Injustice and bias in Canadian family courtrooms

8/20/2019 Injustice and bias in Canadian family courtrooms

1/50

Attention : The Honourable Thomas Mulcair

RE: Unethical conduct, unprofessionalism, abuse of authority and injustice

My correspondence addresses some areas of concerns, not only with respect tothe judiciary, but associated organizations that operate in conjunction with thecourts too. These concerns were grouped in parts, which ! shall brie"ydescribe, as ! am submitting a number of attachments that pro#ide detailedinformation with respect to the nature of the injustice ! was subjected to.

A - THE CASE FILE / BACKGROUND

PART I – THE ASSESSOR AND THE COLLEGE OF ALBERTA PSYCHOLOGISTS

The $sychologist, %ancy &ohatins'y, instead of focusing on the best interest of the children, as is the primary objecti#e of the assessment, di#erted her focustowards the e()wife*s interest, in that she focused her attention tounsubstantiated allegations of abuse+ rape and misogyny. he used her reportas a #ector to relay such allegations to the court, which ser#ed only to put thehusband on a collision course with our judicial system, hence 'illing thefather-s chance in obtaining custody of the children. he clearly acted as awoman ad#ocate instead of a child ad#ocate, by using her report as a tool forretribution to do the e()wife justice, and a bac'bone to support the e()wife inher uest for custody. !n doing so, she #iolated the father-s human rights, as

guaranteed by the constitution and the /anadian /harter of rights as well asthe children*s bill of rights.

A simple glance at Ms &ohatins'y-s report re#eals the relati#ely large space inher report reser#ed to an e(cessi#e number of unsubstantiated allegations of domestic and se(ual abuse claims made by the e()wife+ compared to thatreser#ed to the children, and the intensity of disparaging remar's+ characterattac's and negati#ity towards the husband. 0n the other hand, despite of hercapacity as a $sychologist with a trained eye and numerous tools under herdisposal, she succumbed to the e()wife-s manipulati#e and conni#ing grip,while at the same time ignored intentionally to depict negati#e traits that

would ha#e certainly hurt the e()wife-s chances in obtaining custody.

The followings are e(amples of unsubstantiated allegations, personal attac'sand defamatory remar's against the husband as reported by Ms &ohatins'y-sin her report: “She left an emotionally abusive and oppressive marriage”, “Hediscredited and defamed her with her family, the Algerian community inCalgary and their children”, “His motivation is for money and not parenting, toillustrate her point, she referred to 2 children he abandoned and made nonancial contribution”, “eason for marrying her is to have lots of children andget Child !a" #enets money rather than earn money”, “He intended to stay


2/50

home with the children while e"pecting her to wor$”, “He is preoccupied withher personal life, attempt getting information from the children”, “He causeddistress to the children by critici%ing her and referring to her by derogatory names”, “&nfairly blaming her for the brea$down of the marriage”, “He lac$sthe e"perience, understanding and commitment”, “He has anger issues”, Hehas negative and oppressive opinions about women he shares with the

children and misogynous views in general”, “He abandoned the children for ' years”( “He made applications to address nancial issues without ma$ing any attempt to see the children”, “He was not involved with their school, speech pathologist and occupation therapist regarding their disabilities”, “Critici%ingher for her schooling level to improve her future and ability to providenancially for the children”, “#eing a poor model for the children”, “Attempt tobuy e"pensive toys to buy their a)ection”, “Has not indicated an interest inunderstanding their needs, contact their teachers, volunteer and go on eldtrips”, “* had no clue until our marriage in 2+++ that he was not a practicinguslim”, “*t has to be his way, no compromise, no discussion and no phone tomy parents”, “He wanted pregnancy for money but uninvolved in her

pregnancy”, “He made her sleep in the other room with the baby”, “He too$ parental leave and pressuri%ed her to go to wor$”, “She paid him -2++(++ per month so to drive her to wor$”, “He never bought diapers nor fed the baby”,“!he nurse made comments about the weight of the baby”, “* am the guy, youare the woman, you have to do whatever * say”, “She did not $now abuse untilwhen married”, “*n . years, only 2 people came to see her”, “She was se"ually mistreated by him when he e"pected se" from her without love and a)ectionand assumed uncomfortable positions”, “/ur second child came by accident and he too$ again parental leave”, “After her return to Calgary, he refused tota$e us bac$”, “He saw the children only on Saturdays”, “She became tearfulwhen describing mistreatment to her and the children”, “0alid often wets the

bed when he has spent time with father”, “He uses this for 1uestioning them”,“He ma$es negative remar$s about her and women in general”, “He sharesthese views with the children instead of spending good 1uality time withthem”(

Ms &ohatins'y-s position towards the husband is as follows: “He contends that he has been the victim of ine)ective legal representation and a preudicialcourt system”, “He was put on a blac$ list”, “3ressed in poorly tting suitswith no tie”, “Had di4culties following a line of 1uestioning and needed it repeated or rephrased”, “0hen as$ed that * would not use personal contacts,he said that * was only interested in particular information and that * had anagenda”, “He appears to be of an average intelligence”, “Has di4cultiesforming relationships and is overly suspicious”, “Has a tendency to e"aggeratehis ability and in5ate his own worth”, “ay be psychologically defensive by responding to testing in a perfectionist manner and not endorsing personality 5aws”, “He enoys parenting Ham%a but not 0alid”, “He reports a serious problem in his relationship with both children due to how much he desires tocontrol them”, “He lives in a small house with a lot of gurines”(

Her position towards the e()wife is as follows: “She is an e"tremely polite andrespectful, well6groomed and healthy woman”, “She spo$e in a clear voice”,

2


3/50

“She demonstrated a generally good understanding of 7nglish”, “She followedthe content and 5ow of the interview well”, “Connections between conceptsand associations between ideas were coherent”, “!here was no evidence of any obsessions, compulsions or phobias”, “She was oriented to person, timeand place”, “She appeared to be of normal memory, concentration, udgement,attention and reality contact”, “She is a very smart, energetic and sociable girl

who enoys learning”, “Her teachers considered her as one of the top .students in school”, “She graduated with a High School 3iploma in 899.”, Shetaught at college for a couple of years”, “She is a happy and condent mother who has put considerable e)ort into creating a peaceful home where thechildren can thrive”, “She has provided ade1uate childcare when needed” .

The children-s position towards the father was summarized in her report asfollows: “Ham%a wished ohamed would stop saying bad things about her”(“He said he does not want to see him until he stops”, “He as$ed Ham%a to tellthe :sychologist that he has . 3ads”, “Ham%a does not want him to call whenlate at pic$6up”, “Children appeared less controlled and more able to behave

appropriately”(

Ms &ohatins'y referred to stereotyping and misrepresentations, and wascontent to simply rely on her unjusti1ed perception in associating domesticabuse and rape with my ethnic bac'ground, in order to in"ict seriousrepercussions to the slightest chance ! might ha#e in being granted custody of our children, such as: “* am the guy, you are the woman and you have to dowhat * say”, “*t has to be his way, no compromise, no discussion“, “abuse”,“rape”, “misogyny”, “marrying a virgin”, “ having traditional views”, “marriagewith ' wives” and “marrying to have lots of children” . This had a signi1cante2ect on Madam 3ustice Anderson-s #iews of the husband and subseuently

her ruling.

As an educated professional, ! thought she is smart enough to realize that thee()wife-s allegation of being as'ed to do what ! say because ! am the man andshe is the woman, when ! could not e#en ma'e her coo', wash and iron myclothes as well as stay with our newborn instead of wor'ing are not traits of awife abuser. Anyone with a lit bit of common sense can easily en#ision theAssessor-s mindset in establishing a lin' between my religious bac'ground andmachoism.

Moreo#er, ! was wrongfully accused by the Assessor and according to herreport “in ma$ing our meetings all about the other party”, “* was constantly tal$ing about her”, “seemed always to manage to nd a way to bring her intothe conversation” and “to implicate her in some form or fashion” , when in factit is the other way round as the abo#e long list of reported false allegations,personal attac's and negati#ity against the husband attests. ! was not e#engi#en the same opportunity during the assessment to spea' freely about hershortcomings, other than reporting those traits that are well in conte(t andnothing personal, as they relate to the care and uality of parenting o2ered inthe form of supporting documentation+ A4da#its+ follow)up uestions and aproposed parenting plan.

3


4/50

The abo#e long list of allegations is e#idence that it is the e()wife who made allher meetings about attac'ing my character and reputation and not #ice)#ersa,as there is nothing in the report to suggest that ! did so. 5ailure to do so onlyma'es her statement open to interpretation. Moreo#er, the trial transcriptsclearly indicate that it is the e()wife who subscribes to such a practice. ! refer

you speci1cally to the cross)e(amination of the e()wife by %icholas Urie, whichdepicts the number of times she was successful in de#iating from answeringthe uestions posed to her and putting me under the spot light, by con#ergingthe court-s attention onto the husband.

Ms &ohatins'y was clearly in charge of how she wanted the assessmentconducted as re"ected through the incident that occurred during our secondmeeting. !t would ha#e been unthin'able to be allowed to hijac' theassessment and tal' freely about the e()wife in such a negati#e way withoutbeing interrupted, when e#en the part that deals with the relationship and thechildren was missing from the assessment, which would ha#e been the only

opportunity a#ailable for me to truly elaborate on her shortcomings.

