Stretching the Meaning of Sexual Harassment.

[blackice]

I've never claimed any act is a bill. You're the one that claims that refers to Bill 117 as if it was law when in fact it became the Domestic Violence Protection Act is called the VAWA.

Heh dancing madly backwards you seem to have mastered at an early age. No you jumped all it when I refered to bill 117 and ps it was changes made to the DV...and it is refered to as VAWA .

No, the police would look for signs that she lived there (e.g. clothes). So if you are living by yourself and the woman doesn't have any belongings in the house, then the cops would not accept her word for it.

They do tell more, oh great one

Oh well, if you said it then it must be true, despite the fact that the Act specifically says you are wrong.

It does where? you have a way of self gratification, at your own expense. You now claim these things never happen prove it. I can prove they do. Your turn to do more than type...I bet you can't and will not...

Oh, you're right. Men's voices are never heard in the legal system. That's why you'll never get custody of your kids. Oh, wait. You did get custody of your child. Guess they must have thought you were a woman.

You are a mixed up little boy are'nt you. You seem to have taken all parts of a debate mixed it in a glass tossed in some stupidity and summed it up Custody I did, I do say that a lot to you and each and every time you ignore it Hummm why is that hey are you Captain BS from the other forums?

More propaganda. Baseless lies. Bill 117 became an act in Dec. 2000. Shows us the proof that this Act has been abused. Where's the proof?

show me proof of your claims of baseless etc diatribe. You have yet to back up one of your juvenile comments. I mean you are kidding right Once again you show how far removed you are from the situation and little little you have read like from the first page till now

Simple. Her second husband testified against her. The friends of her second husband testified against her. The first husband testified against her. She lost.

It just proves that the legal system works both ways. Sometimes the man loses. Sometimes the women loses.

Wow with proof like this...testified about what? That she was a good parent hummm my guess is that is not the case at all. Good for it back up your claims tell the truth what did they testify about? Sometimes...Sometimes lol you are an idiot you post the stats then say Sometimes this clearly shows you are but spam here...

So Mr. "I've been studying for five years so I'm the Expert,"

Speaking of lying you do that a lot...I have said I have far more expertise than your 2 second Google searches, your one second reading, and your 2 second copy this make a point ignore the facts I am right you are wrong diatribe...

How come almost everything you post is wrong? Time and time again, you have posted incorrect information that has been proven false. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong.

Take the time to read your post's again "wrong" "incorrect" you have yet to show anything wrong or incorrect. You have made but an ass of yourself and continue to humor me with your stupidity.

1. there do remain some biases against men but they are largely the same societal biases that see more women than men stay home with the kids when the couple is together-- generally the primary caregiver before the breakup wins custody

I did not post that but lets work with it. So when the false accusation happens the man is removed and the mother then has the home and the children "status quo" prevails seems an easy thing to do based on these laws. Going further seems like a good tactic to use to get the edge as Cools points out and others that in fact it is an all too common tactic. I disagree most couples work in todays "daycare society" "Primary Caregiver is a whole new ball of wax section 122.6 of income yax act ensures the woman is assumed to be the primary caregiver... Comming at you from all sides now...

However, this legislation is a reaction to the situation where a truly powerless woman with kids could not afford to move out (perhaps hubby controls the money) and needs to end a truly abusive situation. Any test must balance the interests of of protecting people against the interest of remaining in the home. Whether you like it or not, a court will be more concerned about protecting possible abuse victims-- and some abuse is real-- early in my career I acted on a couple of child apprehensions. Reading the file ( and then seeing the photos) . . . lets just say there are some sick people out there.

Yes true the domestic abuse stats that generated this "woman is the only abused" is truely disquieting. The statistics show in fact abuse is almost equal so where do men go and what help do they get removing themselves from DV with thier kids? None nadda the statistics also show children are abuse by the mother at double the rate of the men. This was not what the misadrists where telling people when they generated all the hype to begin with. Thier lies have been proven to be just that but the scales of justise were already swayed. Balancing them out again for the sake of the children is what I am talking about. Yes there are lots of sick people I am glad we have something to help but it is bias and that is not justice or right.

But know something . . . the system does come to a just solution in the majority of cases.

Just in some maybe, majority ask any lawyer, mens group it is simply not the case.

Are there wrong decisions, abuse and sometimes heartache ?-- yup, I'll agree with that. But the system works reasonably well in a majority of cases. . . and it EVENTUALLY reaches the correct result in a vast majority of cases. the problem to be solved is those situations where it does not wor

It does not work it is adversarial and bias at best. Misandry is wide spread. Majority is not the case with this reasoning the majority of men are bad fathers heh I just do not buy it. Vast majority show me the proof again you make the claim that most men are bad parents I wholehartedly disagree period.The deck is stacked face it that is not just nor is it right.

However, despite your study of the issue, most of your legal conclusions are just wrong, wrong wrong. First of all, most judges would not give an exclusive possession order for a non-owned property unless there were children involved.

No they are not again most judges show me the facts you speak of and judges do award possession for non-owned yes.

So your suggestion that some woman you are dating will LEGALLY take your property is wrong and ridiculous.

Proof lots of opinions proof man, it is not wrong it does happen and the law allows it to happen.

Really, do you think that a 2 week live-in girlfriend will get to take your house ?? get serious !!

Yes I do I am serious it happens the law allows for it to happen typed in black and white they included live-ins in the act read it. Was it their intention to put it in just to give you something to deny?

Criminal law -- none of these are provisions are criminal law but there can be overlap between the federal criminal law and the provincial regulatory offences in just the same way that a traffic offence can be punished provincially under their regulatory regime as well as federally under the Criminal Code.

Yes HTA covers this but this is civil law do not ignore that fact...

There are so many errors among your other legal assertions and its late . . so I will wait until tomorrow to see what else you come up with

Errors based on your assuptions proof I continue to provide it yet all I see is assuptions people call facts. Assuptions people "claim" make all other facts baseless. Look a simple Google search will show what I am saying and why it has not been used yet in this debate is because NONE or your Taki's assumptions can be found or proven. The simple reality is as much as you say the "majority" etc etc you have yet to prove that in fact it is not the majority unless you believe most men are bad people to thier kids and others...I do not that is simply a lie an myth...misandry...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I've never claimed any act is a bill. You're the one that claims that refers to Bill 117 as if it was law when in fact it became the Domestic Violence Protection Act is called the VAWA.

I'm man enough to admit I made a mistake. The above paragraph should have read:

I've never claimed any act is a bill. You're the one that refers to Bill 117 as if it was law when in fact it became the Domestic Violence Protection Act, not the VAWA as you mistakenly claim.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by blackice

Bill 117 became an act in Dec. 2000. Shows us the proof that this Act has been abused. Where's the proof?

show me proof of your claims of baseless etc diatribe. You have yet to back up one of your juvenile comments. I mean you are kidding right Once again you show how far removed you are from the situation and little little you have read like from the first page till now

Come on Blackice. You claim the Act has been abused. So I'll ask again: Shows us your proof. Not that I'm expecting any. When Blackice throws around insults it means he can't supply any facts to back up his wild accusations.

