All court records except CAS proceedings are public record. Meaning if you know the right court house, you can actually go down and look at the continuing record even though you’re not parties to it.
If you have the case docket information you can take it to any lawyer and look it up, or contact the court house and maybe you can convinced them to fax it to you. Or go to a law library, or simply go to the court house and request it. If it's old it might take some time to get it out of storage but it'll be there.
Yes Canlli is great but they don't and couldn't publish everything. WestLaw and other cost money but they publish a lot more.
As I have stated before. When your in this sort of thing you have three jobs 1. Father
2. Legal researcher
3. Real job
I'll add one more thing here, there is caselaw which details when Joint custody should be awarded and there are only three case where it should. Put I add only one of the points have to be present for joint custody to be awarded.
Garland v. Brouwer, 2011 ONSC 6437
[27] The Ontario Court of Appeal decisions in the cases of Kaplanis v. Kaplanis (2005), 194 O.A.C. 106, and Ladisa v. Ladisa (2005), 193 O.A.C. 336 set out guidelines as to when a joint custody order may be appropriate. Those guidelines were summarized in the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Habel v. Hagedorn,[2005] O.J. No. 3556 (O.C.J.), and later adopted by this court in the case of Patterson v. Patterson, [2006] O.J. No. 5454 (S.C.J.).
[28] In summary, those cases determined that a joint custody order may be appropriate in three main types of cases:
I. Where the parties agree to a joint custody order;
2. Where there is a positive history of cooperation between the parties; and
3. Where it is appropriate to preserve one parent's relationship with the child.
[29] In my view, the case before me falls into both category #2 and category #3 above. There is a positive history of cooperation between the parties, and a joint custody order is appropriate to preserve Garland's relationship with Teegan.
[30] Regarding the cooperation of the parties, Quinn J. wrote in the case of Brook v. Brook, [2006] O.J. No. 1514, and I adopt, that" ... one must take care not to hold the parents to an unrealistic level of mutual cooperation. After all, they are estranged. The cooperation needed is workable, not blissful; adequate not perfect."
[31] I add that one parent should not be rewarded for being uncooperative. That is, a parent should not be granted sole custody if that parent has engineered the circumstances so that the parties appear to be uncooperative.
[32] In this case there have been times during which the parties have been able to talk to one another directly about various parenting issues. At present, they have difficulty talking face to face, but this is understandable given that they are engulfed in a litigation process in which they take adverse positions. Despite the ongoing court proceedings the parties are still able to communicate through the use of a communications book, which they have incorporated into their parenting strategy.