The most blatant unprofessional conduct ! witnessed from a professional in aposition of authority is Ms &ohatinsly putting words in my mouth that ! ha#enot e#en spo'en such as “She has an agenda”, “#eing put on a blac$ list” and“#eing the victim of a preudicial court system” . ! ha#e responded to thereason for not seeing the children for 6 7 years as per her reuest through the5ollow)up uestions she 8)mailed me, in which ! e(plained the reason for being#ictimized by the 9egal system. !f Ms &ohatins'y cannot di2erentiate betweenthe 9egal system; and 3udicial system;, then that is a serious problem thatshe needs to correct, as many still cannot di2erentiate between the two.

As a wise and grown man, ma'ing those disparaging comments about anothermember of the same club of educated professionals prior to the end of theassessment and before e#en reading the 1nal report in full, is premature andcontrary to good ethics. !t was until ! re#iewed all materials and identi1ed1ngerprints of unethical conduct that ! 1led a complaint against the Assessoraccordingly.


5/50

notes, despite of the fact that ! was neither charged nor con#icted of anyo2ense against any woman in my life. The @ page report issued has 1ngerprints of bias all o#er it. The Assessordescribed the e()wife as a "awless indi#idual and ga#e her a clean bill of health in e#ery aspect of her life, when the e#idence pro#es otherwise. This

included complementing her on her western lifestyle+ dress code+ hypotheticaleducational achie#ement+ "awless child disciplining style and impeccableparenting s'ills, while she portrayed the husband as an e(tremely negati#eindi#idual with an a#erage intelligence+ poor parenting s'ills+ poor decorati#eand dressing taste and whose education le#el is insigni1cant by comparison. he intentionally referred in her report to stereotyping =unfounded allegationsof abuse, rape and misogyny?, cultural and religious beliefs =hell, marriage to Bwi#es, #irginity? as well as traditional #alues+ a scaremongering tactic intendedto insinuate that such #alues are not in line with a westernized lifestyle, andnot good enough to be suitable and applicable as a good model for parenting.

he ignored in#aluable e#identiary documentation that clearly fa#ours thehusband-s position. 8#idence that includes a #oice recording of child abuse, achildren ser#ices report which depicts a number of the e()wife-s "aws, >r/ardwell-s recommendation for the e()wife to undergo an indi#idualassessment, /onstable /lar'e-s report which depicts the controlling anddomineering trait o#er the children+ interference of access+ alienation againstthe father+ #erbal abuse in front of the police o4cer and their use as pawns,the designated uper#isor-s report which denotes obstruction to access, police reports depicting her consistent contemptuous attitude as well as schoolreport cards depicting our eldest son-s erratic and unsociable beha#iour+ in

addition to academic underachie#ement. %one of those were incorporated inher report as they militate against the e()wife, and would hurt signi1cantly thee()wife-s chances in obtaining custody of the children.

To Ms &ohatins'y, the truth+ facts and the e#idence mean nothing to her, andare of no signi1cance in conducting an assessment, one that is life changingnot only to the children but the father too. he belie#ed without the shadow of a doubt e#ery single word uttered by the e()wife, and went the e(tra mile to#alidate the husband-s supposedly confrontational nature+ abuse againstwomen and misogyny using maliciously the incident that too' place at oursecond meeting, as a prete(t to distort the e(planation of the title of myuni#ersity degree to be none other than condescending to her. he also used1ctitious translated bac'door notes pro#ided by the e()wife to #alidate theabusi#e nature of the husband. 0n the other hand, what ! reported to her,which is well)documented in a correspondence dated April @ th, @CD@+ beingstrictly rele#ant to custody and not personal in any way by comparison to thee()wife-s allegations, was ignored and returned bac' to me.

5or instance, she did not ha#e e#en a second thought in considering undated+translated and unidenti1ed bac'door notes in supporting abuse to the e()wife,whereas at the same time, she ignored a recording of child abuse on the basis

5


6/50

that it was undated+ in Arabic despite of being transcribed in 8nglish+ and thatthe woman screaming and abusing a one year old baby could not be identi1ed.Although the /5A report con1rms at least the #erbal abuse part of such arecording, Ms &ohatins'y resorted to co#ering up the e()wife-s bad deeds.

!ronic enough is Ms &ohatins'y-s loud objection and consternation for spea'ing

the truth as documented in my A4da#it in response to her report and mycomplaint against her, yet she stopped short of furthering her disagreement incourt, in the same way she did when resorting to a lawyer-s ser#ices in 1ling acourt application to stri'e down both my A4da#it in response to her report andthe /5A report, which depict discrepancies+ an ob#ious embarrassment to herand a blac' eye to her credibility. ! ha#e since been attempting to sue her forprejudice and defamation, but none of the at least appro(imately C lawyers !contacted showed any interest.

0ne of Ms &ohatins'y-s interests was to 1sh out and report any "aws that couldbe used to the detriment of the husband, whereas she showed no interest in

the e()wife-s "aws+ which ! reported to her with supporting e#idence. 5orinstance, her interest pea'ed when ! told her that before ! go to bed, ! alwaysma'e sure that the front door is loc'ed+ the gas line is shut o2 and that certainelectrical appliances are disconnected, thin'ing that she hit the jac'pot byun#eiling that ! am schizophrenic or diagnosed with some sort of mentaldisorder.


7/50

certainly not want her own children to watch mo#ies that fall into this category,and yet she turned the blind eye when ! reported to her that the e()wife wasdoing just that, allowing our children to watch 3eep #lue Sea;+ !itanic; and ;aws;, to name a few. As a $sychologist, she has a number of tools todetermine whether what ! reported to her is true or not. Anyone with no$sychology degree would ha#e simply as'ed our eldest child to gi#e a synopsis

of these mo#ies, and this by itself is enough to establish the truth, but theAssessor had no intention to put the e()wife in an unfa#ourable situation interms of custody.

!t too' /onstable /lar'e with no training in $sychology a mere few minutes toun#eil that the children are li#ing in constant fear under the wings of acontrolling and domineering mother+ being intimidated+ conditioned+ alienatedagainst their father and used as pawns, >r /ardwell-s suspicion during ascheduled consultation that she could be at the origin of Hamza-s beha#iourand discipline di4culties by suggesting indi#idual therapy to her for possibleemotional and psychological instability whereas after G months of assessment,

Ms &ohatins'y was not able to depict e#en a single "aw no matter how small itis or any other concern worth reporting. ou be the 3udge.

Ms &ohatins'y should ha#e at least referred to both >r /ardwell and /onstable/lar'e as collateral contacts, used their reports as a guide in her assessmentand included them in her report, either by e(plaining their irrele#ance to theassessment or use them as supporting e#idence in her recommendation.

Ms &ohatins'y has o#erstepped the mandate granted to her by the court tolimit her assessment solely to what is in the best interest of the children, and#iolated the standards and the code of ethics of the profession by failing to

conduct an objecti#e+ fair+ impartial and unbiased assessment and to a#oido#erlapping irrele#ant and tangential issues that could be construed as biasand prejudicial. he also relied on a gender oriented, #indicti#e andstereotypical approach.

Ms &ohatins'y used standards deri#ed from unsubstantiated allegations+ falseaccusations+ lies and incomplete testing in coming up with suchrecommendations, instead of using standards deri#ed from the truth+documented e#idence+ her peers- testimonies and pertinent criteria as thoserelied upon in the /ase Authorities cited.

0nce you read the


8/50

5irstly, ! would li'e to reiterate that ! had no reason to belie#e that our judicialsystem is in need of a serious reform and that the judiciary bears a self)in"icted wound =unethical conduct, bias and injustice? that reuires attention,as ! had a good success rate in obtaining court orders in my fa#our from anumber of fair 3udges while self)represented and in the absence of opposing

counsels- recurring obstruction of justice.

!t was up and until a biased report came into the euation, drafted by anAssessor who has an issue with my #alues+ cultural and religious bac'groundas referred to in her report, wherein ! am painted with a stereotyping brush andportrayed in a most negati#e and sinister way, to the point it made meunworthy to be an integral part in my own children-s li#es. The trial 3udgeloo'ed upon the report as the bible =a factual document?, instead of adocument written by a witness =hearsay?, that should be scrutinized as she didscrutinize my testimony.!t is Madam 3ustice Anderson-s total support of the Assessor and full bac'ing of

her report that are at the heart of the irregularities committed during the trialand uestionable ethical conduct and injustice, which are at the origin of herdecision.

!t is perple(ing for Madam 3ustice Anderson not to allow the husband-se#idence in the form of at least I e(hibits, which not only militates againstthe e()wife and would ha#e supported sole custody to the father+ departurefrom . =I? of the Matrimonial $roperty Act in light of the s. factors and thatthe marriage and separation dates instead of the engagement and trial datesshould ha#e been respecti#ely considered for distribution purposes+ which goesto the heart of the issues on the agenda, but also put a dent into the many

aspects of the e#aluation process, and the integrity and competence of Ms&ohatins'y as an Assessor.