Originally posted by blackice
I have said I have far more expertise than your 2 second Google searches,

Then why do your posts contain so much false information. If you really are an expert why is it that we can expose your false information with a quick search of the Internet?

Blackice has posted so much false information that I question whether his sob story is true. No matter how much I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, his credibility is so low that it is only natural to question his story.

Originally posted by blackice
Speaking of lying you do that a lot...

I have made one mistake, and I acknowledged and corrected that mistake. So Blackice, if you're going to call me a liar then you better be able to prove it. Or else shut up.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by blackice

1. there do remain some biases against men but they are largely the same societal biases that see more women than men stay home with the kids when the couple is together-- generally the primary caregiver before the breakup wins custody

I did not post that but lets work with it. So when the false accusation happens the man is removed and the mother then has the home and the children "status quo" prevails seems an easy thing to do based on these laws. Going further seems like a good tactic to use to get the edge as Cools points out and others that in fact it is an all too common tactic. I disagree most couples work in todays "daycare society" "Primary Caregiver is a whole new ball of wax section 122.6 of income yax act ensures the woman is assumed to be the primary caregiver... Comming at you from all sides now...

I agree that many courts view the status quo as as pretty much the same as "the best interests of the child" and there is therefore an incentive to try to be the parent in the home with the child. Also 122.6 of the Income Tax Act deals with the calculation of the Child Tax benefit and even if there is a presumption in favor of the female parent, that has no bearing on custody or distribution of marital assets.

However that was not my point. My point is that there are still more stay-at-home moms than stay-at-home dads and courts will favor the at-home parent in the majority of cases. That fact alone would skew the statistics somewhat.

However, this legislation is a reaction to the situation where a truly powerless woman with kids could not afford to move out (perhaps hubby controls the money) and needs to end a truly abusive situation. Any test must balance the interests of of protecting people against the interest of remaining in the home. Whether you like it or not, a court will be more concerned about protecting possible abuse victims-- and some abuse is real-- early in my career I acted on a couple of child apprehensions. Reading the file ( and then seeing the photos) . . . lets just say there are some sick people out there.

QUOTE] Originally posted by blackice

Yes true the domestic abuse stats that generated this "woman is the only abused" is truely disquieting. The statistics show in fact abuse is almost equal so where do men go and what help do they get removing themselves from DV with thier kids? None nadda the statistics also show children are abuse by the mother at double the rate of the men. This was not what the misadrists where telling people when they generated all the hype to begin with. Thier lies have been proven to be just that but the scales of justise were already swayed. Balancing them out again for the sake of the children is what I am talking about. Yes there are lots of sick people I am glad we have something to help but it is bias and that is not justice or right. [/QUOTE]

In theory, the same mechanisms are available to men under this type of legislation but the societal bias kicks in to make it less likely that men will be believed or taken seriously

But know something . . . the system does come to a just solution in the majority of cases.

QUOTE] Originally posted by blackice

Just in some maybe, majority ask any lawyer, mens group it is simply not the case.[/QUOTE]

I'd dispute you there . Was involved in 9 custody cases myself and saw bunches more. In my 9, in only one did I disagree with the result. Of the 9, IIRC 6 went to the mother sole custody (3 or 4 uncontested IIRC) and the remaining 3 were joint custody of one type or another. Its anecdotal but the system , slow and painful as it is, usually reaches the right result. And in case you haven't clued in by now, I AM a lawyer, although no longer doing family law.

Are there wrong decisions, abuse and sometimes heartache ?-- yup, I'll agree with that. But the system works reasonably well in a majority of cases. . . and it EVENTUALLY reaches the correct result in a vast majority of cases. the problem to be solved is those situations where it does not wor

QUOTE] Originally posted by blackice

It does not work it is adversarial and bias at best. Misandry is wide spread. Majority is not the case with this reasoning the majority of men are bad fathers heh I just do not buy it. Vast majority show me the proof again you make the claim that most men are bad parents I wholehartedly disagree period.The deck is stacked face it that is not just nor is it right. [/QUOTE]

I will grant you some biases in favor of mothers but a decision to grant custody to a mother is not a decision that someone is a "bad father". You could be a great dad but opposed by a stay-at-home mom, or even one who works part-time, an employed dad will likely lose, unless there are other factors in play like abuse.

However, despite your study of the issue, most of your legal conclusions are just wrong, wrong wrong. First of all, most judges would not give an exclusive possession order for a non-owned property unless there were children involved.

QUOTE] Originally posted by blackice

No they are not again most judges show me the facts you speak of and judges do award possession for non-owned yes.[/QUOTE]

My facts are my reading of the legislation and common sense. Could it ever happen? yes, but in 99% of cases the judge would see no reason for the short-term relationship non-owner to get possession if there are no children. Remember that all parts of the test must be satisfied for the order to be granted.

...

[/QUOTE]



I leave your most ridiculous assertion for a separate post

[Flubber]

This was the most obvious example of where blackice gets things totally wrong

Originally posted by blackice

So your suggestion that some woman you are dating will LEGALLY take your property is wrong and ridiculous.

Proof lots of opinions proof man, it is not wrong it does happen and the law allows it to happen.

Really, do you think that a 2 week live-in girlfriend will get to take your house ?? get serious !!

Yes I do I am serious it happens the law allows for it to happen typed in black and white they included live-ins in the act read it. Was it their intention to put it in just to give you something to deny?

No blackice, the intention was not to allow a one-night stand to take your house . Since most of the remedies are about staying away from the other person, the intent was to capture a dating relationship in orders to prevent stalking.

Lets go through the basics. Possession is not ownership so even in the remote case that a "date" could get you kicked out of your own home, this does not affect title and the house will remain yours. Now could the "date" damage your house or steal your property while in possession? Yup, but she could do that while you are asleep on the couch without ever going near this act.

Further, section 12 makes it explicit that ownership is not affected by possession orders.

Also, while the emergency provisions allow for an order that the respondent vacate the " applicant's residence" , one cannot obtain an order for possession without a full hearing. If you want to get totally ridiculous, it is theoretically POSSIBLE for a person you dated once (and who was never even in your house) to avail themselves of all the remedies in the act, including possession of your home.

