Christie Blatchford: Their child is almost 11 years old ? so is their child-custody fight | National Post
Here is the case law on this one I believe:
Johanns v. Fulford, 2010 ONCJ 756 (CanLII)
Date: 2010-11-02
Docket: DFO 0611158 B2
Other citation: 15 RFL (7th) 178
Citation: Johanns v. Fulford, 2010 ONCJ 756 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/fp85r
Johanns v. Fulford, 2011 ONCJ 781 (CanLII)
Date: 2011-12-23
Docket: DFO 06 11158 B2
Citation: Johanns v. Fulford, 2011 ONCJ 781 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/fpg8k
Johanns v. Fulford, 2012 ONCJ 103 (CanLII)
Date: 2012-02-29
Docket: DFO 0611158 B2
Citation: Johanns v. Fulford, 2012 ONCJ 103 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/fqd2n
And my assumption was correct. The litigant shares the information on his twitter account:
https://twitter.com/DavidJohanns/status/844525423828578304
"Here is a follow up article. In court today and tomorrow to continue this journey...." 5:25 am - 22 Mar 2017
My favourite quote from case law:
[9] Mr. Johanns is self represented and, on occasion, it was difficult to follow his argument with precision.
Source: Johanns v. Fulford, 2011 ONCJ 781 (CanLII), par. 9,
http://canlii.ca/t/fpg8k#par9, retrieved on 2017-03-22.
Sometimes you need to read the "real story" on CanLII to get the real story. The media sensationalizes stuff. CanLII is raw results.
First matter he was ordered to pay 65,000.
Next one $4,000.
And I conclude with this wise words which I hope this litigant seriously considers:
[26] As Justice Quinn noted in Gordon v. Starr, supra, at paragraph [23]:
[23] . . . Court orders are not made as a form of judicial exercise. An order is an order, not a suggestion. Non-compliance must have consequences. One of the reasons that many family proceedings degenerate into an expensive merry-go-round ride is the all-too-common casual approach to compliance with court orders.
...
[27] I have considered the sanction options available to me and I am satisfied that the most appropriate remedy at this time is to dismiss this motion to change with costs. As to the change contemplated in the consent order in September 2011, I would suggest, as I did in court after the motion was argued, that Mr. Johanns seek further legal advice with a view to entering into a negotiated settlement. The issue to be decided on an ongoing basis is not complicated and may be determined by a mathematical formula. I note in the past that Mr. Johanns has had the benefit of legal advice and I urge him to seek such advice in this regard. It is clear to me from reading his material that he does not understand how these calculations are made....
I have no sympathy for this litigant and nor did the article
don't impress me much.
Good Luck!
Tayken