Father finds out the hard way that bad faith can cost you big time in court

[YoungDad23]

Originally Posted by HammerDad

IMO your attitude to this should be, you don't care who does the exchanges. You only care that the exchanges happen and that you have as little interaction as possible (no matter who happens to be there).

Thanks HammerDad and rockscan.

You're right and I'm very glad the exchanges still happen right on schedule with no disruption to my time with S5.

I have pulled way back from having any interaction with either her husband or her mom (who does the exchanges on occasion) by staying in my car until kid emerges, letting him navigate the porch and stairs by himself.

The last time her husband tried to engage me in a discussion about something not kid related, I said I didn't know what he was referring to and then drove away. (I really didn't know what he was asking about and wasn't going to get into it with kid strapped into car)

[HammerDad]

There's nothing wrong with fake pleasantries IMO. Quite simply anything to keep the peace, allowing me to get moving as fast as possible.

[Tayken]

Emergency ex-parte motions should not be miss used:

https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ad.php?t=15139

I have warned people many times about the impact pulling these stunts has on the long-term impact of the overall case.

[Tayken]

@Janus

This is a whopper:

http://canlii.ca/t/j0cct

[rockscan]

W-O-W

I almost want to sit in on that shitshow.

[YoungDad23]

Originally Posted by rockscan

W-O-W

I almost want to sit in on that shitshow.

I don't think I could stand to watch the respondent mother in action, however, I am looking forward to reading Justice Pazaratz's summary and final order regarding the mother's behaviour.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by Tayken

@Janus

This is a whopper:

http://canlii.ca/t/j0cct

Normally I like that Paza guy, but I'm less impressed here.

Summary:

Mom is getting likely unwarranted spousal support. She is completely broke. Any payments she gets she will not have to pay back because she has no money. Dad is getting a little pissed that he has to pay 2k a month to this woman plus his lawyer fees.

Mom continuously calls in sick, and says she is too stressed to complete the trial. Everyone on the planet knows she is trying to delay the trial because she likes getting the spousal support.

The following ensues (from the judge):

1) Mom, stop stalling, or there will be trouble
2) Seriously mom, stop stalling
3) C'mon mom, stop stalling, final warning
4) That's it, no more warnings
5) Except this warning, which is the last one
6) Ok, we really mean it now, no more warnings
7) Do you not understand court orders? This is your final warning.
8) Fine, we are slightly reducing your spousal support now, BOOM! mic drop

Oh, and a bonus:

9) Mom has her child support obligations completely suspended, because, y'know



(Disclosure: technically, the SS was suspended as well, and recharacterized as arrears repayment, for arrears that I suspect probably do not even exist, so Dad is still paying SS)

[Janus]

Oh, and forgot to mention, mom is not too sick to pursue other trials. The judge is aware of this, and still lets her delay and delay...

The father’s counsel Mr. Fazari notes that at the same time that the mother keeps saying she is too sick to participate in this family trial, she is aggressively pursuing two separate civil actions: One against the father in Newmarket for $1,000,000.00 in damages. And a separate damages claim against FACS.

[tilt]

How can mom be broke if she is as sick as she says? She would be eligible for ODSP, or at a minimum, OW. Which, aren’t much, but at least are something. She was getting $3,400 a month from her ex, which is more than enough for a single person to live frugally on.

I assume she cannot access legal aide because her case does not fall within their perameters (I think they only fund child support claims?). But that she can’t find a lawyer to assist her for delayed payment from the money she claims she is owed is instructive that no lawyer will touch her/believes her case is winnable.

Reality is, trials cost and everyone has to balance the cost of litigation vs possible ROI. But with an unemployed self rep who is judgement-proof there is no downside to screwing around deliberately like she has done. I wonder why a psychological examination has not been Ordered to give clarity to the judge? Tough case, but I can see how he is careful to not make anything appealable as whatever he decides will most likely be appealed.

[rockscan]

What others fail to realize too is you have to pay for a sick note in some cases and most doctors have a set form where you check the boxes. It sounds like this is what she got from her repeated visits.

Im also with Janus on the number of warnings. If it was a lawyer would the judge have been so lenient?