McAlister v. Gallant. 2012 ONCJ 565

The parties had lived together in a common law relationship for about two years. They had a child who was about to enter school.

Proceedings for custody had been commenced by the mother in the Ontario Court of Justice in 2009. Those proceedings were adjourned, however, so the parties could enter mediation.

In 2011, they entered into a typical mediation/arbitration agreement under which L.C. was appointed to mediate their parenting issues. If mediation was unsuccessful, L.C. would arbitrate any parenting issues that remained in dispute.

As the mediation continued, the father grew disenchanted with the process and the mediator. Ultimately, he accused L.C. of bias and refused to participate further. L.C. acknowledged his accusation and suggested that “…a referral to another arbitrator would be appropriate”.

Over the summer of 2012, a dispute arose as to where the child should attend school in the fall. The father wanted the child to continue at a Montessori school where she had attended in the 2011-2012 school term. The mother wanted to enroll the child in a public school.

L.C. declared an impasse in mediation and informed the parties that she would arbitrate the school issue. She set out specific timelines for written submissions. The mother made submissions. The father did not. Through counsel, he informed L.C. that he was going to attempt to have her removed as arbitrator. 

L.C. delivered a decision on the school placement issue on August 28, 2012, deciding that the child should be enrolled in the public school system.

The husband moved, in the existing Ontario Court of Justice application for various heads of relief:................(more)        

http://www.familylawlectures.ca/article/mcalister-v-gallant-2012-oncj-565.html

Outside of Family Court, False Claim of DV Considered Perjury

We see false claims of domestic violence in family courts every day. For decades now, attorneys in family courts have been telling us that claims of domestic violence are routinely made to gain an advantage in custody cases. That’s another way of saying that many of those claims are made up. But of course, those claims will continue to be made for the good and sufficient reason that they work. They achieve the desired result – separate the other parent (almost invariably the father) from the child. Once that’s accomplished with a temporary order, it becomes much easier to make sole maternal custody permanent. After all, the child hasn’t seen his/her father since the start of the divorce action, so why change that when the permanent orders are made?

But what’s always amazed me and countless other observers of family courts is the utter failure of family court judges to care that they’re being lied to. As routine as those false claims of domestic abuse are, they’d be squelched in an instant if judges started using the powers they’ve always had to punish perjurers. The fact that they don’t is one of the many disgraces that hang around the neck of family law in this country like scarlett letters.

Examining child custody issues in Canada: Part Two Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Examining child custody issues in Canada: Part Two

The family court system's separation of a child and parent after a divorce can sometimes have devastating consequences.

Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Examining child custody issues in Canada: Part Two

Examining child custody issues in Canada: Part One Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Examining child custody issues in Canada: Part One

One in four Canadian marriages end in divorce, and many of those breakups are not amicable - especially when children are involved. Things can get even more messy if parents can't agree on the issue of custody. In those cases, it's up to a judge to decide an arrangement based on "the best interests of the child." And in Canada, that typically has meant awarding one parent with primary care.

The latest data from the Department of Justice shows mothers receive sole custody in 77 percent of cases, while fathers get it in only 9 percent of the time.


Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Examining child custody issues in Canada: Part One

Canadians for Family Law Reform protesting against family lawyers

Canadians for Family Law Reform, an organization that describes itself as a watchdog over family court matters, picketed outside the Sarnia courthouse late last month and has sparked controversy by protesting against local family lawyers.

Limits on Questioning in Family Law Cases; Unrepresented Parties Take Note

Limits on Questioning in Family Law Cases; Unrepresented Parties Take Note

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has recently released a decision outlining limits on Orders under the Family Law Rules allowing the questioning of one party by the other. The decision is particularly noteworthy because it serves as a cautionary tale for those parties to a family law dispute who are self-represented.

Under the Family Law Rules, the court can make such an Order to allow a person (whether a party to the litigation or not) to be questioned by a party in certain circumstances, namely where:

1) it would be unfair to the party making the request to have to carry on with the case without it;

2) the information is not easily available by any other method;

3) the questioning will not cause an unacceptable delay or undue expense.

