Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month wins reduction of payments to ex-wife
By NEAL HALL | Vancouver Sun – 22 hours ago
VANCOUVER - A Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month recently went to court and succeeded in having his payments reduced to his ex-wife.
The lawyer, identified only as C.D. in a B.C. Supreme Court judgment, had urged the court to reduce his monthly spousal support payments to $8,500 a month this year, to be stepped down over the next three years to $5,000 a month.
Until this month, he was paying $11,500 a month to his ex-wife, A.B., plus another $49,000 a year for the educational expenses of his two children.
Justice Susan Griffin decided a more appropriate payment was $10,000 a month for the next 10 years, when the matter can be reviewed.
The judge noted that the ex-wife, a former flight attendant, did not work during the 15-year marriage and stayed home to look after the couple's two children, allowing the lawyer to work long hours and become very successful.
When the couple married in 1990, the lawyer was making $50,000 a year in Ontario.
The couple decided to move to Vancouver in 1994, where the lawyer's career took off, allowing him to earn up to $800,000 a year.
During the last three years, the lawyer has made on average $684,000, which works out to $57,000 per month.
The husband argued his ex-wife was deliberately underemployed.
The wife took an interior design course and has won awards as a "home stager" - selecting furniture and furnishing to stage homes to make them sell quickly.
She hoped to earn $15,000 to $20,000 this year, the judge pointed out.
"Her actions are inconsistent with the suggestion that she has deliberately been underemployed," the judge observed this week in a written judgment.
The judge found the wife lived a modest lifestyle in a 1919 home in North Vancouver, compared to the lifestyle of the husband, who lives in West Vancouver, has another home in Qualicum Beach, has substantial retirement savings and is earning a large income that will allow him to continue to accumulate assets and savings.
"It is very unlikely she will ever achieve self-sufficiency to a degree that overcomes the economic disadvantages of marriage or approximates the advantages the husband gained from the marriage," the judge concluded.
The judge also noted that while she saw no reason information to justify hiding the litigants' names by reducing them to initials, the husband "strongly opposed" having his name made public.
The full judgment is online at: http://bit.ly/ykLDLR
nhall@vancouversun.com
Showing posts with label lawyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawyer. Show all posts
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
5 Of the Dirtiest Divorce tricks
Some divorcing spouses treat each other deplorably. In these sad cases, it is actually hard to believe they were once in love. Candour and kindness are replaced by artifice and cruelty. Divorce lawyers are well aware of the grab bag of dirty tricks spouses inflict on each other. My top five dirtiest divorce tricks are:1. Conflicting Out All of the Top Divorce Lawyers
An age-old practice for a spouse who expects a long, drawn out divorce battle is to ensure their estranged partner can’t retain a top divorce lawyer. It goes like this – husband or wife makes appointments with the top lawyers in the area. At each meeting they reveal enough about their situation that the top lawyer, who they have no real intention of retaining, cannot act for their spouse. If each top lawyer charges them $500.00 for a one hour consultation, they only spend a few thousand dollars to ensure they have defanged their spouse by preventing him or her from hiring a “gun” equivalent to their top-tier counsel. Yes, this happens in the world of high net worth divorce.
2. Firing Your Lawyer Just Before Trial
Another effective divorce trick is to fire your lawyer weeks before your divorce trial is set to commence. How does this work? It’s easy. Let’s say you are the wife of a wealthy husband. Since you obtained a court order ejecting your husband from the family home, you now reside in luxury with peace and quiet; you are receiving thousands of dollars a month in tax-free child and spousal support; and your life consists of tennis lessons, lunch with the girls at the Club and evening soirees. Meanwhile your husband is doing what he always does: travelling around the world doing business deals to support your mutual lifestyles. He doesn’t even see the kids much, so there’s no hassles at all.
Why would you spoil all this by taking a chance that a judge may eliminate some part of your lavish lifestyle or impose an access schedule for the children to see their father that may interfere with your plans?
3. Transferring Your Assets Off-Shore
While you may live a life of champagne and caviar, it is unlikely you can maintain that level of opulence if your spouse has arranged to stash all his liquid assets off-shore in trusts set up in any number of tax havens such as the Bahamas, the Isle of Man, Turks and Caicos or Switzerland.
In many jurisdictions a Court may make an order that off-shore assets be divided between the spouses, but just wait until you see how difficult it is for you to convince the foreign jurisdiction they must obey the order of a North American Court. All I can say is good luck!
4. Arranging Multiple Mortgages on Your Real Estate
It is not uncommon to see marriages where the “little lady” has no idea of what she and her husband are really worth. Imagine a spouse’s disappointment when their lawyer informs them that the family home and their summer cottage are mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no equity. Their once middle-class standard of living evaporates as Mrs. now looks for a basement suite to house her and her two children.
Another real estate divorce trick is to build a lavish home on leased land that is situated on property that is in the agricultural land reserve, so that while it may have cost $3 million to build, it has no real market value since nobody in their right mind would purchase this property. Yes, this is a true story.