Oh I can see that case now

" well judge, I really liked his house when I drove by it so I think I should get to live there since he abused me on our date"



Blackice, if you look throught the law, you will find any number of instances where the drafting makes a ludicrous result possible when the judge has a number of remedies possible. The common law has developed and the parameters under which certain orders will and will not be given are left for the judges to determine. The drafting here could have been tighter so that certain remedies (the stalking ones) were available to "dates" while the full gamut of remedies was available to others. BUT these remedies

1. do not affect ownership
2. can only occur after a hearing in which a judge must be convinced that the order is necessary
3. in the case of an emergency order, is subject to a timely contested hearing


There are remedies for the property owner as well. If I wanted to get a "date" out of my house, I would simply call the police and let them know that I had a tresspasser in my house.


Bottom line is you are talking about a remote theoretical risk that a "date" could ever get possession of one of your assets temporarily. Ownership-- NEVER under this legislation-- now if they cohabitated for a while, then you might be in the realm of disvision of assets but that is a whole different ballpark

[blackice]

[q]I agree that many courts view the status quo as as pretty much the same as "the best interests of the child" and there is therefore an incentive to try to be the parent in the home with the child.[q/]
Incentive...war you mean even the "child lawyers office" admits they are not there for the best interest of the child and do not rule as such. so who are you trying to kid here

Also 122.6 of the Income Tax Act deals with the calculation of the Child Tax benefit and even if there is a presumption in favor of the female parent, that has no bearing on custody or distribution of marital assets.

Section 122.6 of the ITA determines Who is the primary caregiver also and thier is the presumption and it does affect assests.

However that was not my point. My point is that there are still more stay-at-home moms than stay-at-home dads and courts will favor the at-home parent in the majority of cases. That fact alone would skew the statistics somewhat.

I'd dispute you there . Was involved in 9 custody cases myself and saw bunches more. In my 9, in only one did I disagree with the result.

Because of nine cases? Or because you agreed with the result of your client winning?
(3) Domestic violence may be found to have occurred for the purposes of this Act whether or not, in respect of any act or omission described in subsection (2), a charge has been laid or dismissed or withdrawn or a conviction has been or could be obtained.

Wow so this whole thing can be enacted and ruled on even if... holes big holes in all you say read that line carefully...

My facts are my reading of the legislation and common sense. Could it ever happen? yes, but in 99% of cases the judge would see no reason for the short-term relationship non-owner to get possession if there are no children. Remember that all parts of the test must be satisfied for the order to be granted.

You know I have called on you to back your statistics and you ignore me and now hit 99% BS you get more rediculous with each claim. All parts several years later in the mean time...

No blackice, the intention was not to allow a one-night stand to take your house

Everyone focuses on the house to make the rest of the facts invalid. They are valid period in black and white and can and are abused Rediculous only to the ignorant. It does allow for it you can not deny that it is printed in black and white...

Lets go through the basics. Possession is not ownership so even in the remote case that a "date" could get you kicked out of your own home, this does not affect title and the house will remain yours. Now could the "date" damage your house or steal your property while in possession? Yup, but she could do that while you are asleep on the couch without ever going near this act.

Passession is not ownership humm and you are a lawyer...The house remains yours for now. If you have remained at the house for two years waiting for resolve of the case YOU HAVE resided there for two years. Using this act would be a nice way to do it the mere fact they can and suffer no repercusions for abusing it is unreal...

Further, section 12 makes it explicit that ownership is not affected by possession orders.

yes it does but 12.(1)Except as provided by paragraph 7 or 11 of subsection 3 (2), Provides for the potential takeover if innocent or not... Be nice eh rent free nice house two years later because he has to prove his innocence or not heh you are awarded the house for damages and status quo. Reality not fiction do not make light of it the problem is the law is flawed and it does and will happen. Owership yes remember while you think Justice is fair and even you are dealing with bias a an unreal view of the adversarial court system.I do not know one lawyer that shares your views. I can only assume you practice law in Disney Land? Remember you are dealing with proving one's innocence this is simply wrong. It does leave too many holes and advantages including possession of your goods. Remember this does not take place in one appearance. Remember it takes but one other person to say I saw it to concude the end means. A lawyer heh one I would not hire I assure you...Read Anne Cools more carefully...

[blackice]

Bill 117 guts men's rights
Dave Brown
The Ottawa Citizen

Just in time for Christmas, Ontario Attorney General Jim Flaherty has presented a gift-wrapped monster called Bill 117 that effectively removes the Charter rights of half the population -- the male half.

Gone with the flick of a quick vote are fundamental procedural rights and the presumption of innocence.

The vote was held in the Ontario legislature late Monday. The new law gives special courts powers that appear to circumvent the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights.

Created a few years ago as domestic courts, and now officially known as Domestic Violence Courts, these special courts have now been given the power to temporarily strip a man of all he owns without him even being present to defend himself.

It's called an "intervention order" and is built on the premise that abused women are prisoners of economics. Bill 117 reverses those economics by permitting the court to transfer all property to her in an emergency ex parte hearing.

The most amazing thing about this Draconian approach to the war against domestic squabbles is that the media have turned a blind eye. Toronto newspapers didn't touch it.

The word "squabbles" is not an error. The definition of violence is now so broad that a raised voice, if it causes fright, is abuse, which translates to violence.

This column reported details of Bill 117 on Nov. 4. Reader reaction was the heaviest I've experienced in more than 30 years of column writing. Many refused to believe it. They thought I must have my facts wrong.

One of the strangest reactions was from a local radio talk show. Driving around one day after the Bill 117 column appeared, I heard a local talk-show host refuse callers' requests to discuss the bill.

He said he had checked it out with local MPP Garry Guzzo, who assured him things were not as reported in this column. Mr. Guzzo was a member of the standing committee that drew up the bill.

If readers found my views hard to swallow, they should read what Law Times writer Rob Martin had to say in his Nov. 13 column. He teaches constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario.

He wrote: "We are falling into the abyss of allowing hysteria to drive our public policy agenda. The leading source of hysteria today is domestic violence. This hysteria has led to a number of seriously misguided acts, as various persons have attempted to demonstrate their commitment to 'doing something' about domestic violence."

Mr. Flaherty certainly is doing something. But it's wrong, says Mr. Martin: "This bill is classic police-state legislation and violates just about every constitutional principle that anyone with even a minimal familiarity with our Constitution might think of."

There is already a zero-tolerance policy regarding domestic disturbances/violence. A major problem is the 911 call. Dialling that number means a life is at risk. Feuding couples don't realize until it's too late that by dialling 911 they are in effect reporting an attempted murder. Police no longer separate the battling couple and tell them to cool off. They take one of them -- 99 per cent of the time it's the man -- to jail.

He appears in front of a domestic court judge the next day. If he agrees to plead guilty, he can go home by promising to behave and to take a series of anger-management courses. If he refuses to plead, he faces lengthy delays in the criminal system, large legal bills, and he can't go home because a restraining order is part of the program.

