Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how to deal with agressive opposition

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

  • how to deal with agressive opposition

    Anyone have any advice on how to deal with agressive opposing lawyers? And dealing with their tactics?
    I am currently unrepresented and the lawyer is trying to "Bully" me into signing an motion to consent letter.
    I was sent this motion to consent, but without any prior communications from either party and basically gave me two weeks to respond. When i called to confirm if anything was filed recently with the courthouse, the representative was not sure why they would do this first, and advised that was not common practise.
    Do most lawyers "play god?" I feel like Im dealing with one right now. Twice now he has threatened to serve me a motion and I still have not received any paperwork... Im worried that they will serve it to me last minute....
    He's used other sneaky tactics like after we scheduled our examinations served us with a motion (trial was only a month away!)
    Last edited by tugofwar; 03-12-2013, 07:57 AM.

  • #2
    Send them endless letters and emails saying you don't understand a particular sentence. Then send more correcting a few cents on any amounts that are listed. The lawyer will have to read all of these, respond, and charge your ex by the hour. Since you are indicating that consent will be forthcoming once you understand what "motion" means, there will be no reason for them to file a regular motion.

    Write them regularly to say you will be getting back to them in two days. Then write them to say you're sorry you can't sign it right now, you are waiting for a friend to explain the language to you. Make sure you leave lot's of phone messages, but don't answer if they call you back. BTW that's not just annoying, it will cover your ass because you are showing you need independent legal advice to agree to anything.

    Comment


    • #3
      just how I like it...lol now how about that icecream?

      Comment


      • #4
        Anyone have advice on how to prepare and send emails to the lawyer? State facts, etc.
        Any useful information would be greatly appreciated.

        Comment


        • #5
          What if your STBX is self represented and a paralegal... I have noticed that she has essentially been implementing her legal strategy for trial under the premise as "Mother" with child care providers, doctors, counselors etc... to minimize any parenting or legitimate concerns I may have regarding the children or even their basic best interests. She has planted the seeds that anything I try to do i.e. suggest my daughter to a hearing specialist because she can't hear - as a means only to build a case against her, - the result was surgery was required, and that she was suffering 45% hearing loss but it took 4 months, multiple visits and litigation to get to that stage.

          Is there any Case Law outlining this adversarial tactic?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ScaredandConfused View Post
            What if your STBX is self represented and a paralegal... I have noticed that she has essentially been implementing her legal strategy for trial under the premise as "Mother" with child care providers, doctors, counselors etc... to minimize any parenting or legitimate concerns I may have regarding the children or even their basic best interests. She has planted the seeds that anything I try to do i.e. suggest my daughter to a hearing specialist because she can't hear - as a means only to build a case against her, - the result was surgery was required, and that she was suffering 45% hearing loss but it took 4 months, multiple visits and litigation to get to that stage.

            Is there any Case Law outlining this adversarial tactic?
            There really isn't much but, the leading case law (my opinion) on the "truisms" of legal tactics is outline in the following case law:

            CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)

            Namely para. 393 through 419 under the heading "MANIPULATION". I do strongly recommend you read this case law end-to-end as well as the other case law relied upon and the follow up costs decision linked to this matter.

            Here are the relevant paragraphs (my emphasis and edit):

            MANIPULATION

            393. Under questioning Mr. Drouillard acknowledged a couple “truisms” well known among lawyers, judges, social workers – and frequently litigants themselves.

            394. The first is that “status quo” is important. Perhaps the first piece of legal advice separated parents get is that temporary arrangements often come to be self-perpetuating. That’s why parties work so hard to stake out their turf; create patterns; and obtain favourable temporary (or even temporary-temporary) orders.

            395. The second truism relates to the simplistic correlation between “joint custody” and “conflict”. Although obviously a gross oversimplification, many parents come to perceive that if someone wants joint custody they have to be able to get along with their estranged partner. The obvious corollary: if you can’t get along; if you can’t communicate; if there’s lots of conflict, then joint custody is unlikely to be imposed.

            396. The OCL social worker fully acknowledged that separated parents commonly share these stereotypical perceptions. While Mr. Drouillard testified that social workers preparing assessments and section 112 reports try to be mindful of strategic behaviour by parents, in this case he appears to have done virtually nothing to investigate the extent to which either party was manipulating the system for strategic reasons.

            397. Mr. Drouillard described the relationship between the parties as being "very high conflict". He said each party made numerous allegations about the other. Things were particularly bad whenever the parents had direct contact. He said some of the conflict was "situational" in the sense that custody litigation represents a time of high emotional crisis for both parties, and they were likely each behaving at their worst. But he doubted the conflict will end when this court case is completed. He said that’s why he ruled out joint custody (which he mistakenly believed the Respondent was seeking). That’s why he recommended sole custody. And with the mother having the status quo, that’s why he recommended sole custody to the mother.

            398. Just like those “truisms” would have predicted.

            ... Respondent "devastates" the testimony of Mr. Drouillard ...

            403. It would appear that Mr. Drouillard spent little or no time asking any of these questions.

            ... Respondent continues to "devastate" the testimony of Mr. Drouillard...

            411. The Respondent asked who acted in good faith? Who tried to inflame things? Who tried to problem-solve? He noted that the Applicant took an aggressive approach, exercising self-help, followed by aggressive and deceptive litigation. In contrast the Respondent proposed mediation, counselling, and a parenting co-ordinator. How could the social worker say they were both insensitive to the child’s needs, when the Applicant was the one needlessly escalating matters, while the Respondent kept promoting child-focussed alternatives?