5. Building a House of Cards
For a time life is grand, but inevitably problems arise in your marriage. In an effort to please your spouse you try you to spend your way back to the marriage you once had. Little does your spouse know that the trips to Europe, Hawaii and the Super Bowl were leveraged, courtesy of American Express or Visa. The marriage does not survive and you discover your net worth is much less than you expected as you have tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt all used for the family. Let’s just hope the Sistine Chapel was worth it.
Perhaps you think that with the explosion of mediation and collaborative divorce, these tricks have lost their lustre? Think again. For spouses who need revenge more than they need closure, they are alive and well.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Friday, October 14, 2011
B.C. judges take provincial government to court
B.C. judges take provincial government to court
CBC News
Posted: Oct 14, 2011 6:06 AM PT
Last Updated: Oct 14, 2011 1:27 PM PT
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Related Links
Provincial court judges are taking the B.C. government to court, arguing that the provincial government was irrational and unreasonable when it denied them a pay raise that wouldn't even come into effect for another 18 months.
A Judges Compensation Commission reported back to government last year, recommending a salary increase in April 2013 equivalent to the increase in the cost of living in B.C. since April 2010, along with some pension plan improvements.
The government rejected the recommendation, saying that because other civil servants’ compensation was tied to judges’ salaries, it would be too expensive.
According to a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the judges argue that the province’s rejection was unreasonable.
The judges say that the government policy of holding back wage increases across the board shouldn't apply to them because they're not public sector employees, but are an independent branch of government.
The judges also point to an ever-increasing workload and a salary gap between themselves and their counterparts in the B.C. Supreme Court.
The government argued in May that provincial court judges in the last several years had received significant increases in salary — rising by more than 40 per cent to $231,138 in 2010 from $161,250 in 2004.
As of May 2010, there were 111 full-time and 35 part-time provincial court judges in 88 communities throughout B.C.
The provincial government hasn't filed a statement of defence to the legal action, which was filed with the court on Wednesday.
But at the legislature in Victoria on Friday, B.C. Attorney General Shirley Bond said she's disappointed provincial judges are suing her ministry, but the government will be vigorously defending itself against this lawsuit.
"The rationale that the government had for rejecting the recommendation is clearly outlined in Hansard. It was debated publicly in the legislature, so I'm disappointed. But obviously as a matter before the courts, I can't discuss the specifics of what the discussion will be before the courts," she said.
With files from the CBC's Ben HadawayWednesday, September 14, 2011
Another good post
Here is another good post from one of my favorite bloggers, Check it out...
Sep
Even Divorce Lawyers Can’t Afford a Divorce Lawyer
Posted September 8, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law, Judges, Lawyers. Tagged: Family Court, in-person litigants, lay litigants, Queen's Bench, self-represented litigants, Supreme Court. 4 Comments
It should come as no surprise to anyone that most Canadians cannot afford a lawyer. In fact, lawyers often joke that if they had to pay a lawyer, they too couldn’t afford it. Nowhere is this dilemma more obvious than in family courts.
It is now commonplace to see self-represented litigants dueling with lawyers in most of our family courts in Canada. In British Columbia a parent or spouse can apply for custody and child and spousal support in the Provincial Court, which is purposely “user-friendly”. The Provincial Family Courts across Canada have successfully implemented reforms including plain-language court documents that are readily decipherable by lay litigants. The judges in Provincial Court are accustomed to hearing cases without lawyers and graciously assist those who act for themselves.
However, to obtain a divorce or property division, the only venue is each province’s Supreme Court, sometimes called “Queen’s Bench”, a most inhospitable environment for in-person litigants.
In a 2011 survey of Ontario divorce lawyers, conducted by Professor Nick Bala of Queen’s University Law School, he found that 48% of 167 responding lawyers indicated they were seeing many cases with at least one lay litigant and more cases where at some point in the litigation, neither party had counsel.
As family law becomes increasingly more complicated, despite the Canadian government’s sensible introduction of both Child Support Guidelines in 1997 and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in 2006, there are minefields enough for lawyers, never mind those who are forced to act as their own lawyer.
Will a lay litigant understand that in calculating their income for the payment of child support they must consider and understand complex nuances such as the possibility of the exclusion of non-recurring income; the need to include all of their capital gains income in their calculation and not just the portion they see on page two of their tax return; and their ability to deduct business expenses, union or professional dues and carrying costs? I doubt it. Not all lawyers have figured it out yet!
But affordability is not the only reason litigants refuse to retain counsel. There is another group of litigants who believe they can handle their divorce case just as well as a lawyer can. This smaller segment often become serial litigators who, because it costs them nothing, bring multiple frivolous applications, although some would say that lawyers do the same thing! Often when offered pro bono counsel, they decline.
Problems abound for all involved in the family justice system in the wake of the impact of lay litigants. Judges who must ensure that justice is both done, and seen to be done, are at the centre of the dilemma. If they provide too much help for an in-person litigant, that litigant’s spouse will see it as an unfair advantage and often, the court Rules that govern court procedures are less stringently enforced when it comes to litigants with no lawyer.
As well, litigants that pay for their own lawyer often become disenchanted with their counsel when they see their lawyer “helping” their estranged spouse who has no counsel. Lawyers are bound to treat participants in the justice system with courtesy and respect, traits that are frequently misconceived as their lawyer being “too friendly” with their opponent. Fee-paying litigants resent their lawyer telling their spouse what the law is or how the court process works.