Under Bill 117, while he's in jail overnight, his opponent (wife, ex-wife, girlfriend or date) can appear in front of a judge and ask for an intervention order. He can wake up owning nothing, with no place to go.

Proponents of the intervention order say he can apply to a judge to get his property back within 30 days. What they don't point out is that the other party has the legal right to be there. If she doesn't show up, the process is stalled. A court order can be issued, but family courts have a poor record of enforcing orders against women.

Senator Anne Cools, a founder of the women's shelter movement and now one of its most vocal opponents, appeared at Bill 117 hearings, appealing for reason. "This is a human problem, not a gender problem. Both sexes are capable of violence. ... The issue has been falsely framed."

This new approach, she said, was "a heart of darkness."

From my perspective as a reporter and a man, it's social vandalism.

Dave Brown is the Citizen's senior editor. Send e-mail to dbrown@thecitizen.southam.ca Read previous columns by Dave Brown at www.ottawacitizen.com

Copyright 2001 Ottawa Citizen Group Inc.

[blackice]

One phone call away from ruin
Bill 117 means that in Ontario women can trash men's lives with ease
by Eli Schuster
Report Newsmagazine




Observers of Ontario politics remember the 1995 provincial election campaign, when Liberal leader Lyn McLeod's views on domestic violence were interpreted as "shout at your spouse, lose your house. Ms. McLeod insisted she had not intended that her position be interpreted as an attack on men, but when the smoke cleared, her party had blown a 30-point lead in the polls and Conservative leader Mike Harris was premier. Now, say critics of Ontario's proposed Bill 117, the Tory government's Domestic Violence Protection Act, Ms. McLeod may wind up with the last laugh.

Introduced to the Ontario Legislature in September as the government's response to several high-profile murder-suicides, Bill 117 is the cornerstone of the Harris government's $135-million campaign against domestic violence. The bill would replace non-criminal restraining orders with "intervention orders that are clearer and more enforceable," according to a written statement from the office of the attorney general. For the first time, violations of the new orders will be designated a criminal offence.

Expected to become law by the end of November (a month officially designated for the past 15 years in Ontario as "Wife Assault Prevention Month"), the new law broadly defines domestic violence to include everything from outright sexual assault to any "series of acts which collectively causes fear for safety," including any thing a woman interprets as "contacting, communicating with, observing or recording the person." It would also "more broadly define domestic relationships to include dating relationships and family members who reside together...allow victims to obtain an intervention order quickly, 24 hours a day, seven days a week," and grant victims (mostly female) "the exclusive possession of the residence to the victim, or exclusive use of certain property such as credit cards and bank accounts."

Brian Jenkins, a spokesman for the group Fathers Are Capable Too, has a problem with the law's inclusion of "an intentional or reckless act or omission that causes fear for safety." That could mean anything, he says. "If I leave my garage door open and the squirrels get in and destroy everything that belongs to my wife, have I committed a reckless act of omission or domestic abuse?" Toronto lawyer Waiter Fox sees civil liberties issues arising within Bill 117. "It's allegation-oriented, meaning you don't even have to shout at your spouse to lose your house -- you just have to be accused of it," he says. Moreover, the Act would allow for intervention orders to be given without the other side present. And the legislation seems to imply that a judge can make an injunction "even when the abuser has been acquitted of a criminal act." "That sounds like something [former NDP attorney general] Marion Boyd would say," he says. Others question whether or not Bill 117 oversteps provincial-federal boundaries. Liberal MP Roger Galloway has stated that "the Criminal Code is being swept aside by this bill."

Spokesmen for Attorney General James Flaherty refused to respond to specific questions from this magazine. But Mr. Flaherty addressed Bill 117's critics in a November 13 letter to the Ottawa Citizen. He describe the new law as "complementary to the Criminal Code of Canada" with built-in safeguards to prevent abuses. Emergency orders will only be issued by a judge or justice of the peace who "would have to be satisfied that violence has occurred," he wrote. And "either party would have 30 days to ask for a court hearing to terminate or change an intervention order, and the hearing would have to be held within 14 days of the request." Moreover, notice would have to be given to the other party if an applicant wanted exclusive use of property. It would be up to judges to decide which parts of an intervention order would apply in a given situation.

The Act might function relatively well, assuming it is interpreted by sensible judges, Mr. Fox says. But experience with the courts has left him skeptical. In fact, if a woman is awarded possession of a home and other property through an intervention order, he says, she will be able to hire a good lawyer and keep the alleged abuser in court for up to two years. Family law is biased towards women, Mr. Fox argues. "What happens when a woman doesn't show up for a discovery?" he asks. "In family court, nothing. We don't sanction women in our courts."

A self-described lifelong Tory, Mr. Fox sees a ministry largely driven by left-leaning and feminist civil servants armed with misleading statistics on domestic violence. (He believes domestic violence is a two-way street between men and women, and that a lot of female-on-male violence goes unreported.) He also worries the government is taking its conservative supporters for granted. "How many votes" he asks painfully, "are they going to get from [feminist commentators] Judy Rebick and Michele Landsberg?"

The effect of the bill is best summed up by Dori Gospordaric, co-founder of Second Spouses of Canada. "Any man in my life is simply one phone call away from total destruction (when Bill 117 becomes law)".

[blackice]

Men 'one phone call' from total destruction'
Accused abusers would lose freedom, property under Bill 117
Dave Brown
The Ottawa Citizen
TORONTO - Ontario's domestic violence war is about to enter its nuclear age with the creation of a legal weapon so destructive no sane man will risk abusive behaviour -- or marriage, or even dating.

It's called the "intervention order" and is being fast-tracked through the legislature. It has already passed two readings, is going back for some fine tuning Nov. 7, and is expected to be law before the end of the month. Bill 117's power will make the familiar restraining order obsolete.

Observers say the speed and low profile with which this ultimate weapon has been developed is part of a promise from Attorney General Jim Flaherty. He made it after high profile murder-suicides near Toronto. He wants to "send a clear signal that domestic violence is not tolerated in Ontario."

The new legislation is based on the premise women in abusive relationships can't escape because they are economically dependent. The intent is to correct this by making it possible to immediately transfer all property to her.

Written into the scheme are ex parte applications. The alleged abuser doesn't have to be present when the order seizing his property is made. Application for an Intervention Order can be made by anyone in a one-to-one relationship, including dating.

Literally without knowing about it, it will be possible for a partner, almost 100 per cent of them men, to lose freedom and property. The intervention order includes an automatic restraining order.

Any violation of an intervention order will be a criminal offence. It will take precedence over any acquittal, dismissal or withdrawal of a criminal charge, or any order under any statute, including the Divorce Act.

Transference of property will include leased property, even if she is only a date, and is binding on the landlord. If rent is in arrears, the landlord must collect from him. She will have no liability.