            412. The social worker expressed concern about the number of times the parties called police to sort out disputes. The Respondent agreed that on the surface the volume of police calls might give the appearance that the parties were constantly fighting. He noted however that of the 14 police calls, only one of them was initiated by the Respondent, who was trying to arrange access to his son. Two of the calls were by the Applicant’s mother and step-father who tried unsuccessfully to have the Respondent charged. Most of the calls to police were by the mother – but they never led to any charges being laid.

            413. The Respondent suggested that multiple needless calls to the police might be a very effective strategy to make someone look bad; to promote the appearance of “high conflict”. Apparently, Mr. Drouillard hadn’t directed his mind to that possibility.

            414. The Respondent admitted he wasn’t perfect but suggested his failings were minor compared to those of the Applicant. He suggested it was the Applicant who deliberately catapulted them into the “high conflict” category -- and now it was working to her advantage. He questioned why the social worker didn’t seem to care that she could lie, and then benefit from it.

            415. Mr. Drouillard expressed doubt that the Applicant would have been so sophisticated as to deliberately orchestrate or perpetuate conflict, in the hope of making the Respondent look bad, or making herself look like a victim.

            416. I find it troubling that he seemed to ignore so many obvious signs of manipulation and deception. We now know that much of what the Applicant told a motions judge in her December 2, 2009 affidavit was untrue. And yet those lies changed everything, not only for the Respondent, but also for (the child). A new status quo was created. With profound implications.

            417. Given the fact that the social worker predicates his sole custody recommendation on his “assumption” that the mother will be properly motivated and better behaved in the future, it is unfortunate that he failed to test or challenge any of the Applicant mother’s manipulative and self-serving behaviours – in circumstances in which the Respondent virtually pleaded with him to look beyond the surface.

            418. Creating a favourable status quo through falsehood and misrepresentation is not just a matter of litigation strategy[/U][/U]: It is often tantamount to child abuse. It goes to the heart of “best interests” considerations; Parental judgment; The ability to sacrifice self-interest for the sake of the child; Awareness of the child’s need to have maximum contact with both parents.

            419. If past behaviour is a predictor of the future, assessors and courts have an obligation to address – and seriously sanction – common and predictable strategic behaviours intended to create an inappropriate status quo.
            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #7
              Can someone kindly explain what "truism" in the legal context is. Googled it but didn't get it.

              Here is what I googled:
              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
              Jump to: navigation, search
              A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device and is the opposite of falsism.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[1]</sup>
              In philosophy, a sentence which asserts incomplete truth conditions for a proposition may be regarded as a truism. An example of such a sentence would be: "Under appropriate conditions, the sun rises." Without contextual support – a statement of what those appropriate conditions are – the sentence is true but incontestable. A statement which is true by definition ("All cats are mammals.") would also be considered a truism. This is quite similar to a tautology in which the conclusion of a statement is essentially equivalent to its premise, a statement that is "true by virtue of its logical form alone".<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[2]</sup>
              The word may be used to disguise the fact that a proposition is really just an opinion, especially in rhetoric. Stating an accepted truth about life in general can also be called a truism.

              Thank you

              Comment


              • #8
                Ok so I'm getting alittle stressed out and need some help. Ive been served a motion (we have final orders) and have been able to resolve the issue on my own. I brought this to my ex's lawyers attention and asked how they are willing to proceed because the matter has been dealt with and gave him a timeframe when to respond by. They didn't respond. I have till this Friday to fill out my response.
                I am lost and don't think I can do this alone.
                What are my options? How can I get it adjourned or withdrawn if the opposing lawyer fails to respond?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not sure what the issue was or how you resolved it on your own...

                  If your ex is happy that it is resolved, then they would have to withdraw the motion. However they still may go forward with it asking for costs, for having to bring a motion in order to get it resolved.

                  If they haven't got back to you, you would have to assume it is still going forward and you would have to file a response. Explain the issue, how it has been resolved, and how you have been in contact with them to prevent wasted time/money in attending court.

                  If you're hoping to have it adjourned, you would have to get their consent. Otherwise file Form 14C asking for a contested adjournment with your reasons. You'll still have to attend on the day, hoping the judge will give it to you, but still be prepared to move forward if it is rejected.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The lawyer is just bleeding my ex dry...... and he doesn't see it. The matter has been resolved!
                    so i will waste my time and energy filling a response and going thru all that on friday
                    I wish my ex would develop a back bone already, open his eyes and see how this is costing him.....
                    Oh the joys...NOT lol

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HappyDays View Post

                      If you're hoping to have it adjourned, you would have to get their consent. Otherwise file Form 14C asking for a contested adjournment with your reasons. You'll still have to attend on the day, hoping the judge will give it to you, but still be prepared to move forward if it is rejected.
                      so if i request and file a form 14c i will still have to file a response to the motion, correct?

                      second question- he submitted form 13 financial statement but without submitting his income tax returns- is that possible? he is not making a claim against child support and equalization etc has already been dealt with..
                      and since im the support recipient am i suppose to file the same?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        the quicker his lawyer bleeds him dry, the quicker your court worries are over.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well he is able to deduct his fees off his business expenses and probably gets $$ from his parents..... funny how someone who claims to make below minimum wage according to his self employed tax returns can afford an amazing lawyer ???

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tugofwar View Post
                            so if i request and file a form 14c i will still have to file a response to the motion, correct?

                            second question- he submitted form 13 financial statement but without submitting his income tax returns- is that possible? he is not making a claim against child support or any other money related issues..
                            and since im the support recipient am i suppose to file the same?
                            Yes you have to file your response along with a 14c. If you have a good reason for adjournment, then you should get it... otherwise you'll be denied and the motion will go forward as planned.

                            I'm not sure what your motion is about. I believe financials only have to be included if you are changing cs or ss.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              no changes to cs or ss so that's why i wonder why he filed out form 13 but did not attach income tax information....
                              its in relating to section 7 expenses that no longer exist.

                              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