Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trial in 10 days...

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
    at the very least, the guy was honest and did not really say anything that is not in his report. I think what is really bizarre here is why someone would bring such report to court - Maybe because they are delusional and in denial ... (as report said)
    Just to be fair to everyone on this thread who has not read the report. It explicitly stated that the Applicant in your matter was "stuck" at the "lowest possible level for an adult" in a major area of social functioning whereby the Applicant puts their needs before anything else.

    R: If the needs of the child and the adult at this level were to complete who's needs would win?
    E: The adults in this situation.

    Mind blowing to say the least. That the social functioning of an individual parent's needs would overrule the needs of a child. Rule 24 (best interests of the child) doesn't even compute for someone functioning at this level!

    Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
    but that was definitely quite a turnaround
    - R your honor I would like to object for this expert to bring forward his report and testify since it not related to the issue at hand (therapy)
    - G - I am going to allow it
    - E she is delusional and stuck. Nothing change. No therapy that I am aware of
    - G In that recent test you had couple weeks ago did you see any differences. ...
    - R your honor I would like to object to this since it not part of the report nor I was aware of any additional tests... we should not talk about it
    - G - I agree but I want to make sure I am not missing something big
    - E - No changes your honor
    - R I still believe that is not fair to the respondent to even discuss this...

    so yea that was very different and interesting ...
    Most lawyers I have discussed the whole "expert blowing up on the calling litigant" have never seen a situation like that before. Where a litigant brings a witness blindly without understanding the impact. But, as you pointed out... If you read the report and weren't deluded in your thinking a person would have NEVER brought this "expert" witness forward. But, the report explains 100% why the Applicant brought the "expert". (To your point.)

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #32
      1. Residential treatment program.
      2. Intense psychotherapy.

      Two options were given as how the Applicant could resolve her issues. Interestingly in the last 3 years neither was done... Yet you got to go to trial to find out that the expert agrees with the court order (therapy and/or counseling) and prescribed the two above as the best option.

      Why the Applicant didn't follow the order and advice given is beyond me. Oh that's right... Lowest social functioning possible for an adult...

      Comment


      • #33
        I have never seen a case where a litigant brings an expert and their own expert throws them under the bus
        the guy was honest and did not really say anything that is not in his report.
        This is the job of the expert: to give honest testimony as to their opinion based upon the facts before them.

        Most lawyers I have discussed the whole "expert blowing up on the calling litigant" have never seen a situation like that before.
        Most litigants who can afford to hire an expert (or realize it could help) have also sought legal advice. Any lawyer is going to recommend making sure you know what your witnesses (particularly your expert!) are going to say before calling them. If your expert hurts your case, calling them is a tactical error.

        It is not something that should happen unless the litigant has been ignoring what the expert has told them.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
          This is the job of the expert: to give honest testimony as to their opinion based upon the facts before them.



          Most litigants who can afford to hire an expert (or realize it could help) have also sought legal advice. Any lawyer is going to recommend making sure you know what your witnesses (particularly your expert!) are going to say before calling them. If your expert hurts your case, calling them is a tactical error.

          It is not something that should happen unless the litigant has been ignoring what the expert has told them.
          In our case our litigant after we done with expert said she do not agree with her expert

          Comment


          • #35
            In our case our litigant after we done with expert said she do not agree with her expert
            If a party wastes court time examining their own witness, then goes on to make submissions as to why the court should ignore the evidence they called, the opposing party would be wise to reference that in cost submissions.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
              This is the job of the expert: to give honest testimony as to their opinion based upon the facts before them.



              Most litigants who can afford to hire an expert (or realize it could help) have also sought legal advice. Any lawyer is going to recommend making sure you know what your witnesses (particularly your expert!) are going to say before calling them. If your expert hurts your case, calling them is a tactical error.

              It is not something that should happen unless the litigant has been ignoring what the expert has told them.
              Let's hope she will read it again and get help so monney will not be totally wasted.

              WD

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
                It is not something that should happen unless the litigant has been ignoring what the expert has told them.
                Interesting is that this is what the expert said in their report. That the social functioning of the Applicant is to "ignore" what is best for the situation and to only seek their basic needs... at the lowest level possible for an adult.

                It is a very sad situation. To consider that the Applicant in this matter has spent the past 3 years trying not to seek appropriate therapy only to bring a witness who supported the previous three judges views that they won't seek help.

                I doubt that legal counsel would have helped in the situation. It didn't at the first trial. It goes beyond the realm of where legal help can help and only mental health services could make a meaningful impact. I suspect the judge is going to struggle with the next order. It is hard for a judge to order someone to get medical treatment that is necessary to resolve the issue.

                The matter is no longer a legal issue nor one that can be solved in the courts. This is where the health care system and legal system need to merge. A hand-off to the medical system needs to be done. This is not unique to this case alone.

                To quote Phil Epstein.

                Only 10 per cent of cases go to the court system, and an even smaller percentage of those - less than 5 per cent, Mr. Epstein says - go to trial. All are considered high conflict, "and it's no coincidence that the same percentage of the population - 10 per cent - have borderline personality disorders or mental health issues," he says...
                To that point I would revise it to read:
                Only 10 percent of cases go to the court system, and an even smaller percentage of those - less than 5 percent, go to trial. 5 percent of the 5 percent of those that go to trial go to a second trial. 5 percent of the fraction that go to a second trial ever make it to a 3rd trial!

                Rewriting the famous words of Justice Quinn:
                Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud,

                Here, an Applicant mother has been marinating in a hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment. The source of difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred of the Respondent.

                Good Luck!
                Tayken
                Last edited by Tayken; 05-15-2017, 10:56 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
                  If a party wastes court time examining their own witness, then goes on to make submissions as to why the court should ignore the evidence they called, the opposing party would be wise to reference that in cost submissions.
                  And final submissions before the close of the case.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    and the expert was also being paid by WD... (joking).

                    Good point Orleans about honesty ... It would be hard for an expert to lie under oath about moms progress I assume.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by trinton View Post
                      and the expert was also being paid by WD... (joking).

                      Good point Orleans about honesty ... It would be hard for an expert to lie under oath about moms progress I assume.
                      expert was paid by her. at least that what he said - I am on retainer...
                      there is a saying - you can find an expert for anything you need so ...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
                        expert was paid by her. at least that what he said - I am on retainer...
                        there is a saying - you can find an expert for anything you need so ...
                        I meant (as a joke) he was being paid under table by you to work in your favour . Good on the expert for being honest and blunt about the mother's situation.

                        Do you think they(the courts) will give her another chance?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by trinton View Post
                          I meant (as a joke) he was being paid under table by you to work in your favour . Good on the expert for being honest and blunt about the mother's situation.

                          Do you think they will give her another chance?
                          Hopefully not
                          but if they do I am done - and not coming to court anymore. They can do whatever they want.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I understand completely how you feel WD. If my ex were to take me back to court again I think I'd probably throw in the towel and say "do whatever makes you happy"... "I'm done." I think I'd just let the judge make a decision on basis of my ex's submission (which is always incomplete, nonsensical). I would possibly submit something in writing but then again.. maybe not.

                            Life is short .. you do what you can do. Of course my situation doesn't involve children. However, I'm getting older and I find time to be more and more important. Going on a nice picnic sounds much more desirable than going to court. I may have a lighter meal to pack in my picnic basket but I would have much more time to enjoy the sunshine without court in my life.

                            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