These points were highlighted by Toronto lawyer Walter Fox during one of the strongest presentations at current hearings at Queen's Park. Outside the hearing room he described the proposed legislation as "a pimp's dream." Prostitutes approach men asking if they want a "date," since it's illegal to ask if they want sex. Admitting it's a stretch, Mr. Fox said pimps could use the legislation, and hookers, to prey on men.

The hearing is called: "The Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy, Bill 117, The Domestic Violence Protection Act." The small audience of about 40 watching Tuesday's presentations was mainly silent, but broke into spontaneous applause at the end of a particularly tough presentation opposing the legislation. It was from a woman.

"Any man in my life is simply one phone call away from total destruction (when Bill 117 becomes law)," said Dori Gospordaric, co-founder of Second Spouses of Canada. "You have already provided protection for me. It's called the criminal justice system. Now you have provided for me the ultimate weapon. A phone call.

"Being mothers does not make us sacrosanct. It does not make us morally superior. There is no superiority of the uterus ... Funded women's groups claim to represent women. Which women? I am a woman and a mother and I don't care what the gender of my abuser, I want it to stop. You are funding women to abuse me."

She said she was speaking for tens of thousands of women who, as second wives, are guilty by association as public funding helps vilify and launch legal attacks on ex-husbands.

The hearing ended Tuesday with a joint presentation from MP Roger Galloway, co-chair of the federal Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, and Senator Anne Cools, a member of that committee. Mr. Galloway said he heard some 550 presentations on couples issues, and was "no stranger to the problems." He considered the provincial plan overkill, and questioned the right of the province to override the Criminal Code. There is already too much confusion in processes that deal with failed relationships, he said.

"The Criminal Code is being swept aside by this bill."

Senator Cools, a founder of the women's shelter movement and now one of its most vocal opponents, said she was speaking from "decades of experience on the ground in this field.

"This is a human problem, not a gender problem. Both sexes are capable of violence. ... The issue has been falsely framed." She called the latest tilt to the rules of relationships: "A heart of darkness. ... In one decade we've gone from Father Knows Best to Fathers Molest."

She said the majority of men are not abusers, and the intervention order would turn loose a minority of women who would take advantage of the legislation's best intentions.

The report of the special joint committee was handed over to Justice Minister Anne McLellan a year ago and shelved. Ms. McLellan said at the time it would stay on the shelf for at least three years. It appears now in the election platform of the Alliance party. "We will follow the unanimous recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access to ensure that shared parenting is the norm in the aftermath of divorce."

Any offer of relief for children caught in the battle zone of the one-sided gender war (only women's groups are funded) gets my vote.

Although the language of Bill 117 is gender neutral, all recognize it's aimed at men.

Conversation in front of the hearing room Tuesday often referred to Patrick Roy's situation in Colorado. In a fit of temper, the top NHL goalie damaged two doors in his home. When a man loses it and displays temper and frightens his spouse, that's abuse. He was arrested. His wife refused to co-operate with police, but it didn't matter. When she dialled 911, even though she hung up without saying anything, she no longer had input. Current thinking backed by protocols is that by dialing those digits, a woman admits she can't control things around her.

In tomorrow's Ontario, a man making Mr. Roy's mistake could have nothing left by the time the fingerprint ink dried.

Considering the amount of property involved, this could be considered another stretch. But under Bill 117, the door is open for an angry woman to freeze everything. Wealthy men could wind up joining their mortgage-strapped brothers, calling their mothers for a loan, or a sofa to sleep on.

Statistics are the bullets of this war, and all sides use them like snipers. Often there's no way of knowing where the shot came from, or if it was accurate.

Stating a case for a women's group, one presenter said it was common knowledge a woman suffers 24 assaults before she turns to the authorities. There were no questions or challenges from hearing committee members.

While politicians tinker with this new legal weapon, the public attitude seems to be to keep one's head down. For anyone wanting to get off a shot before it's too late, here's a target.

Ottawa-Nepean MPP Garry Guzzo is a member of the all-party Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy. His number is 727-2657, or fax 224-3306, or e-mail gguzzo@sympatico.ca

Dave Brown is the Citizen's senior editor. Send e-mail to dbrown@thecitizen.southam.ca Read previous columns by Dave Brown at www.ottawacitizen.comFACE="sans-serif,

Copyright 2000 Ottawa Citizen

[blackice]

Train AGs in Rudimentary Law
by Rob Martin
Commentary - Law Times
Having reflected long and hard on the matter, I came to believe a number of years ago that Marion Boyd, sometime attorney general in the "Now Defunct Party" government of Ontario, was the worst attorney general in Ontario's history. But the incumbent, James Flaherty, is now giving Boyd a serious run for her money.

Neither Boyd nor Flaherty appears to have grasped the constitutional significance of the office of attorney general. The office is a delicate one. The attorney general should attempt to behave with modesty and circumspection and in an essentially non-political fashion. The failing of Boyd and Flaherty is the same and has to do with the extent to which each has politicised the office.

Once again, we are falling into the abyss of allowing hysteria to drive our public policy agenda. The leading source of hysteria today is domestic violence. This hysteria has led to a number of seriously misguided acts, as various persons have attempted to demonstrate their commitment to "doing something" about domestic violence.

Pride of place amongst the misguided must go to Lesley M. Baldwin, a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. Baldwin was a member of something called the Joint Committee on Domestic Violence. This was an ad hoc political lobbying and advocacy group, something which no judge should ever have become part of.

The committee, chaired by Baldwin, completed a report in 1999, which suggested certain steps be taken to combat domestic violence. On July 5, the Committee wrote Baldwin urging her to take "immediate action" with a view to having the report implemented. The letter was probably a contempt of court, but no matter.

On July 7, Baldwin wrote to Flaherty, enclosing the letter from the Committee, which she "endorsed". She added that she had "observed no noticeable change in the manner in which counsel are approaching these difficult cases in the criminal courts in which I preside". She expressed a willingness to meet with Flaherty to attempt to get the committee's report implemented.

To his great credit, Alan Gold, President of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, made a complaint about Baldwin to the Ontario Judicial Council.

I wonder if Baldwin has any inkling that her judicial office imposes limits on what she may or may not do. Does anybody ever instruct newly appointed judges in these things? This sort of behaviour by a judge is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.

The hysteria has continued unabated. On September 27, Flaherty introduced Bill 117, an act to better protect victims of domestic violence, in the legislature. This bill is classic police-state legislation and violates just about every constitutional principle that anyone with even a minimal familiarity with our Constitution might think of.