For lawyers the problems are multiplied. They must walk a fine line in dealing with an unrepresented spouse and must ensure that all communication with an in-person litigant is documented in writing, with no exceptions. Of course, their clients are even more unhappy since it is their clients who pay the bills for the extra time and effort required to work with a lay litigant.
Lay litigants have also been known to send abusive communication to their spouse’s lawyer and from time to time, report their spouse’s lawyer to the Law Society, a complaint which can cost a lawyer hours of wasted time to respond to the often ill-founded allegations.
Is there a cure? They say that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it. Certainly,the issue can no longer be avoided. It has taken centre stage as a result of lawyers, judges, court administrators, law professors,lawmakers, and the Canadian public decrying the slow demise of Canada’s family justice system.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Sep
Even Divorce Lawyers Can’t Afford a Divorce Lawyer
Posted September 8, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law, Judges, Lawyers. Tagged: Family Court, in-person litigants, lay litigants, Queen's Bench, self-represented litigants, Supreme Court. 4 Comments
It should come as no surprise to anyone that most Canadians cannot afford a lawyer. In fact, lawyers often joke that if they had to pay a lawyer, they too couldn’t afford it. Nowhere is this dilemma more obvious than in family courts.
It is now commonplace to see self-represented litigants dueling with lawyers in most of our family courts in Canada. In British Columbia a parent or spouse can apply for custody and child and spousal support in the Provincial Court, which is purposely “user-friendly”. The Provincial Family Courts across Canada have successfully implemented reforms including plain-language court documents that are readily decipherable by lay litigants. The judges in Provincial Court are accustomed to hearing cases without lawyers and graciously assist those who act for themselves.
However, to obtain a divorce or property division, the only venue is each province’s Supreme Court, sometimes called “Queen’s Bench”, a most inhospitable environment for in-person litigants.
In a 2011 survey of Ontario divorce lawyers, conducted by Professor Nick Bala of Queen’s University Law School, he found that 48% of 167 responding lawyers indicated they were seeing many cases with at least one lay litigant and more cases where at some point in the litigation, neither party had counsel.
As family law becomes increasingly more complicated, despite the Canadian government’s sensible introduction of both Child Support Guidelines in 1997 and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in 2006, there are minefields enough for lawyers, never mind those who are forced to act as their own lawyer.
Will a lay litigant understand that in calculating their income for the payment of child support they must consider and understand complex nuances such as the possibility of the exclusion of non-recurring income; the need to include all of their capital gains income in their calculation and not just the portion they see on page two of their tax return; and their ability to deduct business expenses, union or professional dues and carrying costs? I doubt it. Not all lawyers have figured it out yet!
But affordability is not the only reason litigants refuse to retain counsel. There is another group of litigants who believe they can handle their divorce case just as well as a lawyer can. This smaller segment often become serial litigators who, because it costs them nothing, bring multiple frivolous applications, although some would say that lawyers do the same thing! Often when offered pro bono counsel, they decline.
Problems abound for all involved in the family justice system in the wake of the impact of lay litigants. Judges who must ensure that justice is both done, and seen to be done, are at the centre of the dilemma. If they provide too much help for an in-person litigant, that litigant’s spouse will see it as an unfair advantage and often, the court Rules that govern court procedures are less stringently enforced when it comes to litigants with no lawyer.
As well, litigants that pay for their own lawyer often become disenchanted with their counsel when they see their lawyer “helping” their estranged spouse who has no counsel. Lawyers are bound to treat participants in the justice system with courtesy and respect, traits that are frequently misconceived as their lawyer being “too friendly” with their opponent. Fee-paying litigants resent their lawyer telling their spouse what the law is or how the court process works.
For lawyers the problems are multiplied. They must walk a fine line in dealing with an unrepresented spouse and must ensure that all communication with an in-person litigant is documented in writing, with no exceptions. Of course, their clients are even more unhappy since it is their clients who pay the bills for the extra time and effort required to work with a lay litigant.
Lay litigants have also been known to send abusive communication to their spouse’s lawyer and from time to time, report their spouse’s lawyer to the Law Society, a complaint which can cost a lawyer hours of wasted time to respond to the often ill-founded allegations.
Is there a cure? They say that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it. Certainly,the issue can no longer be avoided. It has taken centre stage as a result of lawyers, judges, court administrators, law professors,lawmakers, and the Canadian public decrying the slow demise of Canada’s family justice system.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Collaborative Divorce....?
A legal phenomenon called collaborative divorce is sweeping across North America and is being sold as the answer to the age-old question: “How can we get divorced quickly, fairly and cheaply?” Family law lawyers who have embraced the doctrine of collaboration are effusive in their praise and defence of this new process for divorcing couples. There are websites galore extolling its virtues.
Many of them list a myriad of reasons why separating spouses should reject traditional family law lawyers in favour of collaborative lawyers. Very few of these sites discuss the downside or the disadvantages of collaborative family law. At least one site declares there are no disadvantages to collaborative divorce.
So, what is collaborative divorce and where did it come from? In 1990 lawyer Stuart Webb of Minnesota decried the emotional and financial devastation experienced by many of his family law clients. He wondered if divorce could be done in a kinder, gentler way and thought it could.