!n regards to the assessment report, she did not hesitate to complement theAssessor for doing a good job in writing such a report, which she referred to asa thorough report ;, and e#en a4rmed con#incingly that the Assessor was notbiased. he stated that she put less weight on the


9/50

he allowed a biased report, which is gender)oriented+ acrimonious and#indicti#e in nature ta'e centre stage in decision ma'ing, despite of the lac' of e#idence in support, and used as an indictment of abuse and rape to punishthe husband, without being e#er con#icted of such an o2ence as my recordattests. The e()wife was unable to pro#ide e#en a single proof to authenticate

abuse, although she did ma'e a number of attempts prior to the trial, but to noa#ail. 8#en her attempt during the trial to paint me as a wife abuser is of noe#identiary #alue, as she failed deliberately to support her claim with thecorresponding police report in uestion+ dated 3anuary @@nd, @CCJ, whichcontradicts her testimony. /onseuently, the e()wife was percei#ed as the true#ictim in this relationship.

After reading such a report, anyone who 'nows both parents was in incredulitywith the nature of the e(treme negati#ity against the husband by comparisonto the e(treme positi#ity towards the e()wife, e(cept the trial 3udge. The latterwent along with the husband-s alleged "aws and portrayal as a wife abuser+ a

rapist and a misogynist, as this made her decision much easier, 'nowing thatno husband gets a bonus for belonging to such a club. uch an e(tremedisparity of the report should ha#e raised a red "ag,

Fi#ing the Assessor the green light to act as a prosecutor and use her report asan indictment of abuse and rape at a family law trial, which does not ha#ecompetent jurisdiction, is a clear indication of the full support thrown behindthe Assessor and her report, and not doing so would ha#e simply hurtsigni1cantly a friend of the court*s credibility.

Madam 3ustice Anderson seemed to ha#e been side)trac'ed from the purpose

of this trial, which is none other than custody of the children, and not aboutputting the husband on trial for unfounded allegations of abuse and rape. 5orthis, another competent jurisdiction would ha#e been more appropriate.

The trial 3udge used my imposed absence from the children-s li#es as reportedby the Assessor+ despite of my continuous and acti#e in#ol#ement with thecase 1le, as the number of lawyers retained attests =B lawyers in 6 7 years?,and the 1ling in frustration of @ complaints against my lawyer Marc /rarer and 3ames &obertson the opposing counsel for doing noting and obstruction of anyprogress of the case 1le respecti#ely.he also too' for granted Ms &ohatins'y-s untrue statement that ! lac' thereuired parenting s'ills, despite of my bac'ground as a Trainer+ an 8ducatorand an !nstructor, ha#ing helped so many to ad#ance in their professionalcareers. $arado(ically and con#eniently, the trial 3udge did not e#en bother touestion the Assessor-s moti#ation, as she should ha#e realized that thechildren can only bene1t from my transferrable s'ills, as my in#ol#ement intheir education through as regular written tests to the children attest.

Ehile ! was acti#ely engaged with the children in teaching them a #ariety of s'ills, the mother on the hand, has been relying e(clusi#ely on !n)home

9


10/50

support+ shady daycare gi#ers and male companions in o2ering theirbabysitting ser#ices, due to her intensi#e e#ening schooling.

Ms. &ohatins'y-s description of the father as a litigious indi#idual, the opposingcounsel-s reuest during the trial for a ban from bringing further courtapplications without specifying the reasons behind his reuest, and Madam

3ustice Anderson-s reliance on the false assumption that the 1le was casemanaged as a result of the supposedly abusi#e nature of the high number of court applications brought by the husband+ when in fact it was a mean to putthe case 1le on hibernation mood following 3ames &obertson persistence, wereall used as grounds for ordering such a ban+ a clear manifestation of abuse of authority.As opposed to the trial 3udge, other 3udges did not deem my pre)trialapplications to be so by either adjourning them+ or gi#ing them due processand ruling in fa#our of the husband numerous times. At one time, one 3udgee#en told 3ames &obertson+ after insisting on banning me from bringing furtherapplications, that he did not see any reason for doing so, as the court system is

there to hear the public legitimate concerns.

!n doing so, a fundamental right of access to our judicial system as a /anadiancitizen was trampled o#er, in contra#ention of section @J. =I? of the 3udicatureAct, considering that ! ha#e ne#er been declared a #e(atious litigant in a courtof law. This is yet another addition to the build)up of a trend in obstructions !ha#e been faced with all along during the J 7 years preceding the trial asreported to the court and in my complaint.

!n regards to the opposing counsel, she allowed him to hijac' the objecti#e of the trial, the court proceedings and to focus the projection lights on his client-s

supposedly #ictimization, which was recounted in a dramatic fashion+ despiteof the fragrant inconsistencies in the e()wife-s testimony and the #ili1cation of the husband, as the trial transcripts attest. The trial 3udge should ha#einter#ened to steer the trial to its intended purpose, which is none other thanthe best interests of the children, as #ery little was said about them during thetrial.

he was #ery accommodating to the opposing party while apprehensi#e to theother side, a situation that wor'ed #ery well, allowing him to e(ploit it to thead#antage of his client. This double standard approach hindered my lawyerfrom e(posing the e()wife for who she really is. 5or instance, she allowed theopposing counsel to enter any e#idence he chose while refusing the same tomy lawyer+ despite of its pertinence to the case 1le, sustained all objectionsregistered by the opposing counsel to any attempt from my lawyer to enterany e#idence that militates against his client, steering the spot light towardshis client-s purportedly #ictimization, being agreeable to his interference withthe Assessor-s a#ailability for cross)e(amination by limiting her presenceduring the trial and shortening the duration of the trial.

!n regards to the e()wife, circumstances such as the custodial parent-suna#ailability to pro#ide care outside of school hours, e(clusi#e focus on her

10


11/50

e(tensi#e schooling while ignoring those of the children+ considering that theyneed e(tra care by comparison to the a#erage child, reliance on third partycare gi#ers, #iolation of court orders, denial of access and unwillingness tofacilitate contact between the children and their father, alienation against thefather, her controlling and domineering attitude and e(cessi#e unsubstantiatedallegations of abuse+ to name a few, are all grounds which prompted other

3udges to re#erse custody as case authorities attest, e(cept Madam 3usticeAnderson.

! found it sardonic that the trial 3udge dismissed theft in a marriage as of nosigni1cance, when the reason number one of di#orce is 1nancial in nature. Thesimple fact that moral guidelines do not condone theft, by e(trapolation it doesnot entitle spouses to embezzle and transfer o2shore matrimonial fundssecretly and without consent for in#estment purposes either. Madam 3usticeAnderson being a spouse and a 3udge 'nows too well the signi1cance and theconseuences of such an act in a relationship. Her stand behind the e()wife in

endorsing theft openly in a courtroom, while the M$A deals speci1cally withembezzlement of matrimonial funds through the prescription of the s. factorsby recommending the spouse #ictim of fraud to be compensated, isuestionable to say the least.

Madam 3ustice Anderson should ha#e relied on the following fundamentalprinciple oubt?.

!n regards to the matrimonial property distribution, although the M$A does not

include into the distribution debts incurred after the separation, Madam 3usticeAnderson chose to con#eniently put into the euation unsubstantiated debts tolegitimize the e()wife-s share from distribution, as a compensation for 1nancialchoices she made on her own free will regarding her legal fees and studentloans, when she had an option to see' an out of court settlement instead of e#erlasting litigation, and employment considering that she holds @ /erti1catesand a >iploma instead of relying on the go#ernment through her ne#er)endingschooling.0n the other hand, the husband-s well documented debts of appro(imatelyKJ,CCC.CC at the time were downplayed, as re"ected in her decision toimpute income to the husband and in choosing the separation date in lieu of the trial date, despite of the e()wife-s 1nancial non)contribution, and o#er half of my debts were used to pay the mortgage+ bills+ reno#ation+ maintenanceand preser#ation of the property.

!n regards to imputing income, Madam 3ustice Anderson ignored that imputingincome is contemplated only in situations where underemployment is pro#enbeyond a reasonable doubt, which is not the case here. he had no e#idencethat ! intentionally a#oided or undermined child support obligations, other thanusing a career change that too' place on March @CC+ well before ! 'new thatshe has put her e(it strategy from the relationship in motion.

11


12/50

The followings are e(amples which indicate that Madam 3ustice Anderson hadno issue turning a situation going against the e()wife into one in fa#our of thee()wife:L he was displeased with the in#ol#ement of /hild $rotection er#ices which !

ha#e turned to, only after being denied access to our judicial system as my

application dated %o#ember DIth, @CDD was ne#er heard, and after the case1le was par'ed in /ase Management since 5ebruary Dth, @CDD+ resulting in aban to 1le any application for the following @ years. Among the numerousconcerns addressed in my application, she only hand)pic'ed poor feedinghabits and inappropriate clothing of the children, not only to dilute the e2ectthis may ha#e on her decision, but instead of using this against the motherto support lac' of care and neglect, she used it against the husband tosupport lac' of 1nancial contribution.

L Although it is an undeniable fact that the boys ha#e been watching mo#iesinappropriate for their age such as ;aws;+ deep blue sea;+ ;urassic :ar$ ;

and !itanic;, are allowed to ride their bicycles without helmets and to 3aywal', the trial 3udge failed to attribute this to the mother-s neglect+inappropriate parenting and loose parental guidance, hence associatingthese to a mere belief instead, so to dilute the e2ect this may ha#e on herdecision, putting hence the husband-s credibility on the line.

L Although ! had enough e#idence that militates against the e()wife+ includingher use of marriage and procreation solely for 1nancial gain to warrantre#ersing custody, Madam 3ustice Anderson chose to turn a blind eye, andrather correlate my pursuit to increase my access time with a desire to lowermy child support payments without any supporting e#idence.