The bill would authorize the Superior Court of Justice to make an "intervention order" when a judge is satisfied on a "balance of probabilities" that domestic violence has occurred. "Domestic violence" is defined as any one of the following, committed against an applicant for an intervention order or an applicant's relative or any child:

an assault;
any act or omission which causes bodily harm or damage to property;
any act which causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety; or
a series of acts which causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety, including following, contacting, communicating with, observing or recording any person.
The applicant for an intervention order may be the spouse or former spouse of, or someone who is cohabiting with, the respondent. It may also be someone who is simply dating the respondent.

Notice of the application for an intervention order must be given to the respondent. An intervention order may restrain the respondent from being at any place regularly attended by the applicant, a relative of the applicant, any child or any other specified person. The "place" may include a residence, property, business, school or place of employment. Thus, a respondent who has merely been dating an applicant may be forced to give up his residence and his job.

Intervention orders are to be enforced by the police.

An "emergency" intervention order may specify the same things as a regular intervention order, but notice of the application need not be given to the respondent.

A truly extraordinary provision in the bill states that the applicant for an order shall not commit perjury or public mischief. Thus, someone may apply fraudulently and dishonestly for an order and not, as a result, face any legal sanction.

Designated judges and justices of the peace are to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to hear applications for emergency orders.

I don't know where to begin in noting what is wrong with this bill. Many Canadians believe we have a system of constitutional government founded upon certain basic principles. It is not encouraging to realize that the Attorney General of Ontario has not grasped this basic notion.

There can be little doubt that Bill 117 is an attempt on the part of a province to make criminal law, something which every first-year law student, if not our attorney general, knows is prohibited by our Constitution. Does Mr. Flaherty realize that our Constitution also contains something called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The Charter guarantees freedom of association, as well as certain fundamental procedural rights, and the presumption of innocence, all of which Bill 117 infringes.

Flaherty appears to believe that, if he is pursuing noble objectives, he need not let little things like the law or the Constitution stand in his way.

Stamping out domestic violence is an undeniably good thing, so why worry about the law? Flaherty wished recently to keep the hideous "artist" Eminem out of Canada and urged Ottawa to deny him entry to Canada regardless of the law.

The media, true to their devotion to promoting orthodoxy, have so far said nothing about Bill 117. On October 31, there was a public hearing about Bill 117 at Queen's Park. Two witnesses spoke against the bill, but not a word of their comments was reported.

These witnesses were friends of mine, two people for whom I have great admiration and respect. The first was Senator Anne Cools, whom I believe to be the only person in Ottawa who manages to combine intelligence, integrity and courage. The second was Toronto lawyer, Cynthia Wasser. Wasser regularly behaves the way we still like to imagine lawyers do and fearlessly represents unpopular figures accused of committing crimes.

One might think that the first court to look at Bill 117 would strike it down. One might have thought that until reading the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in K.L.W. v. Manitoba Child and Family Services Agency.

In this decision the Court upheld the constitutionality of the action by C.F.S.A. storm troopers in kidnapping a one-day old infant from the hospital where the child and its mother were both receiving treatment.

So much for our Constitution. Periodic waves of hysteria regularly convince us that certain behaviour is so reprehensible that it must be stamped out "at all costs". This notion will eventually subvert our system of constitutional democracy.

Perhaps it is time to institute a programme for training attorneys general in the rudiments of our legal system.


Professor Robert I. Martin teaches Constitutional Law at the University of Western Ontario. Equally versed in Media Law, Prof. Martin signs the popular column "Martin's Creed" in Law Times.

The last of three posts all of which point out the flaws and the facts of this ignorance and misandry...I could go on and on and on with court cases and continued proof. Any one here have ANY PROOF WHAT SO EVER TO thier claims? ANYONE? Lets start with 99%

[blackice]

Published 26 December 2001

System of injustices
Paul Craig Roberts
The Washington Times
This Christmas season while counting our blessings and enjoying the comforts of family, take a moment to say a prayer for the tens of thousands of innocent Americans who will watch the passing of another year from comfortless prison cells.

Among these many is Christophe Yves Gaynor. In my considered opinion, Mr. Gaynor was framed by a corrupt prosecutor and railroaded by a corrupt judge. Mr. Gaynor was a skateboard coach in Virginia who took his team to a New York competition. One of the team members attempted to purchase drugs. To restrain him, Mr. Gaynor threatened to tell his parents. The boy struck first by accusing Mr. Gaynor of molesting him. The entire team knew the charge to be false, but the improprieties of the trial defeated justice.

Another innocent is Carl Graf. When he declined a woman's sexual advances, the spurned woman accused him of molesting her son.

Because of religious scruples, Anthony Kovaleski refused to testify against his wife, prompting angry police to concoct charges against him.

Conservatives have hardened their hearts against the wrongfully convicted. Mistakes happen, they admit, but they believe most mistakes result from liberal judges letting the guilty go free.

Conservatives are right that the guilty often go free, but the reason is that the innocent are convicted in their place. Justice is no longer a concern of the justice system. Careers depend on conviction rates. It is easier for police and prosecutors to get convictions by piling charges on a convenient suspect until they coerce a plea than to solve a case and find the truth.

Mary Sue Terry, former attorney general of Virginia, has this to say: "Our concern has turned from seeking truth to seeking convictions, and our post-conviction efforts are focused on denying any further review."

Judges have written to me in response to the book, "The Tyranny of Good Intentions," that I coauthored with Larry Stratton about the breakdown of our justice system. They confirm that injustice is often served by the justice system.

As one of the few columnists who writes about wrongful convictions, I receive numerous pleas for help. It is impossible for me to investigate and write about the many cases. All I can hope to accomplish is to make the public aware that once conviction replaces truth as the goal of the justice system, no one is safe. Sources of help for the wrongfully convicted can be found at www.truthinjustice.org.

With the advent of DNA evidence, every week we learn of new cases of wrongful conviction. People on death row and people who have spent most of their lives in prison are being released as DNA evidence proves them to be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted: Albert Wesley Brown, imprisoned 18 years in Oklahoma; Marvin L. Anderson, imprisoned 15 years in Virginia; Jeffrey Todd Pierce, imprisoned 15 years in Oklahoma. The list far exceeds the length of this column.

Forensic evidence, once thought to be conclusive, has turned out to be unreliable and fraudulent. From time to time, we see news reports of forensic experts whose work has fallen under suspicion: Pamela Fish in Illinois, Fred Zain in West Virginia. One, Joyce Gilchrist, a 21-year veteran of the Oklahoma City police forensic lab, is under investigation by Oklahoma authorities, the FBI and a federal grand jury. Of her cases, 112 have been set aside for scrutiny, with 500 more to be reopened.

In nine of 10 Gilchrist cases being examined by the federal grand jury, the defendants have already been executed.

As a result of new tests, DNA evidence has unsettled many police and prosecutor offices. Recently in Arlington, which in my opinion has one of the least reliable justice systems in the United States, the chief deputy clerk of the county circuit court destroyed the DNA evidence and alleged murder weapon in a death penalty case under appeal.