He devised a process where a divorcing couple would each retain a collaboratively trained lawyer and sign an agreement that provided each spouse would enter into interest-based negotiations with the assistance of their lawyers. Meetings would be scheduled where spouses and lawyers would discuss and settle all issues related to their divorce including property, custody, and child and spousal support.
To experienced family law lawyers there was nothing new about four-way settlement meetings. They had been the basis for settlement discussions for decades. But the collaborative process introduced an additional feature. The agreement signed by the spouses and their lawyers stipulated if the collaborative process was not successful, their lawyers could no longer represent them and they would be compelled to “start over” with regular family law lawyers, otherwise known as litigators.
This “court is not an option” approach is a critical component of the process, expected to compel adversarial spouses to settle, rather than face the prospects of new lawyers armed for court battle.
It all sounds wonderful and for some divorcing couples it is effective. Whether it can be said to be less expensive is another issue, because the collaborative process also provides much-needed work for underemployed counsellors, child psychologists, domestic abuse specialists and financial experts.
It has also led to the growth of professionals who call themselves divorce coaches and parenting coordinators. With the addition of one or more of these “experts”, one can easily imagine spiralling costs. In one case involving a short marriage with no children, the collaborative process cost a couple $55,000.
This is not intended as a criticism of divorce coaches or parenting coordinators, who can each play an important role, however, to suggest this parade of professionals comes cheap is disingenuous at best and outright misleading at worst.
On website, “collaborativedivorce.net” the authors point out that “No one should be in a hurry to reach issues quickly because of time constraints”. This reminds me of the unspoken philosophy behind mediation, where couples could spend years with a mediator who was apparently skilled at bringing divorcing couples to “yes”, but not in a timely fashion. In certain instances, couples could be done and divorced for the same price-tag as the marathon mediation.
This same website encourages collaborative participants to “control the meeting”. This is a disturbing admonition for a process that is intended to promote fairness, cooperation and a level playing field.
But make no mistake. Despite what you may have heard, collaborative lawyers are still out to get the best deal they can for their clients. In one respect they are like “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as they implement strategies usually reserved for “bulldog” lawyers, including the dreaded “Nothing is settled until everything is settled” and “We refuse to counter”, driving one party to negotiate against him or herself.
As for me, the jury is still out. Oh yes, I have always practiced family law collaboratively, I just didn’t adopt the tag.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Many of them list a myriad of reasons why separating spouses should reject traditional family law lawyers in favour of collaborative lawyers. Very few of these sites discuss the downside or the disadvantages of collaborative family law. At least one site declares there are no disadvantages to collaborative divorce.
So, what is collaborative divorce and where did it come from? In 1990 lawyer Stuart Webb of Minnesota decried the emotional and financial devastation experienced by many of his family law clients. He wondered if divorce could be done in a kinder, gentler way and thought it could.
He devised a process where a divorcing couple would each retain a collaboratively trained lawyer and sign an agreement that provided each spouse would enter into interest-based negotiations with the assistance of their lawyers. Meetings would be scheduled where spouses and lawyers would discuss and settle all issues related to their divorce including property, custody, and child and spousal support.
To experienced family law lawyers there was nothing new about four-way settlement meetings. They had been the basis for settlement discussions for decades. But the collaborative process introduced an additional feature. The agreement signed by the spouses and their lawyers stipulated if the collaborative process was not successful, their lawyers could no longer represent them and they would be compelled to “start over” with regular family law lawyers, otherwise known as litigators.
This “court is not an option” approach is a critical component of the process, expected to compel adversarial spouses to settle, rather than face the prospects of new lawyers armed for court battle.
It all sounds wonderful and for some divorcing couples it is effective. Whether it can be said to be less expensive is another issue, because the collaborative process also provides much-needed work for underemployed counsellors, child psychologists, domestic abuse specialists and financial experts.
It has also led to the growth of professionals who call themselves divorce coaches and parenting coordinators. With the addition of one or more of these “experts”, one can easily imagine spiralling costs. In one case involving a short marriage with no children, the collaborative process cost a couple $55,000.
This is not intended as a criticism of divorce coaches or parenting coordinators, who can each play an important role, however, to suggest this parade of professionals comes cheap is disingenuous at best and outright misleading at worst.
On website, “collaborativedivorce.net” the authors point out that “No one should be in a hurry to reach issues quickly because of time constraints”. This reminds me of the unspoken philosophy behind mediation, where couples could spend years with a mediator who was apparently skilled at bringing divorcing couples to “yes”, but not in a timely fashion. In certain instances, couples could be done and divorced for the same price-tag as the marathon mediation.
This same website encourages collaborative participants to “control the meeting”. This is a disturbing admonition for a process that is intended to promote fairness, cooperation and a level playing field.
But make no mistake. Despite what you may have heard, collaborative lawyers are still out to get the best deal they can for their clients. In one respect they are like “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as they implement strategies usually reserved for “bulldog” lawyers, including the dreaded “Nothing is settled until everything is settled” and “We refuse to counter”, driving one party to negotiate against him or herself.