The money trail and some acts that are 1nancially moti#ated clearly showthat the e()wife is money conscious, a gold digger and to her, procreation ismerely another source of cash "ow, as is marriage and di#orce.

L Using the father-s testimony that telephone access was interfered with atleast JC times+ as documented by an A4da#it+ a upplemental A4da#it andsupported by police reports as well as a telephone log, not as an indicationto the e()wife-s #iolation of a court order and her thwarting of the father-saccess rights and+ which is ground for re#ersing custody, but as ground forre#o'ing telephone access altogether and blaming the father for being theinstigator+ when by comparison no e#idence was pro#ided by the e()wife tosuggest so.

L Although she concurred with Ms. &ohatins'y on the troubling nature of /onstable /lar'e-s report, she did not go far enough in pinpointing thetroubling elements in#o'ed in the police report, and instead of hammeringthe e()wife in light of /onstable /lar'e-s 1ndings, she chose to tune downthe seriousness of these by drawing me into the picture as a contributingfactor to the con"ict.

12


13/50

L Although the e#idence points to the e()wife-s opportunism in using marriagesolely as a 1nancial institution+ and procreation as a secure source of cash"ow, Madam 3ustice Anderson failed to relate the e()wife-s pursuit infurthering her 1nancial aspirations by opting for wor' at the e(pense of raising a 6 month old baby+ putting hence monetary gain ahead of childcare. !nstead, she went along with the #ersion pro#ided to her by the e()wife

and bac'ed by Ms &ohatins'y, of forcing her to go to wor' so that ! canbene1t 1nancially from employment bene1ts under the parental lea#eprogram. 0n the other hand, ! would not ha#e fared any better had !pre#ented her from wor'ing and reuested her to raise our newborn child, ascenario that is e#en worse than being accused of using a wife as a 1nancialsla#e, which would ha#e categorized me nonetheless as a 1rm belie#er thata wife belongs in the house to raise babies. Unfortunately, this double)edgedsword situation is what husbands of my bac'ground are confronted with.

L Although Ms. &ohatins'y stated falsely that the e()wife had obtained a highschool >iploma+ taught for @ years at /ollege+ was ran'ed among the top 6

students in her class and has a /erti1cate and a >iploma+ so no to put her inan unfa#ourable position educationally in terms of her chances for custody,on the other hand, Madam 3ustice Anderson chose to use the e()wife-s lac'of a post)secondary education as well as her sporadic low paying part)time jobs+ to justify not only an imputed income to the husband+ but also an eualdistribution of property as well as awarding her court and real estate costs.

The following contro#ersial inter#entions by Madam 3ustice Anderson weremade as a result of perceptions of the husband+ as portrayed in theassessment report, while 'eeping in mind the e()wife-s custody prospectsintact:

L Her use of a trade)in by not admitting the /hild Ta(


14/50

she lamented about her 1nancial situation, when mine is the worst of thetwo. he used a double standard approach in that she failed to euallyinterrupt the e()wife when it was her turn to testify about accusing me of withdrawing K@,CCC.CC from her ban' account while on a #isit to Algeria.

L he was not accommodating for an adjournment to allow the police o4cer to

be subpoenaed and e#en stated that she will render her decisione(peditiously, in light of the e()wife-s supposedly dire 1nancial situation, soto reward her from distribution of matrimonial property, despite of the e()wife-s lac' of contribution to the relationship. Apparently, the e()wife-s1ctitious 1nancial di4culties were more of a concern and in need of a uic'1(, whereas allowing time for /onstable /lar'e to be subpoenaed to testifyabout his report and shed some light about what too' place on August D6th,@CDD in his own words+ which is directly related to the children-s welfare, didnot ualify as being in the best interest of the children to be worthconsidering.

L Madam 3ustice Anderson reminded the opposing counsel if he were going toenter the sworn statement of assets he was referring to during hise(amination+ a sign of how important putting my assets for distribution wereto her, whereas the same pri#ilege was not granted to my lawyer as he wasnot allowed to present a single piece of e#idence to support his argumentsduring court proceedings+ e#en 1nancial documents. The opposing party wasallowed to enter a total of DB 8(hibits.

L The e(change between the trial 3udge and the opposing counsel appears toindicate that both of them were agreeable on ha#ing the Assessor-s timelimited to a half a day. 5rom the trial 3udge-s response that she had already

read the report, hinting perhaps that her decision was already made andta'ing much of the Assessor-s time would ha#e been unnecessary.

L Madam 3ustice Anderson-s inter#ention by not allowing all 6 pieces of e#idence my lawyer attempted to enter+ namely a recording of child abuse+a police report and pictures of child neglect + declaring them to be irrele#antto child custody, is a calculated mo#e intended not only to a#oid a2ectingthe e()wife-s chances to obtaining custody, but also not to wea'en the bi)lateral assessment report as an e#identiary tool to be relied upon e(clusi#elyin ma'ing a decision, and also to wea'en the prospect of a successful appealdue to lac' of e#idence.5or instance, diminishing the seriousness of the recording of child abuse ande#entually dismissing it altogether can only be construed as an attempt toco#er)up the mother-s brutality towards the children, maintain Ms&ohatins'y-s claim of the mother-s clean bill of health regarding the care of the children and parenting s'ills as well as to a#oid hurting the e()wife-schances of obtaining custody of the children.

Three crucial pieces of e#idence in determining custody among others, namely/onstable /lar'e-s report+ a recording of child abuse and pictures of thechildren in 1lthy clothes with holes, which my lawyer attempted to enter as

14


15/50

e#idence but to no a#ail, would ha#e prompted any unbiased 3udge with thebest interests of a child in mind to order a re#erse of custody.L The trial 3udge deemed /onstable /lar'e-s report immaterial to the custody

issue, and yet it clearly goes to the heart of the custody issue andcorroborates the reason for the father see'ing custody of the children, whichis other than 1nancial.

The police report depicts the e()wife-s intentional interference with thefather-s access, alienation of the children against their father, herdomineering and controlling attitude, intimidation and fear of the children,brainwashing as well as using them as pawns for custody purposes which isundeniably uali1ed as child abuse.

L !n refusing to allow the recording as e#idence, she ga#e poor reasons fordoing so, such as being I years old, made in Arabic language, and for #oiceidenti1cation reasons. !t is worth nothing that at no time did the trial 3udgeconclusi#ely preclude the #oice not being that of the e()wife. Ehat isperple(ing is that she ga#e a #ariety of reasons simply not to allow it as a

potentially rele#ant e#idence to be considered during the proceedings.

The age was clearly not the reason as she also ignored /onstable /lar'e-sreport depicting child abuse too, which was only @C months old. Though, shedid not specify how old e#idence should be to be considered recent enoughto be admissible in a court of law, and ignored the a(iom that states /ncean abuser is always an abuser ;. The language of the recording should notha#e been an issue, as the tape was accompanied with full transcripts in8nglish, e#en though abuse has a uni#ersal language and does not reuire aspeci1c language to deduct from a recording, where a woman screaming ata crying one year old baby can only be characterized as child abuse and

nothing else. Eith respect to the identi1cation issue, she could ha#e at leastallowed the recording due process+ considering its e#identiary importance,and subjected to e(amination and cross)e(amination to at least narrow downthe numerous reasons she ga#e, and get to the bottom of the circumstancesof such a recording, which is troubling to say the least. !gnoring cruciale#idence that determines the faith of the children is no small matter andshould not ha#e been an option.

L The pictures were not allowed too subseuent to the opposing counsel-sargument that they are not dated, so not to implicate the e()wife withneglect and lac' of care. Madam 3ustice Anderson should not ha#e yieldedeasily to the opposing counsel-s reuest on the basis of such a poor e(cuse,as the date is irrele#ant and that the pictures are not photo shopped. Ehat ismore rele#ant is that they were ta'en while under the mother-s care, a carethat was not appropriately administered as the pictures depict the face of neglect. An e(amination and cross)e(amination with the pictures in handwould ha#e certainly been helpful in 1nding out the age of the children,regardless of the date the pictures were ta'en.

15


16/50

5or further details about the wrongdoing of the trial 3udge, ! refer you to thecomplaint 1led against Madam 3ustice Anderson with the /anadian 3udicial/ouncil.

After being informed that ! 1led an appeal of her decision, she immediatelysubpoenaed the trial transcripts for a re#iew, and made a startling change

from sole custody to the mother to joint custody, without summoning bothparties to e(plain the reasons for her sudden change of heart. uch an actionwas not enough to persuade me to retract my application for an appeal, as itwas too little too late. The ease with which she modi1ed an order, is a clearindication that her decision was arbitrary and not based on facts.

!t is no secret that Madam 3ustice Anderson-s lac' of e(perience in family law,as she appeared to be unfamiliar with some of the terminology+ namely the/hild Ta(


17/50

A complaint was 1led with the go#erning body but was dismissed, which wasappealed and dismissed again, despite of the e#idence pointing to the trial 3udge*s guilt.

PART III – MY LAWYERS, MR URIE AND THE ALBERTA LAW SOCIETY

omestic pecial application whichwas heard on 3uly DGth, @CDC, wherein access to the children was reinstated

with an enforcement clause, the conduct of a bi)lateral assessment wasgranted upon my reuest and the wheel of justice started rolling towards a fullhearing of the matter at a trial. ! was able to achie#e in one single applicationwhat B lawyers failed to accomplish in 6 7 years.