The defendant's lawyer is astonished that "where a person's life is at stake, the government is of the view it can destroy the evidence with impunity and say, 'Yes, we destroyed the evidence, so what?'"

Another festering scandal is prosecutors who pay "snitches" with money or dropped charges to produce testimony that can be used to convict other defendants. Most often, the testimony is false, but the prosecutor has his "evidence."

Yet another scandal is the advent of feminist and lesbian prosecutors who hate men and use their office to act out sex grudges.

Yes, there are honest police, prosecutors and judges.

But the pressures they are under to match the conviction rates of the corrupt and to clear court dockets will eventually leave our justice system entirely in the hands of a heartless breed that never suffers the pangs of a bad conscience.


Paul Craig Roberts is a columnist for The Washington Times and is nationally syndicated.

Copyright © 2001 News World Communications, Inc.
Yup justice heh Disney Land maybe...

[blackice]

Ethics in Family Law:
Is Family Law Advocacy a Contradiction in Terms?
Presented to the Advocates' Society Conference in Nassau, Bahamas
2 December 1995

by Mary Lou Benotto


The best barometer of the fear and derision of a society is humour. There is always an element of truth in humour. Thus, we should take heed at the descending quality of lawyer jokes which truly bottom out when it comes to divorce lawyers. It is the basis for this fear and derision, the kernel of truth in the humour that I will address. That unhappy underbelly of our practice which generates justifiable hostility in the public and for which we must take responsibility. For we are the architects of a system that, at best, does not work to resolve domestic disputes and, at worst, is highly destructive to the fabric of society - the family.

THE LITIGATION TRADITION
For Canadians born in 1960, the likelihood of divorce is 33 percent. For those born in 1970, the likelihood is 40 percent (Statistics Canada). Over three-quarters of Canadians are married. Many more are involved in common-law relationships which give rise to legal rights and obligations. So the chances of encountering the judicial system on relationship breakdown are high.

If you are unlucky enough to encounter the system you will find there is no model for divorce outside the context of the adversarial system, so inevitably husband and wife become adversaries. Litigants and lawyers do what is expected: they fight. The problem is that most people, regardless of the anger and hurt, do not want to fight. They want it over. But the forces of our litigation culture, our training and our comfort level in an adversarial practice move the family (lest we forget it still is a family) inexorably away from settlement until irreversible damage is done.

The techniques perfected in other areas of litigation are being rolled into the family law courtroom. Inflated claims, speculative legal theories and scorched earth tactics are a routine part of counsel's arsenal. Think of what this does to an ongoing relationship.

Walter Olson, in his book, The Litigation Explosion, said:


The unleashing of litigation in its full fury has done cruel grave harm and little lasting good. It has helped sunder some of the most sensitive and profound relationships of human life: between the parents who have nurtured a child...and those whose life and well-being are entrusted to their care....It seizes on former love and intimacy as raw materials to be transmitted into hatred and estrangement.
This is particularly troubling when those who used to look to the Church, religious advisors or sheer force of tradition for rules to live by now expect the Courts to resolve the most profound and intimate of issues.

THE SHIFT IN SOCIAL VALUES
This dovetails with another disturbing tend which, in the view of many, threatens to undermine the moral fabric of society. It is the popular culture of refusing to accept responsibility. Alan Dershowitz calls it "the abuse excuse."

An article in Psychology Today, cited a survey of mothers in 1924 asked to choose three traits they wished their children to develop. Half chose "loyalty to the church," 45 percent chose "strict obedience," 31 percent chose "good manners." If you are older than forty, this was the world your mother was born to. By contrast, in 1988 these qualities were overwhelmingly rejected in place of "independence" and "individual happiness."

This seemingly innocuous shift in values has established roots from which a new moral code is flourishing. It is one in which an individual's rights exist without reference to responsibility. We are in danger of becoming, in the words of Charles Sykes: "a nation of victims." In his book, aptly titled The Decay of the American Character, he chronicles how we have forgotten the concept of responsibility. It is socially acceptable to portray oneself as a victim."

We are seduced into a state wherein we absolve ourselves from all responsibility for bad actions. A corollary to this is the concept that disease applies to behaviour rather than merely biology. Since disease is caused by forces beyond our control, no moral responsibility can attach to us for bad actions.

Dr. Stanton Peele, in his book, The Diseasing of America, says bad behaviour has become an illness. We are therefore not guilty, just sick. Lawyers especially love this. We have:

The case of a district school employee fired for consistently turning up late for work successfully suing his employer because he is a victim of "chronic lateness syndrome." (School District of Philadelphia v. Friedman, No. 2073 C.D. 7 April 1986, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court)
or this:

An FBI agent is fired for embezzling $2,000 from the government. He took the money to Atlantic City and lost it all. The Court reinstated him because his affinity for gambling with other people's money is a handicap and thus protected under federal law. (Rezza v. United States Department of Justice et. al. No. 87-6732, 12 May 1988, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
or this:

A man in Wisconsin is turned down for a job as a park attendant because of his long criminal record of exposing himself in public. He successfully sues on the basis that he is being discriminated against because he has only exposed himself in libraries and laundromats, not in public parks. (Mike Royko, "Wisconsin Puzzle Solved in a Flash," Chicago Tribune, 7 April 1988)

THE RESULTS IN FAMILY LAW
Family law litigation has now embraced and enhanced these innovations which develop their own character borne of the uniqueness of the domestic relationship. In my opinion, the worst results are found in four areas:

abuse allegations
the ugly affidavit
the winner-loser syndrome in custody cases
the use of delay for strategic advantage

ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE
Domestic violence is abhorrent. I have never found a judicial officer who treated physical cruelty with anything but the seriousness it deserves. However, the term "abuse" has been diluted beyond all proportion. There is scarcely a separated spouse who does not believe that he or she was in an abusive relationship. Abuse is a powerful term. But it is routinely used to describe shouting, badgering, voice raising, walking away when angry. Think for a minute about your private relationship. So as not to raise a bald allegation, the particulars given of the marital discord become very detailed. This leads to the problem of the affidavit.

THE UGLY AFFIDAVIT
The nature of a family law case is that the interim motion is often the most important single event in the proceeding. In the last five years, the number of motions in family law has increased by 150 percent. (Ministry of the Attorney General)

Evidence is presented by affidavit. Human nature is such that it is far easier to lie on paper than in the witness box. As stated in the Ontario Civil Justice Review, First Report, (p. 272) the single greatest complaint about lawyers by members of the public was with respect to the damage to family relationships caused by the allegations in these affidavits - where, it is widely acknowledged, perjury is rampant and, moreover, goes unpunished.

As barristers, we worry lest an allegation go unanswered. We therefore respond in kind and this continues the snowball on its course down that treacherous hill.