As for me, the jury is still out. Oh yes, I have always practiced family law collaboratively, I just didn’t adopt the tag.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Judges pay cut might help with shortages
writen in July 28th, 2011 edition
Kamloops Daily News
by Robert Koopmans
COURT NOTES
Judges' pay cutmight help with (court) shortages
There's much ado these days about the lack of court resources, and how shortages of clerks, sheriffs, Crown lawyers and judges impact our right to timely justice.
In Kamloops, courtrooms are closing. Just the other day two courtrooms merged into one because there were not enough court clerks. Clearly, B.C.'s justice system is struggling through a financial crisis. What area of government isn't?
Judges lately have taken to criticizing government for the lack of resources. Not long ago a Kamloops judge denounced staff shortages while staying impaired driving charges in a case that had stretched out far too long.
Ironically, however, judges are part of the problem. Why? They are extremely expensive civil servants, and the way their salaries are determined ensures their compensation
Provincial court judges in B.C. make about $235,000 a year, while B.C. Supreme Court justices earn roughly $280,000. Federal judges are guaranteed wage increases equal to the cost of living, typically around one to three per cent per year.
Provincial judges want more pay equity with federal judges and continually push to close the gap. B.C.'s prosecutor salaries are directly tied to judges' salaries. As a result, the bill for the top end of justice services must always grow.
The argument for big judicial salaries suggests such money is needed to attract the best legal minds from the pool of lawyers but at the pace judicial salaries are rising, such an argument starts to run thin.
The average lawyer in B.C. makes about $100,000 a year, according to the stats. Yes, some lawyers make more - perhaps even much more - but not many. Judge's salaries have been powerfully attractive to lawyers for quite some time. As a further perk, judges don't have to manage offices, billings, bills, collections and other expenses.
Compare judges to other publicly funded professions. B.C. MLAs earn about $101,000 a year. The premier makes about $190,000. Federal MPs earn about $160,000, while Canada's prime minister earns $317,000.
We have only one Prime Minister. There are hundreds of federal judges in Canada, all of them earning nearly the same amount. Not far off, all those judges will make more than Stephen Harper...
Family doctors In B.C. bill the government an average of about $232,000 gross a year, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Specialists in B.C. gross bill on average about $308,000 per year. They must still pay their operational expenses, making personal earnings much less.
Do judges need to make so much more than everyone else?
If judges in B.C. want to make a meaningful contribution to the shortage of justice resources, here's a suggestion: volunteer a pay cut.
If each provincial court judge took a 20-per-cent cut - still an annual salary of more than $190,000 - the province could make up on many of those missing clerks and sheriffs and keep more courtrooms open.
As justice-system and community leaders, surely they can recognize the issue and make a sacrifice, with public service in mind.
Robert Koopmans covers the courts for The Daily News. He can be reached at
250-372-2331, or by email: rkoopmans@kamloopsnews.ca
Kamloops Daily News
by Robert Koopmans
COURT NOTES
Judges' pay cutmight help with (court) shortages
There's much ado these days about the lack of court resources, and how shortages of clerks, sheriffs, Crown lawyers and judges impact our right to timely justice.
In Kamloops, courtrooms are closing. Just the other day two courtrooms merged into one because there were not enough court clerks. Clearly, B.C.'s justice system is struggling through a financial crisis. What area of government isn't?
Judges lately have taken to criticizing government for the lack of resources. Not long ago a Kamloops judge denounced staff shortages while staying impaired driving charges in a case that had stretched out far too long.
Ironically, however, judges are part of the problem. Why? They are extremely expensive civil servants, and the way their salaries are determined ensures their compensation
Provincial court judges in B.C. make about $235,000 a year, while B.C. Supreme Court justices earn roughly $280,000. Federal judges are guaranteed wage increases equal to the cost of living, typically around one to three per cent per year.
Provincial judges want more pay equity with federal judges and continually push to close the gap. B.C.'s prosecutor salaries are directly tied to judges' salaries. As a result, the bill for the top end of justice services must always grow.
The argument for big judicial salaries suggests such money is needed to attract the best legal minds from the pool of lawyers but at the pace judicial salaries are rising, such an argument starts to run thin.
The average lawyer in B.C. makes about $100,000 a year, according to the stats. Yes, some lawyers make more - perhaps even much more - but not many. Judge's salaries have been powerfully attractive to lawyers for quite some time. As a further perk, judges don't have to manage offices, billings, bills, collections and other expenses.
Compare judges to other publicly funded professions. B.C. MLAs earn about $101,000 a year. The premier makes about $190,000. Federal MPs earn about $160,000, while Canada's prime minister earns $317,000.
We have only one Prime Minister. There are hundreds of federal judges in Canada, all of them earning nearly the same amount. Not far off, all those judges will make more than Stephen Harper...
Family doctors In B.C. bill the government an average of about $232,000 gross a year, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Specialists in B.C. gross bill on average about $308,000 per year. They must still pay their operational expenses, making personal earnings much less.
Do judges need to make so much more than everyone else?
If judges in B.C. want to make a meaningful contribution to the shortage of justice resources, here's a suggestion: volunteer a pay cut.
