Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pazaratz Does it Again! (Continued)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pazaratz Does it Again! (Continued)

    See thread: http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...s-again-19646/

    Jackson v Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556 (CanLII)
    Date: 2016-03-03
    Docket: F67/13
    Citation: Jackson v Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gnlnj>

    The costs order is in... and it is excellent. So excellent I created a new thread. Everyone going into litigation needs to consider what the Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz has to say:

    INTRODUCTION

    “We are both reasonable people and I really think we can work this out without spending 40 to 50 thousand dollars a piece in lawyer fees only to have a judge tell us something we could arrange ourselves. Please I’m begging you to be reasonable.”

    1. That was August 8, 2012. An e-mail by a father wanting to see more of his young daughter, written more than a year after separation. Months before this court case started.
    2. Fast forward three and a half years.
    “This trial has been financially disastrous for both parties.”

    3. That was February 10, 2016. A concluding statement in the mother’s written costs submissions following a 36 day trial.
    4. The father wound up spending $300,000.00 on lawyers. But he won sole custody. So now he wants a quarter of a million dollars in costs.
    5. The mother says he’s asking for too much and she can’t afford it anyway, because she spent more than $200,000.00 on her own legal fees.
    6. There are many factors to be considered in deciding costs. I will review them below.
    7. But pause for a moment to consider the overwhelming tragedy of this case.
    8. These are nice, average people. Of modest means (now considerably more modest). They drive old cars and probably pinch pennies shopping at Costco.
    9. And yet somehow, between them, they spent more than half a million dollars on lawyers “to have a judge tell us something we could arrange ourselves.”
    10. No matter what costs order I make, the financial ruin cannot be undone. They’ll never recover. Their eight year old daughter’s future has been squandered.
    11. How did this happen? How does this keep happening?
    12. What will it take to convince angry parents that nasty and aggressive litigation never turns out well?
    If anyone ever wanted to see the costs in detail this is a great one. (See para. 84 onward!)

    113. All of this could have been avoided.
    114. All of this should have been avoided.
    115. Courts have an obligation to deliver that message, so parents will stop pretending that hard-ball custody litigation is “for the sake of the child.”
    Concluding...

    116. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant costs fixed in the sum of $192,000.00 inclusive of all disbursements, reimbursements and HST. This includes $2,000.00 in relation to the preparation of comprehensive costs submissions (and reply submissions).
    Good Luck!
    Tayken

  • #2
    12. What will it take to convince angry parents that nasty and aggressive litigation never turns out well?
    Simple answer is for the Federal Divorce Act to state:
    - that an equal distribution of a child's time between separated parents is in the best interests of the child; and,

    - any unequal distributions of time need to be "substantially enhanced" by such an order.

    Remove the reason parents litigate in such aggressive manners up front.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #3
      I would say more aggressive punishments for the instigating parent or possibly a regulation for lawyers that they will not go forward with a case if the person they are representing is unreasonable.

      Comment


      • #4
        ok I see the parents part in this. There also need there to be a cap on the legal cost; it should never leave people ruined.

        Comment


        • #5
          People who can afford to pay that kind of money are far from "average" wage-earning penny-pinching people IMO.

          Classic case of salivating, greedy lawyers.... if client can pay they will indeed pay!

          Comment


          • #6
            Money is the other thing that needs to federally governed. It is ridiculous that Canada Recenue cannot work with FRO. You file income tax and you your income is determined by that. FRO should be able to look at your income submission and make a calculation.

            Comment


            • #7
              He also makes a comment that he should have managed the case better as the trial management process unfolded. This is a big thing I wonder about. Perhaps it should be a case of a traffic cop so to speak at the courthouse who reviews motions filed and automatically sends them for mediation. If there was a custody rule like Tayken said that all parties must go through 6-12 months of equal custody and if there are serious neglect or interference issues then it is changed. As for finances, no trial ordered for people who refuse to pay what is outlined in the fcsg and divorce act. So these parents who have an attitude of "im not paying for school" have to automatically pay their portion with all receipts and everything listed.

              Comment


              • #8
                I can see this case going on and on. Judge didn't order proceeds of home sale to be directed to Applicant. This just opens the door to more costly litigation.

                I cannot understand why the father/applicant felt the need to retain so many different lawyers.

                I also wonder why there was no case management. Don't judges question things when there are a multitude of lawyers involved, particularly when litigants are not wealthy individuals?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by arabian View Post
                  I can see this case going on and on. Judge didn't order proceeds of home sale to be directed to Applicant. This just opens the door to more costly litigation.

                  I cannot understand why the father/applicant felt the need to retain so many different lawyers.

                  I also wonder why there was no case management. Don't judges question things when there are a multitude of lawyers involved, particularly when litigants are not wealthy individuals?

                  He says that in the decision, that he should have done a better job at trial management. Also questioned the costs for several people submitted.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                    Simple answer is for the Federal Divorce Act to state:
                    - that an equal distribution of a child's time between separated parents is in the best interests of the child; and,

                    - any unequal distributions of time need to be "substantially enhanced" by such an order.

                    Remove the reason parents litigate in such aggressive manners up front.

                    Good Luck!
                    Tayken
                    Exactly this. But it would take years.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Judge didn't order proceeds of home sale to be directed to Applicant.
                      Applicant needed to make a case for that. Odds are it will happen anyway.

                      I cannot understand why the father/applicant felt the need to retain so many different lawyers.
                      Four of the lawyers listed are in the father's counsel's firm (and the other two likely were at some point since 2012). Thus, the father likely had the same counsel who then shared work within the firm.

                      He says that in the decision, that he should have done a better job at trial management.
                      The judge says that the parties had a right to be heard (and that counsel is responsible for presenting their case). Specifically:
                      " It is not the trial judge’s place to control how counsel choose to present their case. Indeed, I suspect the very fact that this trial went 36 days might lead to the predictable suggestion that perhaps I should have taken a more active role in trial management. But this was a high conflict custody case, and both parties had an urgent need to be heard. I understand this." [para. 103]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I personally think that one would have to have deep psychological issues to spend this much money.

                        If there are any crumbs leftover you can be sure that it will be spent by lawyers and real estate agents in home dispersal.

                        No one in their right mind, with 100k income, would spend 300k on legal (probably have Bank of Mom and Dad bankrolling them).

                        Edit & Add: To retain this many lawyers one has to have someone or something backing them. There is definitely more to the story.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Doesn't the cost award show that only the mom was being unreasonable?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Shared custody by default, its coming sooner than you think. It is practically the case in Quebec....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Applicant is a cop who makes around 100k and Respondent works part-time - around 30k.

                              Does this sound like people who have enough money to attract a "team" of lawyers like the Applicant in this case? I doubt it.

                              Doesn't make sense to me financially.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X