Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts


  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Thread Tools
Old 10-22-2021, 11:00 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,209
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough

We had to order transcripts from a motion to confirm what the judge said in their endorsement. When I read them I was amazed and entertained at how the judge handled my husbands ex. The ex claimed abuse and all this other shit as a reason for kid and her lying. The judge actually said to her that if this case went to trial and he was opposing council he would cross examine both her and kid calling out their lies. He also noted the abuse allegations were irrelevant and he would not be giving them any weight. That was pretty much what my husbands lawyer said about all the bs in her affidavits. Truly judges dont care.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2021, 11:27 AM
pinkHouses pinkHouses is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 249
pinkHouses has a little shameless behaviour in the past

Originally Posted by Brampton33 View Post
"He has a history of putting his own interests ahead of the children. Such examples include: x,y z."
"He has a history of not paying child support. Such examples include x,y,z."
"She has a history of neglecting her court ordered access. Such examples included x,y,z."
There are accusations/conclusions at the start of some of those like "he has a history of putting his own interests ahead of the children" I would have thought going to Disney world and leaving your own kids behind would be just that.

I really do know my ex but I get that judges have to listen to over reaching people every day so they shutdown on all of it.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2021, 11:33 AM
Brampton33 Brampton33 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 192
Brampton33 is on a distinguished road

I will play the cynical card here. Judges are not new to the profession. They were likely lawyers for years and years, and then called to be a judge. So they aren't "young go-getters" looking to change the world with each file that comes across their desk. They are in the later stages of their careers after paying their dues with 80 hour work weeks.

They become judges and are swamped with overloaded dockets. I saw this in my proceedings where there were MANY cases to be heard all in the same day. Sometimes it was questioned on whether or not we would be even seen that day. When we were seen, we were herded through like cattle. I recall spending HOURS working on briefs. To get them as close to perfect as I could. None of it mattered.

"Emotional Abuse", "Pathological Liar" "Narcistic" "quick to anger" "Don't trust him" "BPD".....all the judge hears is "blah blah blah". All the judge wants is for the case to get settled so it gets crossed off their dockets. They do not want to have to sit through a 10 day trial because 2 parents are fighting over parenting time. It is a waste of their precious time (and clogs the system even more) to sit through 10 days of testimony from the parents saying their former spouse is an awful human being. Or whether in the opinion of the Applicant that the Respondent is a liar. Or to call the in-laws as witnesses saying they never liked their child-in-law and having them try to weigh in on parenting time (which never looks good). Or bothering school employees to testify in court on whether the child is late on mom or dad's days.

Judges just want to get through their workday. Just like the rest of us. Most don't read court briefs and rely on the lawyer to give a 5 minute update on status. Then they tell the parties to work it out themselves. They do everything possible not to set trials. Regardless of what is written in briefs.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2021, 12:28 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,209
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough

My husbands ex actually argued orally that she did not understand his financial priorities when he spent money on things when it could have gone to his kids. The judge said to her I dont care if he goes to Jamaica every month, as long as he is paying his support and providing updated income, none of that it relevant.

So while your ex is saying he puts himself first it really isnt relevant. Do you pay your ordered support and section 7 expenses? If yes then nothing else matters. Shes basically spending her money on empty statements.

Let her say whatever she wants. Calling you selfish means nothing. All the judge cares about is a) you disclosed your income; b) you paid the relevant support on that income; and, c) you arent abusing the kids in any way.

Its expected that ex spouses hate each other. Thats why good affidavits simply list the issue and the proof. As in my income in 2020 was xyz, my support obligation was abc. I have paid abc as shown in exhibit A and have nothing else owing.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2021, 02:22 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,382
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

Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (CanLII),

1. Breaking Bad, meet Breaking Bad Parents.

2. The former is an acclaimed fictional TV show whose title needed a bit of explaining: “BREAKING BAD: A southern U.S. expression for when a good person suddenly loses their moral compass and starts doing bad things”.

3. The latter is a sad reality show playing out in family courts across the country. “BREAKING BAD PARENTS: When smart, loving, caring, sensible mothers and fathers suddenly lose their parental judgment and embark on relentless, nasty litigation; oblivious to the impact on their children”.

4. SPOILER ALERT: The main characters in both of these tragedies end up pretty much the same: Miserable. Financially ruined. And worst of all, hurting the children they claimed they were protecting.

5. To prolong the tortured metaphor only slightly, the “urgent” motion before me might be regarded as this family’s pilot episode. Will these parents sign up for the permanent cast of Breaking Bad Parents? Will they become regulars in our family court building, recognizable by face and disposition? Or will they come to their senses; salvage their lives, dignity (and finances); and give their children the truly priceless gifts of maturity and permission to love?

6. Stay tuned.

13. The basic themes advanced by the parties are straightforward:

14. The father says “let’s be friends”. The mother says “I can’t be friends with an abuser”.

15. Both parties urge me to maintain the status quo, but they have diametrically opposed views of what that entails:

a. The mother says she has always been the primary caregiver, so she should continue to be the primary caregiver.

b. The father says there was never any “primary caregiver”. They both took turns doing everything, at various times. Not necessarily in equal or consistent proportions. But they are both equally experienced and competent to address all issues in the children’s lives.

c. The mother counters: It’s not a question of whether the father is capable of doing things. He didn’t do them in the past. The children are used to mom doing everything. That should continue because we know it works.

16. The father says both parents are equally loving; equally emotionally bonded to the children. The children need both parents equally.

17. The mother questions whether a truly loving parent would behave the way she says the father has behaved.

18. The mother wants to focus on conduct. The father disputes allegations of misconduct; correctly identifies that factual determinations are extremely difficult based on untested affidavit materials; and proposes an emphasis on parenting skills and opportunities to make separation less traumatic for the children.
To what has been said by Brampton33... He is bang on. Just adding actual evidence to how transparent the silly conduct is to a judge.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2021, 03:15 PM
Donald Duck Donald Duck is offline
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 86
Donald Duck is on a distinguished road

Could you please explain maximum contact as it pertains to the changes this year in March.

Is this still relevant and the way things are, as you explained it please
Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wife moved kids without permission Super dad Parenting Issues 22 12-04-2019 05:40 AM
Parenting Plan- How specific should you be? iona6656 Parenting Issues 40 03-24-2019 10:04 AM
Spousal/Child Support Question Jenny Divorce & Family Law 6 10-01-2013 12:01 AM
Brampton, Ontario court officials continue to obstruct justice by misleading and misi logicalvelocity Political Issues 0 05-23-2010 08:31 AM
Impact of Stocks on Child Support peter8688 Divorce & Family Law 4 01-04-2006 07:51 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:52 AM.