%azim Ambreen was retained in @CDC. After months, she did absolutelynothing other than reading my correspondences and A4da#its, for which shecharged me KB,CCC.CC ! had to pay from my own poc'et.

My lawyer, %icholas Urie, who was retained to represent me at the trial , andremunerated using money that ! do not ha#e, not only was ill)prepared and

failed to present at least I e(hibits pertinent to the case 1le+ which sealed theoutcome of the trial and the faith of the children, but he e#en sided with theopposing party in concurring that the children should remain with their motherand that the matrimonial property should be di#ided eually, against my clearinstruction for sole custody to the father and uneual distribution, as supportedby the e#idence pro#ided to him.

He also succumbed to the opposing counsel who succeeded in limiting the$sychologist*s testimony to less than an hour+ considering the comple(ity of the case 1le, and in shortening the duration of the trial from one wee' to 6days which resulted in shortcuts, and therefore in not dealing thoroughly with

the issues.

His ill)preparedness, lac' of thoroughness and aggressi#eness in his cross)e(amination of the Assessor, succumbing to the opposing counsel-s steering of the trial away from its objecti#e, his control o#er the scheduling, as well asbeing easily intimidated by the trial 3udge has all the landmar's of collusion. This is supported by him pulling me aside as early as the second day of thetrial, reuesting me to lower my e(pectations. A lawyer-s sworn duty is to doall what is within his power to get the best results for his client. This isde1nitely not what happened during this trial.

17


18/50

0nce you read my lawyer-s responses to my correspondences, you wouldagree with me that this is the te(t boo' de1nition of legal misrepresentationand collusion, e(cept of course the go#erning authority of the profession+ theAlberta 9aw ociety, who did not see the merit of my concerns.

A complaint for legal misrepresentation and li'elihood of collusion was 1ledwith the go#erning body but was dismissed, despite of the e#idence pointing tohis guilt. This decision was appealed and ! am still waiting for a response.

PART IV – CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA,POLITICAL LEADERS, MINISTERS AND CHIEF JUSTICES

After all my complaints ha#e been dismissed, my ne(t mo#e was to report tothe highest authorities of the land through a correspondence dated May @C th,@CD, by e(posing unethical conduct, unprofessionalism, abuse of authorityand injustice at the lower hierarchical le#el. This approach was resorted to in

order to prompt them to act accordingly, not only to assign responsibilities tothose who discredit the #alues by which the /anadian institutions stand for,but to also bring about some much needed correcti#e measures+ such asaccountability and e#en much anticipated legislati#e reforms.

After realizing that nothing positi#e has come from my correspondences topertinent authorities as well to the highest authorities and no remedy wasta'en as a result of my correspondences, ! came to the realization that noinstitution is willing to in#estigate itself and hold one of its own to account. !am therefore going public with my long march of injustice through the corridorsof injustice, in joining the mainstream of those citizens who are subjected daily

to similar treatments and #iolations of their fundamental rights, and who arecounting on the support of organizations li'e yours in lobbying the policyma'ers for some correcti#e changes. 0rganizations li'e yours are usually at thesource of winds of change, as you do hold the balance of power in allowing the#oiceless to be heard, and the publicly elected indi#iduals in power to listen.

PART V – THE EX-WIFE, APPEAL AND ASSOCIATED ORGANIZATIONS

T! E"-#$%!

The e()wife comes from a dysfunctional family where aggression is the only

mean used to resol#e di2erences and outstanding issues. Her father, a retiredmember of the &/M$ threatened two of his brothers with a 1rearm, and thisnearly landed him in jail, if it were not for the inter#ention of the elderly of thecommunity and family members, who con#inced the brothers to forgi#e him.>ue to his #iolent nature, and despite of the fact that he had a few brusheswith the law, he mandated his two sons in a failed assassination attempt onmyself, which is documented at the /anadian embassy as well as the localpolice station. !n eptember of @CCG and while on a trip to Algeria, ! wassubjected to an aggression that resulted in bodily harm, and necessitated

18


19/50

medical attention. ! would not be here writing this letter, had it not been for atimely inter#ention of two police o4cers who happened to be close by.

ince our separation in @CCJ, she has been dependent on go#ernmentassistance, including welfare+ grants+ subsidies+ /hild Ta( iploma in 5inancial er#ices that pay at least KDJ.CCan hour, being audited by the Fo#ernment of /anada in eptember @CCG afterfailing to put a temporary stop on 8! payments while on a trip to Algeria.

!n regards to the e()wife-s culture of entitlement, she relied e(clusi#ely on mein supporting the family, as she contributed neither to the household e(penses,nor to the maintenance and preser#ation of the matrimonial property. Herincome was spent e(tra#agantly in part on herself+ including KJ,D6C.CC on acosmetic orthodontic procedure, while the balance was transferred to Algeria+which was injected into a #ery pro1table joint business #enture with her father+as ban' transfer records and statements attest. he sought to di#ert herattention as early as one year into the marriage and one month before shestarted wor'ing into 1nding ways to get her hands on my money, as she made@ deposits on eptember @Gth, @CC6 totalling KGC.CC

Ehat transpires to be true in the aftermath of this relationship, is that ! realizedtoo late in the relationship that ! sowed the seeds of trust in an unfertileground+ that of an arranged marriage, only to reap puniti#e repercussions, as !fell #ictim of my own gullibility. As a matter of fact, she used my sponsorship asa bridge to access the land of riches, marriage as a 1nancial institution andprocreation merely as a source of cash "ow. At the same time, her e(it strategyfrom the relationship is part of an elaborate scheme engineered to uit therelationship once such a marital arrangement has become no longer lucrati#eafter depleting my 1nancial resources, once she secured her family-s 1nancialaspirations and once she realized that she can continue her 1nancial abuse of the system through di#orce.

A %&&'(&'!: ! recei#ed information that while married, the e()wife tried to tal'Houda; out of the marriage, by enumerating the numerous 1nancialad#antages that come with di#orce. Her husband Mourad; was notcomfortable with my e()wife-s numerous #isits to his house, which promptedhim to e(press to his wife his unease with my e()wife-s presence in their li#es.!t turned out that his feelings about her were dead on true.

19


20/50

!t is no longer a mystery that her 1nancially oriented schooling+ as the titles of her /erti1cate and >iploma attest+ and which is a complete U)turn from herline of wor' while still in Algeria, is a well)thought strategy that enables her tosee' the 'nowledge necessary to na#igate through the 1nancial system,e(pand her in#estment possibilities, ma(imize returns on her in#estmentportfolios and e(ploit the loop holes to conceal cash transfers to o2shore ban'

accounts. This is in line with her money consciousness as re"ected through thewell)established trend in defrauding the husband, abusing the system and herin#estment aspirations to bene1t her family as well as herself. he came to/anada not to raise a family but to 1nd ways on how to raise funds for herfamily and her retirement fund too.

Although sel1shness and the material aspect of marriage is the number one'iller of a relationship, ! was accommodating regardless and too' a conciliatoryapproach instead of a confrontational one. 5or instance, this is true of thefailure to bring her jewellery from Algeria, to contribute eually to householde(penses while ! was on parental lea#e and she was wor'ing, fraudulent use of

my debit card, freuent cash remo#als from my poc'ets with neither myconsent nor my 'nowledge.

!n regards to her allegations of abuse, the followings are e(amples of the manypre)trial failed attempts: 5iling a restraining order without my 'nowledgebefore e#en access was reinstated and when there was no contact with herwhatsoe#er+ which ! did not 'now about until ! read about it in the /5A reportand which was denied as the 3udge must ha#e come to the realisation of heralibi, calling the police on me on 0ctober Gth, @CDC while ser#ing courtdocuments on her by accusing me of banging on her door and threatening herin Arabic, as well as turning a police inter#ention on >ecember Bth, @CDD from

one dealing with enforcement of access to a domestic one+ accusing me of brea'ing the 'nob on the front door which got me nearly arrested+ only for theo4cers to realize soon thereafter there was no ground for an arrest+ andsubseuently no report was issued regarding the latest incident.

he went e#en to the e(treme by staging and recounting a 1ctitious domestic#iolence scenario where she was supposedly punched+ fell on the sofa and leftwith a blac' eye as she described it during her contradictory testimony at$ages JD to J of the transcripts, which is diametrically opposed to the policereport dated 3anuary @@nd, @CCJ she was referring to, which does not depict anyreference to physical #iolence other than an argument. Had she truly had ablac' eye, the police o4cer would ha#e had no choice but to call for medicalassistance, charge me with assault and made me spend the night in 3ail. %oneof that too' place.

he is undeniably a con1rmed and documented liar, as the e#identiarydocumentation attests.


21/50

programming a child and persuading or misleading another person to ma'e afalse statement+ that is obstruction of justice =section D6G?.

