing all sorts of false allegations and then settle on joint custody and generous access. Courts see through this conduct.

24. So once again, after voicing all sorts of allegations which were not corroborated, the mother consented to a continuation of Joint Custody, generous access, and make-up time for past denied visits.
That paragraph is monumental when you break it down. The failure to corroborate allegations. Consenting to a Joint Custody, generous access and even make-up time for past denied visits. Not really good conduct. If your allegations are not false they can be corroborated and you wouldn't settle like this.

In previous orders which are outlined in detail Pazaratz already warned the Respondent parent about their conduct:

Beyond that, I made it clear in my previous comments to the parties that this court clearly recognizes what has been going on here in terms of alienating and frustrating behaviour by the mother, and this conduct simply won’t be tolerated.

Costs should actually be the least of the mother’s concerns. If she keeps up this needlessly resistant, contemptuous and provocative behaviour, she will be creating huge concerns about whether she can be entrusted to assume any level of time or responsibility with respect to these children. I’m warning her again: Stop playing games, or you may demolish your credibility as a parent.
He then in para. 41 starts to setup for the conclusion that most of you probably have already guessed...

41. I do not for one moment presume that either of these parents is perfect. But these family issues have been litigated over and over again. There have been repeated findings that the Applicant is being reasonable; the Respondent is being unreasonable; the Applicant is making good faith efforts to problem solve; the Respondent is needlessly drawing the children into the litigation and exposing them to traumatizing situations (like having the police repeatedly involved, searching for them or asking who they want to be with).

Source: Bishop v. Gabriel, 2019 ONSC 1004 (CanLII), par. 41
Which concludes with:

44. Quite simply, the mother has crossed the line. She has shown alarming indifference and lack of insight with respect to all that she has put the children through. She seems absolutely – tearfully – convinced that she is simply “protecting” the children.

45. At this point, her “protection” is starting to look frighteningly like the worst form of parental alienation. She is abusing her time with the children by exposing them to unnecessary conflict and situations, and conveying inappropriate and unsupportive messaging.

46. And given all of the upheaval in these children’s lives, I cannot allow this free-for-all to continue.

47. As stated at the outset, courts are loathe to tamper with the status quo, particularly on a temporary basis, unless there is some urgent situation that needs to be addressed immediately.

48. This is such an urgent situation. I have no doubt that the Respondent loves her children. But she doesn’t realize that she is hurting them. And I can’t allow that to continue.

49. Temporary temporary without prejudice order:

a. The children Sophia and Benjamin shall reside exclusively with the Applicant father.

b. The Applicant father shall be permitted to travel with the children to Costa Rica. (I am not going to specify dates because the Respondent has been delayed in obtaining the passports. She is still required to provide them. If the passports are delayed, the trip may have to be rescheduled by a short amount of time.)

c. The Respondent may only have access to the children in the discretion of the Applicant.

d. The mother is not to attend at the children’s school at any time when she may reasonably anticipate that the children will be present. She is not to provide the school with any instruction which would interfere with the Applicant’s authority to have the children in his care.

e. Neither party shall discuss this litigation with the children or make any negative statement about the other parent (or their respective family members) in the presence of the children.

f. The motion is adjourned to February 22, 2019 10:00 a.m. before me.

g. The parties are to immediately schedule counselling with Michelle Hayes. On the return date the parties are to provide an update as to that counselling.

50. I am not making a police enforcement order today. These children have had far too much exposure to police. However, if the mother refuses to respect this order in every respect, the matter is to be brought back to my attention immediately. In such an event I will consider all necessary options, including a police enforcement clause – and potentially including incarceration.

51. The mother needs to clearly understand: the court system recognizes what she is doing, and we will not tolerate it.

52. Costs reserved.
To those parents gaming the system. Your games are transparent. Judges see what you are doing. You are not clever. You are not smarter than the Judge. You will be caught and if you do it consistently you may be INCARCERATED for your conduct!

Good Luck!
Reply With Quote