If each provincial court judge took a 20-per-cent cut - still an annual salary of more than $190,000 - the province could make up on many of those missing clerks and sheriffs and keep more courtrooms open.
As justice-system and community leaders, surely they can recognize the issue and make a sacrifice, with public service in mind.
Robert Koopmans covers the courts for The Daily News. He can be reached at
250-372-2331, or by email: rkoopmans@kamloopsnews.ca
One small paper talking about the court system
Justice System Won't Be Fixed With Only Money
July 26th, 2011 | Doug Collins
Our justice system is like our health care system - it's not going to be fixed by simply throwing more money at it. Critics are suggesting the appointment of five new provincial court judges won't be enough to address the serious crisis facing B.C.'s justice system. Delays in the court system are resulting in judges throwing out cases because of the length of time it takes to get cases to court. The B.C. Crown Counsel Association says the new appointments won't address other resource shortages, such as increasing the numbers of Crown Lawyers, sheriffs and court staff. And all of this is true.
But what needs to be taken on is a complete review of the system and how it operates. It's fine for judges to throw cases out, but how much of the problem is created by the judges themselves? And they do create part of the problem. And how about the lawyers themselves? They're part of the problem too. So many delays are created because lawyers maybe take on too much and juggle too many cases and things continually get put off and put off for convenience sake. A lawyer tells the judge he'll be away or isn't ready, and the case is put over, and after that happens several times, the judge throws the case out. That's not the fault of a lack of resources - that's the fault of the people within the system.
I am not suggesting for a moment that more resources don't have to be committed. But those within the system already have to be accountable and own up to their part in the failure of the system to work. And the only way we can change things is for everyone to be a part of putting a new plan in place that will make significant changes. The same old same old, and just throwing money into an already broke system will do for the legal system what it's doing for the health care system-absolutely nothing.
July 26th, 2011 | Doug Collins
Our justice system is like our health care system - it's not going to be fixed by simply throwing more money at it. Critics are suggesting the appointment of five new provincial court judges won't be enough to address the serious crisis facing B.C.'s justice system. Delays in the court system are resulting in judges throwing out cases because of the length of time it takes to get cases to court. The B.C. Crown Counsel Association says the new appointments won't address other resource shortages, such as increasing the numbers of Crown Lawyers, sheriffs and court staff. And all of this is true.
But what needs to be taken on is a complete review of the system and how it operates. It's fine for judges to throw cases out, but how much of the problem is created by the judges themselves? And they do create part of the problem. And how about the lawyers themselves? They're part of the problem too. So many delays are created because lawyers maybe take on too much and juggle too many cases and things continually get put off and put off for convenience sake. A lawyer tells the judge he'll be away or isn't ready, and the case is put over, and after that happens several times, the judge throws the case out. That's not the fault of a lack of resources - that's the fault of the people within the system.
I am not suggesting for a moment that more resources don't have to be committed. But those within the system already have to be accountable and own up to their part in the failure of the system to work. And the only way we can change things is for everyone to be a part of putting a new plan in place that will make significant changes. The same old same old, and just throwing money into an already broke system will do for the legal system what it's doing for the health care system-absolutely nothing.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Why its time to elect our Judges (in Canada)
Why it’s time to elect our judges
By Georgialee Lang, canada.com April 28, 2011 8:53 AM Comments (14)
Story
Photos ( 1 )
Georgialee Lang: "The election of judges would raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society."
Canadians like to talk about fixing the criminal justice system, but are we ready for a radical overhaul?
Are we prepared to engage in a vigorous debate about the fundamentals of our justice system, about eschewing the appointment of judges and considering an elected judiciary, in rethinking the way we do justice? A 2007 Canadian poll revealed that 63 per cent of Canadians were in favour of elected judges.
Our appointed judges are forced to wade into highly politicized issues like abortion, euthanasia, polygamy, and the decriminalization of marijuana as litigants challenge the constitutionality of such laws under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Today’s judges are making decisions that should be in the domain of our elected representatives. Do we want a judge in British Columbia rewriting our 121-year-old law banning polygamy? Should an Ontario judge be responsible for the decriminalization of cannabis?
An elected bench would be democratically accountable to the public. Presently the only censure against a trial judge is the Court of Appeal or the Canadian Judicial Council, both institutions that shut out the public. If judges were elected they would undoubtedly be more sensitive to the pulse of the general public and less likely to cling to the ideology of their elite educations.
Elected judges would introduce a transparency to the now-cloistered ritual of judicial appointments, a practice that has been enshrined in Canadian legal history for too long.
The election of judges would also raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society. Citizens who elect their judges may have more confidence in their judges, based on elevated levels of scrutiny from the public and the media. Certainly there would be a greater perception of public legitimacy.
On the other hand, critics of an elected judiciary refer to the “tyranny of the majority” and the possibility of corruption, including the merchandising of votes. A counter to this fear is the glare of the media spotlight that is clearly absent in the appointment of judges.
Japan has achieved a compromise worthy of investigation. In sweeping reforms to its criminal justice system, Japan has adopted a program of elected professional judges and lay judges.
This new model of adjudication consists of three professional full-time judges sitting with six citizen judges who participate as equals in the fact-finding and sentencing of criminals. Three back-up lay judges are also seated in case one or more of the lay judges is unable to continue. Citizen judges are chosen in a manner similar to the selection of Canadian jurors.