The e#idence pro#es that the e()wife is a school drop)out+ a child abuser and a#iolent indi#idual who cannot control her anger and lac's disciplining andparenting s'ills. 5or instance, she has been delegating childcare ser#ices to her

male companions and shady care gi#ers while attending e#ening classes,encouraging the children to jaywal'+ hence introducing them to #iolate the lawat an early age, and whose only method of disciplining the children is byraising her #oice at them, in the same way she was raised. octors. uch a claim could not be substantiated, inaddition to both parents being healthy and no medical history from bothparents- lineages ha#ing been reported to suggest that his symptoms arehereditary.!f both the /5A and the Assessor did their job correctly by re#iewingthoroughly both parents as well as our child-s medical 1les, they would ha#erealized that no child from both sides has any symptoms to establish a

hereditary lin', which lea#es the door wide open for the possibility of the#erbal and emotional abuse he was subjected to as a toddler as a probablecause.

he was instrumental in the father being reduced to just a #isitor to ourchildren and a mere wee')end father. 8#en with this minimal access, it was notenough for the e()wife who continued to interfere with my access immediatelyafter the trial ended, by presenting herself at the school during my accesstime, and ta'ing the children under the watchful eye of the school principal, anact which should ha#e been condemned by the trial 3udge but condonedinstead, as the latter bloc'ed any attempt to 1le an application for lea#e to 1lea court application for contempt of court.

THE APPEAL

0n 0ctober Gth, @CD6, my application for an appeal of Madam 3usticeAnderson-s decision was struc' down, for 1ling the #oo$ of records;, a merelong wee')end after the deadline, which in turn was appealed and dismissedunjustly by Mr 3ustice /. >. 0-


22/50

changes to her decision soon after she was made aware of my application foran appeal, is indicati#e that such a decision is arbitrary and that the husbandhas grounds for appealing her decision.

!n#ol#ing the opposing party did not help either, as it was incumbent on thehusband alone to pro#ide an e(planation to the court of appeal for not 1ling by

the deadline. 0nly the court of appeal has jurisdiction to re#erse a decision, inlight of the nature of the rule #iolated and regardless of the opposing party-sopinion, in addition to such an application being initially brought against thetrial 3udge-s decision and not the e()wife. This is an appeal intended for the husband to pro#ide reasons for not 1ling ontime to justify reinstatement of the appeal, and therefore the opposing partyshould not ha#e been gi#en jurisdiction o#er decision ma'ing with respect toreinstatement.

The e()wife had no grounds and legitimacy in interfering with thereinstatement of the appeal. Her only interest was in maintaining an unjust

decision that is in her fa#our, whereas the husband-s grounds for reinitiatingthe appeal is to disclose errors+ unethical conduct, unprofessionalism+ abuse of authority and injustice, in the hope of bringing some corrections to such adecision, by implementing some changes to the lower court decision.

/learly, the circumstances wherein the husband has been self)representedthan's to denial of access to legal ser#ices by 9egal Aid, and ha#ing spent aninordinate amount of time preparing the #oo$ of records; and the


23/50

L The 1rst time for supposedly ha#ing too many lawyers =B? retained torepresent me, and yet the e()wife had a total of J lawyers retained bycomparison. %o limitation was obser#ed in her case.

L The second time for supposedly ha#ing euity on the property ! owned,which ! e#entually did not bene1t from, as the li'elihood of recei#ing any

money from its sale is nil due to an order for eual distribution+ 1ling forban'ruptcy and a signi1cant debt owing, although euity was ne#er an issuewhen applications were made for retaining the B lawyers. /onsidering thatthe decision ma'ers are lawyers and aware that the e()wife is at leastpresumably entitled to half of matrimonial property, they chose not to usethe same standard with respect to the e()wife-s applications for a lawyer.

L The third time, being refused an appeal lawyer on the ground of merit, as itwas determined that there is no possibility for the lower court decision to beo#erturned, and therefore, retaining a lawyer would be futile and a waste of the institution-s resources. !t is perple(ing that in parallel, the same

institution does not use the same standard when determining the merit of o2ering its legal ser#ices to those charged with criminal o2enses, as legalassistance is not contingent upon guilt #s. innocence.

T! O00&1$() C&(1!+1

The e()wife-s lawyers did not seem to be interested in the best interests of thechildren as much as the e()wife-s interest, and their obsession with howe2ecti#ely they can ma'e the husband-s life stressful+ principally throughobstruction of justice.

5or instance, her third lawyer 3ames &obertson was disrespectful to me, as hewas rude and unprofessional when he responded that it is none of my business; when simply as'ed if he was retained by 9egal Aid. %ot only heintentionally failed to see' funding for his client in order to delay the conductof the bi)lateral assessment, but also bloc'ed my application for contempt of court+ deferred the case 1le to case management for two long years where theissues on the agenda were put on life support and remo#ed the assignedAssessor, >r ictor Frossi, in an attempt to ha#e him replaced by one of hischoice, >r aseni'. His actions were deliberate and destined to maintain thestatus uo which was in fa#our of his client in terms of maintaining the statusuo, and which had also a disguised e2ect in delaying matrimonial distributionuntil the mortgage is fully paid by the husband, so to enable his client to lea#ethe relationship with the largest share possible from distribution. This is thetype of male#olence intended to do harm to husbands, and to which opposingcounsels are sadly and dishonourably engaging in.

A detailed complaint supported by e#idence was 1led with the Alberta 9awociety and guess what, nothing transpired that lead me to belie#e that theorganization cares about the conduct of its members #is)N)#is of their clients,as it has become a rule of thumb that institutions ha#e no interest is 1nding amember of their own guilty of wrongdoing.

23


24/50

T! M*$('!(*(2! E(%&.2!3!(' P.&).*3 4MEP5

The M8$ authority was implemented to collect child support payments onbehalf of single mothers. !t is worth noting that the M8$ authority is toenforcement of child support payment, what the law enforcement authority is

supposedly to the safeguard of access rights of fathers to their children. TheM8$ authority would stop at nothing to collect child support arrears, using anumber of tools destined to brea' fathers- 'nees such as dri#ing licensesuspension+ passport con1scation+ wage garnishing and freezing ban'accounts, whereas on the other hand, the law enforcement does not go to thee(treme li'ewise in protecting fathers- rights to access+ and does not ta'e#iolations seriously enough to hold mothers accountable for #iolating a courtorder+ as the M8$ does to non)paying fathers+ and end up hardly getting e#ena slap on the wrist. !n my case, The M8$ authority wasted no time in throwing the boo's at me,

despite of my low income. !t used the authority gi#en by the court to se#erelypunish me by suspending my dri#ing license+ con1scating my passport+garnishing my salary+ freezing my ban' account+ emptying my children-ssa#ing accounts of a total of appro(imately K6,CC.CC to the bene1t of the e()wife. The authority went e#en to the e(treme in displaying its malfeasance bybloc'ing access to my line of credit, which was used as a life support to pay formy li#ing e(penses, legal costs as well as child support.

0n the other hand, the mother #iolated the terms of access at least times,of which physical access was denied times, as both an A4da#it and aupplemental A4da#it attest. uch a number is signi1cantly high by

comparison to the national a#erage and yet, neither the law enforcement+ normy lawyers+ the Assessor or the trial 3udge were troubled by such a freuency.

T! +*# !(%&.2!3!(' *'&.$'

! got my 1rst taste of what it is li'e trying to get a police o4cer to perform hisduty+ for which he is paid by the ta( payers+ the same people he is supposed toser#e and protect, through denial of access and #isitation.

There ha#e been numerous #iolations of the terms of access, as per a courtorder. A total of o#er #iolations including denials of access were reportedto the law enforcement authority, but no concrete action was ta'en, other thandrafting incident reports. They could ha#e imposed puniti#e actions,considering the order contains an enforcement clause. >oing nothing onlyresulted in an increase in the e()wife-s o#ercon1dence that she is untouchable,and a subseuent e(ponential increase in the number of #iolations.

5or instance, on >ecember Bth, @CDD, ! called upon the police assistance afterthe e()wife refused to ma'e the children a#ailable according to a scheduledaccess. 6 $olice cars and 6 $olice constables were dispatched to her residence.0ne of the /onstables confronted me with an angry and intimidating tone by

24


25/50

accusing me of brea'ing the 'nob on her door. The mother-s call made to the$olice was simply a di#ersion, intended to ha#e the focus of the $olice shiftedfrom enforcing access to attending a domestic incident, as she is amanipulati#e and conni#ing indi#idual, who has been remar'ably successful inobtaining sympathy from members of all the institutions that were in#ol#edwith the case 1le, including the law enforcement authority.

! ha#e referred the /onstable to the numerous #iolations of the terms of access, such as the D@ $olice inter#entions that generated $olice reports,which are indicati#e of a history of denial of a court ordered access. uchinformation was not enough to bring his attention to the fact that this is not anisolated incident and that ! ha#e been encountering di4culties with e(ercisingmy right to access to our children for the last D@ months. He insisted that hewas to deal with the e#ents of that day only.

The @ male constables did act as machos, were intimidating, harder on me anddealt with me brutally merely on the basis of a false accusation of ha#ing

allegedly bro'en the 'nob on her door, while the female o4cer was calm anddid not e(hibit any sign of anger. As a result, ! almost ended up being arrested,as re"ected in the strong presence of $olice o4cers, if it were not for myhandling of the situation calmly and professionally. After all, the sole purpose of my presence near her residence was to pic' up the children for access asordered by the court and nothing else.

The irony is that the parent who called them to assist a scheduled access witha court order in hand and an enforcement clause in support, got nearlyarrested simply because the /onstables were duped by a manipulati#e andconni#ing mother, who was able to turn an access situation into a domestic

one, using an imaginary bro$en door $nob; as a bait+ not only to steer awaythe o4cers from the real issue+ but to score big in intimidating the father, withthe hope that ! should preferably forget about access altogether if ! do notwant to be arrested.