WINNER-LOSER SYNDROME
Nowhere is the effect of the litigation process more devastating than in a custody dispute. As stated by Robert McWhinney,


The terror, for parents of a court-ordered custody determination, is not the staggering fees, or the shame of one private intimacy or indiscretion after another being exposed in affidavits, or the confusing punishment of cross-examination; nor is it the fear of losing custody per se. The real terror is that, in the possibility of losing the right to parent their own child, they might thereby ultimately, lose their relationship with their child: the experience of loving their child, of influencing and helping and knowing their child.

The loss of custody relegates one parent to inferior status, diminishes the person's importance in the child's life. Where men lose custody of their children, they are more inclined to drift away from the child. This is not necessarily out of mean-spirited motives but the result of the ongoing and irreversible hurt inflicted during the proceedings, proceedings in which the issue was: who is the better parent. What could possibly touch one's soul more? The custodial parent then often becomes, in effect, a single parent - most often working full time. So in the end, the child is the real loser.

The effect of custody disputes on children is devastating. To again quote Mr. McWinney (p. 101):


The majority of children regard the loss of a parent as the single most negative aspect of separation and divorce. Children also worry that if their parents can stop loving each other, they could surely stop loving them as well; and parental custody battles seldom persuade a child that he or she is greatly loved.

DELAY
If one is concerned only with the narrow adversarial approach to family law, then it is fair to say that delay will, in most cases, benefit one party to the detriment of the other. Our system encourages this:

orders for pre-judgment interest are not routine;
retroactive orders are difficult to obtain;
status quo is an important feature in custody cases;
the recipient of a low interim support order, who is frugal and foolish enough not to go into debt before trial will be met with the argument that she (as recipients are usually women) clearly does not need more.

Recently in motions court I heard a lawyer arguing that no interim child support should be ordered because then the wife would have no incentive to settle the case. I found this more appalling than did the Judge, which told me that it had probably been heard often before. Starving children for tactical gain not only earns us a bad reputation, it passes a legacy of hate throughout the family.

There is also the emotional strain and increased legal costs which are suffered by the whole family. Remember that money is never "awarded" but merely re-distributed within the family. Thus, by definition, the family can never be better off after divorce.

WHERE WE GO
We have a responsibility to restructure the system to afford an opportunity to give the public what it wants - an early, fair settlement.

All the statistical studies of our courts confirm that less than 3 percent of cases actually proceed to trial. Why, then, are we operating a system that caters to that 3 percent and not to the 97 percent? There are over 600 rules and subrules we practice by, three deal with settlement, the rest deal with getting to trial. The emphasis in family law should be reversed. Efforts should be directed to the timing of the settlement, education of the litigants, and early intervention and resolution.

But there remains the problem of tactics. As long as these tactics work even once in a while, they will continue to be used. We have an ethical imperative to change our tactics. We in the Advocates' Society strive to the leaders in the profession. So it is up to us. We change ourselves and then by example, others will follow. Especially if we enlist the help of the judiciary with our convincing arguments that these tactics cannot be rewarded.

Also, I have always believed that the most effective tool to implement behavioural change is the order for costs. Not because of the money, but because of the message.

Our system must promote negotiated settlements by enforcing them. It is of critical importance, where compliance with future arrangements is necessary, that parties themselves design the parameters of the regime. Those who practice in the area of family mediation have know this for years.

The law does not necessarily reward those who negotiate co-operative settlements. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada (L.G. v. G.B., Supreme Court of Canada, SCJ. No. 72) dealt a blow to the sanctity of separation agreements by holding that, on a variation application, an agreement is only one factor - albeit an important one - but only one to be considered. Furthermore, the ability of parties to negotiate on their own without counsel is all but discouraged. It is much easier to set aside an agreement where one party was not represented. The paternalistic view is that no one who signs away a right without calling in a lawyer could possibly have understood what he or she was doing. The public infers from this that our legal system is organized to encourage the use of its own service.

SUMMARY
In summary, we must provide the public - not just our clients, but our friends and families - with a model for the civilized, cooperative reorganization of the family unit and finances on relationship breakdown.

It is not good enough to say, "this is not my job, my job is to achieve the best result for my client, not to achieve a fair result." We are part of a system on which good, decent people rely. We are the custodians of their trust. We must make available dignified, civilized ways to have family disputes resolved. We must, in short, provide a new model for divorce. We cannot be part of the destruction of the social framework and deny responsibility for the social problems that result.

We may not leave the situation better than we found it, but at least we will not leave it worse.


Mary Lou Benotto was appointed to Ontario's General Division bench in May, 1996


NOTES

McWinney, Robert L., "The Winner-Loser Syndrome: Changing Fashions in the Determination of Child Custody," presented to the Law Society of Upper Canada, Special Lectures 1993, p. 100.
Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Program Development Branch, Court Statistics Report, 1993/1994.
Olson, Walter K., The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit, Truman Valley Books, 1991, pp. 2, 8.
Peele, Stanton, The Diseasing of America, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1989.
Psychology Today, October, 1988.
Sykes, Charles J., A Nation of Victims: the Decay of the American Character, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1992.

Even Judges disagee with you welcome to the real world no Micky No Pluto just reality....

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by blackice
I could go on and on and on with court cases and continued proof. Any one here have ANY PROOF WHAT SO EVER TO thier claims? ANYONE? Lets start with 99%

You have not provided any proof. All you have done is listed opinion.

And opinion that is incorrect. Dave Brown repeatedly claims that men are one phone call away from losing everything. That is blatently false.

An emergency order requires more than just a phone call. It requires a hearing before a judge.

Secondly, as has been stated before, the act does not affect ownership, only possession.

You have accused me of "lying a lot." You have not provided any proof for your slander. I'll ask you again to either prove it, apologize or shut up.

[Shi Huangdi]

VAWA was a law passed in the USA that gave female victims of violence the right to sue in federal courts. The law was blatantly unconstitutional and so was struck down by the supreme court...

Anyway, can a provinical legislature in Canada make its bills survive scrutiny notwithstanding the Charter of Rights? Or could the national legislature void Bill 117?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Anyway, can a provinical legislature in Canada make its bills survive scrutiny notwithstanding the Charter of Rights? Or could the national legislature void Bill 117?

In theory, yes. The province have the right to invoke a "notwithstanding" clause to exempt a law from the Charter of Rights. The exempture last, I think, five years.

Politically, it is unlikely. It is considered a measure of last resort.

But why would this Act require the notwithstanding clause?

The federal parliament does not have the right to void provincial legislation.

There seems to be some argument about whether the Domestic Violence Protection Act cross the line into criminal code (which is the jurisdiction of Parliment). It could be struck by the courts for that reason, assuming the courts agreed that the Act crossed the line.