Japan has no jury system, so the introduction of the people’s views is an important step to lend credibility to its criminal justice system. While Canada has a tradition of jury trials, the reality is that civil jury trials have priced themselves into extinction and judges without juries hear 90 per cent of Canada’s criminal cases.
Citizen judges are only used in the most serious cases like murder, robbery and other offences that involve death or severe injury. The trials are streamlined so evidence may be heard in a much shorter time.
With extensive cooperation prior to trial between the prosecution and the defence, only the contentious issues are heard. One of the biggest complaints about criminal trials in Canada is the long delay to get them started and the enormous court time required to complete them. A political corruption trial in British Columbia that began with a raid on the legislature ended with a guilty plea after almost eight years in court. The final chapter of this saga saw the taxpayers of British Columbia saddled with the accuseds’ $6 million legal bill.
In a recent Japanese case a panel of nine judges, including six lay judges, convicted and sentenced the driver of a vehicle whose dangerous driving resulted in the death of two innocent victims.
More surprisingly, the panel also convicted the driver’s two passengers for aiding and abetting, by permitting him to drive while in a state of intoxication. The driver received 16 years in prison while the passengers received two years each, although the public prosecutor was asking for eight years.
A preliminary assessment of the effect of lay judges reveals they pronounce more severe sentences on sex offenders, grant probation periods for suspended sentences more often than professional judges alone did, and have garnered fewer appeals of their decisions.
We can create a made-in-Canada justice system to restore pride and trust in our courts.
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
By Georgialee Lang, canada.com April 28, 2011 8:53 AM Comments (14)
Story
Photos ( 1 )
Georgialee Lang: "The election of judges would raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society."
Canadians like to talk about fixing the criminal justice system, but are we ready for a radical overhaul?
Are we prepared to engage in a vigorous debate about the fundamentals of our justice system, about eschewing the appointment of judges and considering an elected judiciary, in rethinking the way we do justice? A 2007 Canadian poll revealed that 63 per cent of Canadians were in favour of elected judges.
Our appointed judges are forced to wade into highly politicized issues like abortion, euthanasia, polygamy, and the decriminalization of marijuana as litigants challenge the constitutionality of such laws under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Today’s judges are making decisions that should be in the domain of our elected representatives. Do we want a judge in British Columbia rewriting our 121-year-old law banning polygamy? Should an Ontario judge be responsible for the decriminalization of cannabis?
An elected bench would be democratically accountable to the public. Presently the only censure against a trial judge is the Court of Appeal or the Canadian Judicial Council, both institutions that shut out the public. If judges were elected they would undoubtedly be more sensitive to the pulse of the general public and less likely to cling to the ideology of their elite educations.
Elected judges would introduce a transparency to the now-cloistered ritual of judicial appointments, a practice that has been enshrined in Canadian legal history for too long.
The election of judges would also raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society. Citizens who elect their judges may have more confidence in their judges, based on elevated levels of scrutiny from the public and the media. Certainly there would be a greater perception of public legitimacy.
On the other hand, critics of an elected judiciary refer to the “tyranny of the majority” and the possibility of corruption, including the merchandising of votes. A counter to this fear is the glare of the media spotlight that is clearly absent in the appointment of judges.
Japan has achieved a compromise worthy of investigation. In sweeping reforms to its criminal justice system, Japan has adopted a program of elected professional judges and lay judges.
This new model of adjudication consists of three professional full-time judges sitting with six citizen judges who participate as equals in the fact-finding and sentencing of criminals. Three back-up lay judges are also seated in case one or more of the lay judges is unable to continue. Citizen judges are chosen in a manner similar to the selection of Canadian jurors.
Japan has no jury system, so the introduction of the people’s views is an important step to lend credibility to its criminal justice system. While Canada has a tradition of jury trials, the reality is that civil jury trials have priced themselves into extinction and judges without juries hear 90 per cent of Canada’s criminal cases.
Citizen judges are only used in the most serious cases like murder, robbery and other offences that involve death or severe injury. The trials are streamlined so evidence may be heard in a much shorter time.
With extensive cooperation prior to trial between the prosecution and the defence, only the contentious issues are heard. One of the biggest complaints about criminal trials in Canada is the long delay to get them started and the enormous court time required to complete them. A political corruption trial in British Columbia that began with a raid on the legislature ended with a guilty plea after almost eight years in court. The final chapter of this saga saw the taxpayers of British Columbia saddled with the accuseds’ $6 million legal bill.
In a recent Japanese case a panel of nine judges, including six lay judges, convicted and sentenced the driver of a vehicle whose dangerous driving resulted in the death of two innocent victims.
More surprisingly, the panel also convicted the driver’s two passengers for aiding and abetting, by permitting him to drive while in a state of intoxication. The driver received 16 years in prison while the passengers received two years each, although the public prosecutor was asking for eight years.
A preliminary assessment of the effect of lay judges reveals they pronounce more severe sentences on sex offenders, grant probation periods for suspended sentences more often than professional judges alone did, and have garnered fewer appeals of their decisions.