The /onstable refused to pro#ide me with his name and the $olice reportnumber. !t was only afterward that ! disco#ered there was no record of a $olicereport stating the e#ents of that day, as they had no solid proof to pursue thematter further.

He also reuested the


26/50

assistance with supposedly a domestic situation. ubseuently, the dispatcherwho had already sent @ o4cers to assist me, recalled and replaced them withan arrest team made up of 6 o4cers and 6 police cruisers in response to thee()wife-s reuest for assistance. This is food for thought to those who are naO#eenough to still belie#e in justice and euality in the land of freedom.

! was treated li'e a criminal from the moment the o4cers showed up at herdoor, mainly because they acted solely on the word of a #indicti#e andconni#ing woman who already had a documented history of fabricating falseallegations to police. %e#er did ! ha#e any problem in any of the countries !resided in prior to coming to /anada, nor did ! abuse any of my pre#ious twowi#es, as the local court transcripts attest. !t was than's to di#orce that ! 1rsthad to be in#ol#ed against my will with the law enforcement authority.

A correspondence from the !nspector, /athy 9ight+ in which she stated that thematter regarding my complaint against the @ o4cers in uestion, has beenclassi1ed as esolved *nformally ;, which too' me by surprise and prompted

me to reiterate to the $rofessional tandards /ommissioner, the need for a fulland thorough in#estigation. ! ha#e also made sure to be subseuently informedwith respect to the outcome of the in#estigation. !n this regard, she stated onthe phone that this matter will be re#iewed by their super#isor, and theoutcome cannot be disclosed to the complainant anyway. ! 'new right awaywhat ! was up and against, and simply let my complaint fall within the crac's,as ! was acti#ely engaged in a full "edge 1ght for custody of the children.! heard it all before in the media P since when the police authority had the willto in#estigate itselfQQQ

B –SUPPORT TO MY CASE

My case is supported by the &esearch, Testimonies, Human &ights iolationsand the 'nown facts about 5alse Allegations and the Fender)i#orce industry is estimated at J billion dollars ayear. 0ddly enough and in the name of the best interest of a child, while thedi#orce industry is doing uite well 1nancially, the children on the other hand,

26


27/50

are being #ictimized by a dysfunctional judicial system, and are doing neither1nancially+ educationally or emotionally well.6C&.'1 %.&3 H!++ – F*3$+ I(71'$2! $( C*(**8 9 F.*( S$3&(1

He also added that ince the introduction in the late DGJCs of the no fault ;di#orce, a unilateral law intended to grant wi#es immunity from being held

accountable for the dissolution of the marriage+ considering they representthree uarter of initiators of di#orce, which has resulted in an increase indi#orce rate from to CR and the number of family law lawyers from ,CCC to@,CCC, in addition to the children-s aid society and the maintenanceenforcement agencies trying to bene1t 1nancially from such a law.

A sur#ey of @CD psychologists from 6G states who conducted custodye#aluations indicated that domestic #iolence was not considered by most to bea major factor in ma'ing custody determinations. /on#ersely, three)uarters of the custody e#aluators recommended denying sole or joint custody to a parentwho Salienates the child from the other parent by negatively interpreting the

other parent=s behavior .S

5or instance, mothers alleging domestic #iolence only recei#ed primaryphysical custody 6R of the time.

!n the U, fathers seem to ha#e a far better chance in obtaining custody thantheir counterparts in /anada.5or instance, GR of fathers who won custody litigation had abused theirwi#es. !n all cases where sole custody was awarded, fathers were awardedcustody in IGR of the cases. !n @JR of the cases fathers were either pro#en oralleged to ha#e physically and se(ually abused their children.

The #ast majority of child physical and se(ual abuse is committed in single)parent homes, home usually where the father is absent. SContrary to public perception, research shows that the most li$ely physical abuser of a youngchild will be that child>s mother, not a male in the household .S 6P*'.$2 F*)*(*( D&.&' H*(1, '! C$+ A91! C.$1$1: T! D$1$('!).*'$&( &% M*..$*)!, F*3$+, *( '! A3!.$2*( C&33($' 4W*1$()'&(, DC:H!.$'*)! F&(*'$&( ;B*2).&(!.,; < J(! =>>?5, 0@ =@8

3udges are de1nitely aware of wi#es who use the abuse card; to get a leg upin custody determination as the data and numerous sur#eys show, but ha#e nointerest going against the mainstream belief that men are abusers, and tosteer away from mythical stereotypes. 5ar more women assault men than theopposite. JR of women reported that they regularly hit their husbands.Also, the data re#eals that more than BCR of domestic #iolence #ictims aremen. !t would be therefore erroneous to assume that all di#orces are abuserelated, considering that IR of di#orces are initiated by women.6T! H&3! O2! S'*'$1'$2*+ B++!'$( *( '! B.$'$1 C.$3! S.!8

Attorneys who represented mothers at these proceedings said that they oftenad#ised their clients not to tell the mediator about domestic abuse. After

27


28/50

loo'ing at the results of such mediations, the researchers determined that theattorneys- ad#ice may well be justi1ed+ women who informed custodymediators that they were #ictims of domestic #iolence often recei#ed lessfa#orable custody awards./learly it has become ob#ious that the unsubstantiated allegations and themalicious use of the abuse card; is no longer tolerated by the courts and the

associated agencies, and any spouse whose intention to maliciously ha#e a legup in custody bac'1res.

The Arizona studies main 1ndings showed that ha#ing a custody e#aluatormore li'ely resulted in the mother losing custody, a con1rmation that the1ndings of such an assessment usually militate against mothers, contrary tomy case, where the Assessor portrayed the e()wife as the embodiment of apicture perfect wife, without a single shortcoming and with a clean bill of health in terms of caring for the children and parenting s'ills.

8ric'son notes that great care must be ta'en by Assessors when interpreting

MM$! scores that do not accurately e#aluate the parenting ability of a parent,and a misinterpretation could result in placing custody of a child with abatterer, which could put the child at se#ere ris'. !n contrast, Ms &ohatins'yrelied on tests that are in line with the MM$! such as the MM$! ) @, M/M! P !!!,$! and $/&!, which could ha#e resulted in misinterpretation of the results, inaddition to conducting her 1rst bi)lateral assessment.

/ornell Uni#ersity professor Urie


29/50

L 8ight times more li'ely to go to prisonL 5i#e times more li'ely to commit suicideL @C times more li'ely to ha#e beha#ioural problemsL @C times more li'ely to become rapistsL 6@ times more li'ely to become runawaysL DC times more li'ely to abuse chemical substances

L %ine times more li'ely to drop out of high schoolL 0ne)tenth as li'ely to get A*s in schoolT! I(1'$''! %&. '! S' &% C$$+ S&2$!' 4C$$'*15 U@K@

!f you thin' /anada is one of the best places to raise a child, thin' again.According to U%!/85 /anada $resident >a#id Morley !he fact that our childrenran$ in the bottom half in terms of 1uality of life when compared to other industriali%ed nations simply isn>t good enough.; The courts are contributing to such a situation, in that despite of both parentsbeing complementary in raising a child, granting uasi)e(clusi#ely custody of children to mothers, hence minimizing the importance of father-s contribution

can only be part of the problem and not the solution.

As a matter of fact, there is a symbiosis between what the research says, andwhat the reality is. According to a report in S


30/50

the best interest of that child, and yet the trial 3udge con1ned her decisionmerely to the content of an assessment report, without ta'ing into accountwhat prominent e(perts in the 1eld+ such as $rofessor Urie i#orce Act recommendation for 3*"$33access of the children to their fathers appears to be inspired a child of themarriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with

the best interests of the child.;

&esearch pro#es that children thri#e with the acti#e and meaningfulparticipation of both biological parents, and is true for post)di#orce families.S


31/50

6G+(($1 W*+!.: S&+&3&(1 C$+.!( - E"0+&$() '! M'1 &% D$&.2!,N!# Y&.: A.9&. H&1!, =>8/learly mothers are 6 times as li'ely to #iolate fathers- access as #ice #ersa.Under such circumstances and in light of the friendly rule;, where the lawinsists on respecting the non)custodial parent-s right to access, would it notma'e more sense to award custody to more fathers than mothers, departing

hence from the present trendQ

According to 9awyer Ealter 5o(, CR of all complaints against 3udges in/anada are against 5amily 9aw 3udges.

The #ast discretionary powers gi#en to 3udges are at the root of the injusticehusbands are subjected to, as @ di2erent judges may ma'e opposite decisionsfor an identical case. 5or instance, 3udges responding to the uestion aboutwhether they consider #iolence or threats of #iolence when ma'ing custodyand #isitation decisions, only a little more than half of the judges =R?indicated that they always considered it. =DDR? percent said that they ne#er

considered it =Michigan?.

TESTIMONIES

Ee 'now from admittedly subjecti#e e(perience that to succeed as a man incourt, it is much more di4cult than if you are a woman. That is the reality. Toronto lawyer Michael >ay uoted: 0hen * go to court with a male client whois loo$ing for custody, it=s always an uphill battle( * always have to have aspecial fact situation in order to have a good chance at getting custody ;.

Toronto $sychologist and custody assessor, >r. Marty Mcay testi1ed: y

nding is that there are a lot of nurturing fathers out there( *=ve had somewomen tell me they don=t care how the assessment turns out because they aregoing to get custody of the children anyway "because they always givecustody to the woman;.