Recording Your Own Court Hearing

A parent’s self help guide
A guide to recording your
own court hearing

To survive the gauntlet of the legal and law enforcement
system and to do your part to help make the system
more accountable, the first thing you need to
understand is what the criminal, family courts and the
child welfare protection system is all about!

In recent years there have been a growing number of complaints from those attending courts about
the lies, deceptions cover-ups and unlawful activities that are going on in family courts and inside
court buildings. It is well recognized by many Canadians, including high ranking Canadian
authorities and even some judges, that perjury in family court is rampant and that this crime often
goes unpunished in family court. Ontario Justice, Mary Lou Benotto, once stated this before a
public audience attending the Advocates Society conference..........(more)

family-law-arbitration-will-it-work-for-you

Will only work when both parties are reasonable. Will not work if either party is vindictive and out to destroy the other for personal gain

Rule 4 : Representation

RULE 4: REPRESENTATION

REPRESENTATION FOR A PARTY

4. (1) A party may,
(a) appear without a lawyer or other representative;
(b) be represented by a lawyer; or
(c) be represented by a person who is not a lawyer, but only if the court gives permission in advance. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (1).
PRIVATE REPRESENTATION OF SPECIAL PARTY

(2) The court may authorize a person to represent a special party if the person is,
(a) appropriate for the task; and
(b) willing to act as representative. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (2).
PUBLIC LAW OFFICER TO REPRESENT SPECIAL PARTY

(3) If there is no appropriate person willing to act as a special party’s representative, the court may authorize the Children’s Lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee to act as representative, but only with that official’s consent. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (3).
SERVICE OF AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT

(4) An order under subrule (2) or (3) shall be served immediately, by the person who asked for the order or by any other person named by the court,
(a) on the representative; and
(b) on every party in the case. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (4).
REPRESENTATION OF PARTY WHO DIES

(5) If a party dies after the start of a case, the court may make the estate trustee a party instead, on motion without notice. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (5).
AUTHORIZING REPRESENTATIVE FOR PARTY WHO DIES

(6) If the party has no estate trustee, the court may authorize an appropriate person to act as representative, with that person’s consent, given in advance. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (6).
LAWYER FOR CHILD

(7) In a case that involves a child who is not a party, the court may authorize a lawyer to represent the child, and then the child has the rights of a party, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (7).
CHILD’S RIGHTS SUBJECT TO STATUTE

(8) Subrule (7) is subject to section 38 (legal representation of child, protection hearing) and subsection 114 (6) (legal representation of child, secure treatment hearing) of the Child and Family Services Act. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (8).
CHOICE OF LAWYER

(9) A party appearing without a lawyer may choose a lawyer by,
(a) serving on every other party and filing a notice of change in representation (Form 4) containing the lawyer’s consent to act; or
(b) having a lawyer come to court on the party’s behalf. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (9).
CHANGE IN REPRESENTATION

(10) Except as subrule (10.1) provides, a party represented by a lawyer may, by serving on every other party and filing a notice of change in representation (Form 4),
(a) change lawyers; or
(b) appear without a lawyer. O. Reg. 91/03, s. 1.
EXCEPTION, CHILD PROTECTION CASE SCHEDULED FOR TRIAL

(10.1) In a child protection case that has been scheduled for trial or placed on a trial list, a party may act under clause (10) (b) only with the court’s permission, obtained in advance by motion made with notice. O. Reg. 91/03, s. 1.
NOTICE OF CHANGE IN REPRESENTATION

(11) A notice of change in representation shall,
(a) contain the party’s address for service, if the party wants to appear without a lawyer; or
(b) show the name and address of the new lawyer, if the party wants to change lawyers. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (11).
LAWYER’S REMOVAL FROM THE CASE

(12) A lawyer may make a motion for an order to be removed from the case, with notice to the client and to,
(a) the Children’s Lawyer, if the client is a child;
(b) the Public Guardian and Trustee, if the client is or appears to be mentally incapable in respect of an issue in the case. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (12).
NOTICE OF MOTION TO REMOVE LAWYER

(13) Notice of a motion to remove a lawyer shall also be served on the other parties to the case, but the evidence in support of the motion shall not be served on them, shall not be put into the continuing record and shall not be kept in the court file after the motion is heard. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (13).
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMOVE LAWYER

(14) The affidavit in support of the motion shall indicate what stage the case is at, the next event in the case and any scheduled dates. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (14).
CONTENTS AND SERVICE OF ORDER REMOVING LAWYER

(15) The order removing the lawyer from the case shall,
(a) set out the client’s last known address for service; and
(b) be served on all other parties, served on the client by mail, fax or electronic mail at the client’s last known address and filed immediately. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (15).

Remarks by Chief Justice Warren K. Winkle

County of Carleton Law Association
Civil Litigation CLE Program
Montebello, Quebec-November 19, 2010
Remarks by Chief Justice Warren K. Winkler
http://ccla-abcc.ca/uploadedFiles/Remarks%20by%20Chief%20Justice%20Warren%20K.%20Winkler%20-%202010%20CCLA%20Civil%20Litigation%20Conference.pdf

After reading these pages, I'm sure that everyone will agree the system is a mess and needs changing NOW.
Even the Chief Justice knows it needs to be changed and it is not working.


Here are a few excerpts from these pages,


" Access to justice is the single most important issue facing the legal profession in Canada.  It 
continually tests those responsible for the administration of justice across the country.  Of 
even more serious concern is the fact that the area of law where this problem is most 
pronounced is family law. 
Almost everyone you meet these days has a story about a family member, friend or 
acquaintance that is going through a family dispute. Their story is predictably sad from a 
personal standpoint, but within the present context – the adequacy of our legal system –
their experiences invariably tell of frustration and dissatisfaction."

"Adding to these problems is the increase in the number of self-represented litigants who 
have run out of  funds for legal services.  The statistics  support the seriousness of this 
concern.  Each year, almost 90,000 new family law proceedings are commenced 
province-wide. Family disputes account for approximately one in five cases in Ontario's 
courts and lead to more than 300,000  court appearances each year. It is estimated that 
more than 50% of family law litigants come to court without legal representation."


"In September of this year at the Opening of Courts Ceremony in Toronto, I commented 
on our family justice system. For those of you who did not attend the Toronto ceremony 
or who have yet to track down my speech on the Court of Appeal website, there is no 
cause to fret.  I bring my message to you directly.
I began my remarks by saying that:
"I question the effectiveness of the 'slow-and-steady' approach of fine-tuning and 
rationalizing the present  system. Rather than incremental change, perhaps it is 
time to consider a more dramatic and pragmatic  revision of the manner in which 
family law services is delivered across Ontario."
In expressing concerns about the state of our family justice system, my hope was to raise 
the profile of this issue and begin a dialogue about what tangible steps we can take to 
make real changes that result in real results for clients. As I have said, no topic relating 3
to the justice system has a more direct bearing on the lives of Ontarians than improving 
our approach to resolving family breakdown."


"I conclude these remarks by stressing that  the reform I propose is an access to justice 
initiative.  We must ensure that parties to a family law dispute have early access to 
information, legal representation, and the benefit of full and timely disclosure.  Combine 
this with a streamlined process in which mediation is the centrepiece rather than a mere 
stop on the road to the courtroom, and we will be well on track to redressing the access 
issue.  Our task must be to assist those facing family breakdown in reaching an affordable 
resolution of their dispute and to alleviate, rather than worsen, their emotional stress."


These are only some of the remarks made by Chief Justice Warren K. Winkle. To see the full paper visit the link on this post.


Please sign and share this petition link http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/stop-the-corrupt-family-law-court-of-ontario/