9et us not forget the often sordid role of custody)access assessors. There wasan e(cellent article by >onna 9aframboise in the %ational $ost on 3anuary 6C,DGGG. he described three cases where assessors had relied on falseinformation, faulty assumptions and in one case it was clear that the assessorproceeded from the assumption that children normally should be with theirmother. ome custody)access assessors and trial 3udges are all part of the

problem.

! ha#e re#iewed the family law, di#orce and matrimonial property acts, andsubseuently totally agree with lawyer /arey 9inde of ancou#er,


32/50

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The 5athers &ights Mo#ement declared that e#il mothers ha#e lodged falseallegations of se(ual or physical abuse and domestic #iolence against millionsof fathers just to depri#e and alienate them from their children.

A recurring pattern of potential human rights #iolations by /anada is welldocumented, for instance through numerous complaints reported by fathers to/anada /ourt Eatch, corresponding to rights guaranteed in multipleinternationally accepted human rights co#enants and treaties. The humanrights framewor' is a powerful tool for demonstrating the need for legal, social,and political reforms regarding the /anadian 3udiciary.

FALSE ALLEGATIONS

Eomen ha#e a weapon at their disposal, which is just as lethal as any 1rearmor poison. That weapon is the false allegation;.

5alse allegations are lies and people who ma'e them are by de1nition liars. Afalse allegation of abuse isn-t just any lie+ it-s one of the most contemptible liesthat e(ist. 8#en one #ictim of such a despicable lie is one #ictim too many.

Too many men ha#e become the targets of false allegations of domestic#iolence and se(ual abuse, a practice that has become #ery popular withwomen in order to gain the upper hand in di#orce and custody battles.

Eomen who perpetrate false allegations are malicious and disturbed. There areclear tactical ad#antages for women who fabricate false allegations.

0#er the last @ years, as the domestic #iolence and di#orce industries ha#egrown, a stubborn system has de#eloped in response to female initiatedallegations of abuse in which the accuser is rewarded. The accusers getattention. The person they hate is punished. They recei#e social appro#al andfull bac')up. 5emale false accusers also recei#e free legal representation,welfare payments, free counseling and other support ser#ices and supportfrom family, friends and neighbors V in other words, e#en more attention.4W*!!+ U(!.#*)!.,=>>5@

5urthermore, there are #ery little, if any conseuences for women who ma'e

false allegations in family court. Ultimately, the false accuser has far more togain than she has to lose.4G.!!( S2!', =>5

5amily law courts ha#e granted diplomatic immunity to e()wi#es, as they can#iolate the law with impunity. 5or instance, by 'nowingly ma'ing a long list of false and unsubstantiated allegations+ including rape and abuse, the e()wifecommitted a number of o2ences under the /riminal /ode.0ther o2ences were also committed, including perjury ) gi#ing false e#idenceunder oath =section D6D?, ma'ing a false a4da#it =section D6?, programming

32


33/50

a child and persuading or misleading another person to ma'e a falsestatement, which is an obstruction of justice =section D6G?. &egardless, she wasne#er held accountable for her acts.

The trial transcripts are a testimony to the e()wife-s perjurious trait, as thediscrepancies between her testimony about the incident of 3anuary @@nd, @CC

and the police report are diametrically opposed, but the trial 3udge ignoredthem anyway, appro#ing hence perjury.

Many men e(perience a #ery rude awa'ening when they enter the justicesystem #ia false allegations. $erhaps the truth will pre#ail, but typically notwithout a considerable amount of collateral damage to themsel#es and theirchildren.

Ehen a man is accused of abusing a woman or a child, any concept of dueprocess and innocent until proven guilty ; "ies out the window. Men areassumed guilty until pro#en innocent when a woman cries abuse or rape.

5ighting to pro#e his innocence can ta'e years and become a 1nancial burdenmany men simply can-t a2ord.

Ea'e1eld and Underwager =DGGC? determined that false accusers are muchmore li'ely to ha#e a personality disorder such as histrionic, borderline,passi#e)aggressi#e, or paranoid. 5alse accusers appear to be highly defensi#eand rigid, to ha#e poor insight and a tendency to deny personal shortcomings. They tend to be e(tremely concerned about and sensiti#e to how otherspercei#e them. 5alse accusers tend to confuse feelings with facts. A womanmay feel; abused or may feel; the children are being abused, when

objecti#ely spea'ing, no abuse has e#er actually occurred4Z!0!*!.,=>>5@

Ea'e1eld and Underwager =DGGC? found that:“?


34/50

threats throughout their marriage to lea#e the relationship, call GDD and ha#etheir husbands arrested.4W*!!+ U(!.#*)!.,=>>5@

Additionally, these men, because of their sensiti#e and caring natures, may bemore #ulnerable to relationships with needy and manipulati#e women. 0nce in

a relationship with a high)con"ict =H/$? andWor abusi#e personality disorderedwoman =A$>!?, they may beha#e somewhat passi#ely as they continue tonai#ely hope that e#erything will magically wor' out in the end.

>5@ 4P!.1&(*+$' C*.*2'!.$1'$21 &% P*.!('1 M*$() F*+1! A221*'$&(1 &% S!"*+ A91! $( C1'&D$10'!15@ I11!1 $( C$+ A91! A221*'$&(1, 45 4B!+$!! !. T! #&3*( (!!. +$!1 3'5@

3ust as false accusers rarely recei#e conseuences for per#erting andobstructing justice, court e#aluators and mental health professionals whowrongly determine that abuse has occurred through their own incompetenceand biases are rarely held accountable. The falsely accused is not the onlycasualty of a court appointee-s or mental health e#aluator-s rush to judgment.


35/50

Unreasonable denial of access, false claims of abuse, and other tactics whichdepri#e children of a separatedWdi#orced parent, are signi1cant and tragicproblems that call out not only for social solutions =as correctly ad#ocated bythe /.


36/50

The discrepancies between family law and court decisions, in terms of gender


37/50

Ehat ! ha#e been subjected to is not something new, as it has been describedby %Aforensic analysis.!n parallel, the same cannot be said about the injustice to which husbands aresubjected to in family courtrooms, as there is no eui#alent forensic tool toauthenticate unethical conduct and abuse of power. !n this situation,o#erhauling the 5amily justice system from top to bottom and establishingaccountability are the solution.

! ha#e been all my life a crusader against abuse in any shape or form andinjustice, regardless of the type of relationship in#ol#ed and gender:HusbandWwife, $arentWchild, 9andlordWtenant, ManagerWemployee, Fo#ernment

authorityWsubordinate, $ublic ser#antWcitizen, and so on. ! particularly condemnsturdily child abusers, and e(pect no sympathy from 3udges in awarding themcustody+ and if they do authorize access, it should be super#ised at all times. et, it is mindboggling that 3udges show leniency and sympathy towards childabusing mothers who falsely testify in a dramatic way about being subjectedthemsel#es to abuse by their husbands, while the #ulnerable and #oicelesschildren of the marriage, who do not ha#e the same pri#ilege to #oice theabuse they ha#e been subjected to, are often ignored.8#en worse, unsubstantiated allegations of abuse are more li'ely to o#erridedocumented e#idence pro#ing child abuse in granting custody to mothers,whereas husbands would ha#e de1nitely not been granted custody, had thesituation been re#ersed. This is an insult to human intelligence. 5atherless children ha#e a higher dependency on e(pensi#e state)fundedser#ices such as welfare, subsidy and care programs, special educationprograms, child support enforcement, ju#enile detentions centres and the listgoes on.

!t is one of the greatest social problems in /anada, and so is gender)bias anduntrue allegations of abuse and rape in custody determination, and thesubseuent miserable failure in terms of fairness and con#entional thin'ing at

37


38/50

the court le#el as well as the associated agencies. As a result, fathers aretreated unfairly and inhumanely. !t is therefore, time to hold those responsibleaccountable.

!t seems li'e the same system which is entrusted with the welfare of children,is allowing #oiceless and defenseless children slip through the protecti#e net

and into the care of abusi#e single mothers, e#en when good lo#ing fatherswith good education and appropriate parenting s'ills are a#ailable to ta'e careof their children without dependence on the go#ernment.!t is not di4cult to lin' crimes, rape, gang acti#ities, #iolence on the streets,which is more li'ely the result of children of bro'en marriages who lac' a father1gure in their li#es to set)up moral guidelines. This is the product of thepresent system, which is allowing the destruction of families, and in ma'ingchildren of marriages lose their identity and purpose in life.

3udges want you to belie#e that daily decisions made in the courtrooms are inthe best interest of children. !f that is so, how is it that in my case for e(ample,

Madam 3ustice Anderson ruled out shared parenting+ hence marginalizing thefather, when studies had re#ealed the disastrous conseuences on the childrenof mono)parental custodial arrangements, e#en worse when the custodialparent is a child abuser, as supported by the e#idence which was rejected asnon)rele#ant.


39/50

! agree fully with the Honourable 3udge 3udy heindlin in that why the godgi#en right to eual parenting which is being practised during the marriage, isall of a sudden o#erruled by 3udges immediately after one parent decides touit the relationship, and e#en worse, awarding custody to the parent wholea#es the marriage for reasons that are not e#en in the best interest of thechildrenQ

!f all 3udges use the same line of reasoning, the judicial system would not be incrisis today and we would ha#e better court outcomes. ! do not see why some 3udges would not want to use the courtroom as an oppo

Injustice and bias in Canadian family courtrooms

Documents

Transcript of Injustice and bias in Canadian family courtrooms