We can create a made-in-Canada justice system to restore pride and trust in our courts.
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Finaly a female lawyer with some good logic
Canada Fathers
I really like this writer and its great to she is female, a lawyer and seems to understand our plight with the injustices in the Canadian Family leagl system
here is her blog; http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/
and her web page: http://www.georgialeelang.com/
...
I really like this writer and its great to she is female, a lawyer and seems to understand our plight with the injustices in the Canadian Family leagl system
here is her blog; http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/
and her web page: http://www.georgialeelang.com/
...
Thank you Canada.com
I found this aricle on Sunday April 11th 2011 front page when I went to their website, can you imagine my surprise and happiness to see the media actually looking at such a story? here is what I saw;
" With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter. "
here is the link; http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/real-agenda/story.html?id=4585240
and here is the story copied and pasted "just in case it dissaperas"
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/images/banner_real_agenda.jpg
Georgialee Lang: "Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse."
Canada’s system of family law is decimating us, one family at a time. With nearly 40 per cent of Canadian marriages ending in divorce, our next government needs to stop the bleeding, financial and emotional.
Our adversarial court system pits husband against wife in a dangerous game that all too often spirals out of control, taking whole families down and destroying children’s lives in the process.
Custody cases are among the worst. Separating parents, usually fathers, are caught in a black vortex, fighting for the ability to remain an active part of their children’s lives, sparring with mothers who too frequently use their hurt and anger to alienate their partners from their children.
To date, our governments have refused to make the changes that most jurisdictions in North America have already adopted: a move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.
Regrettably, our system does neither parent any favours. With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.
Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse.
What Canadians face is a shortage of judges and court staff, who gamely try to administer an underfunded bureaucracy that cannot meet their needs, and a process where the battle lines are drawn before they get there — the beginning of their long wait for justice.
Legislators, law reformers, judges and lawyers have long recognized that court is no place to resolve family law disputes. Ontario’s Law Commission released a report last September entitled “Voices From a Broken Family Law Justice System” decrying longer trials and increasing court and legal fees that are crippling a system that cannot deal with the intense emotional fallout of personal disputes.
In a recent family law case, Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568, Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario began his Reasons for Judgment with a feigned cry for help—“Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud”—a provocative introduction to a bizarre family law case that was ill-suited for court intervention. Justice Quinn referred to the “roulette of family law.”
The case took seven days of court time over a period of several months; not unusual since judges are routinely overbooked. Much of the evidence had nothing to do with the two legal issues: a claim to set aside a separation agreement and an allegation that Ms. Bruni had alienated the children from their father. The level of vitriol stunned Justice Quinn, who refused to set aside the agreement and admonished the parties for their childish, bordering on criminal, behaviour. Justice Quinn took the brave step of denying Ms. Bruni spousal support as a rebuke for the wedge she had driven between the children and their father.
My solution? Take family law out of court and move it to Family Centres with a one-stop shopping approach. Provide education, counsellors, child-development professionals, mediators, arbitrators, divorce coaches, parenting coordinators and financial experts. These services should not be free, but should be paid for by those who access the programs on a sliding scale commensurate with their family income. For the poor and working poor, legal aid should be provided.
For those cases that will never settle without judicial intervention, appoint highly experienced judges who want to be there, as opposed to judges who find family law work a grind they would rather avoid.
Is there a political party that will heed the cries of millions of Canadians?
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
STORY TOOLS
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Comments (13)
Share this Article
Font:
RegisterLogin or
What Do You Think?
Want to rate posts and get your own personalized user name? Please register an account today!Questions? - Visit our FAQ
Post My Reply
14 comments
Sort:
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:56 AM on April 10, 2011
Thrusting divorce on children is the most common form of child abuse. Its the right of every child to have their parents around and taking care of them for their entire childhood. Have any divorced 'losers' asked their children how they felt? It should be illegal to divorce if there are children under 18. If you are unhappy or just want to start test driving again, wait until the children grow up. That is the sacrifice expected of every parent.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:32 AM on April 10, 2011
Wow! Another well thought-out, thoroughly researched and timely article by Ms. Lang. When will the politicians get it? As soon as we the electorate get energized ton make it Ana election issue. Ms. Lang is doing her part, do yours.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:16 AM on April 10, 2011
Family Centers make a lot of sense to ease the process of divorce - especially when custody of children is involved. But what about prevention? Could these Family Centers offer pre-marriage services? Is it possible to prevent the destruction of Canadian families by giving couples the tools they need to solve their issues? While I agree with the approach of taking this process out of court unless absolutely necessary, the generalizations provided by Me. Lang are tiresome and border on offensive. I agree that fathers are often the ones fighting for more time with their children. Mothers tend to be primary caregivers. But to paint mothers as embittered harridans who want nothing more than to punish their ex and their children is an over-used and inaccurate generalization that has no place in this process. Every woman I know who has faced a custody battle in her divorce has acted honourably with her children's best interests at heart.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:51 AM on April 10, 2011
this is a great idea, just make sure to charge the users for the expense....
start paying to take care of your own children, and I am certainly not paying for your failed relationship.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:32 AM on April 10, 2011
The lawyers (vultures) do not wish to change anything as it is very profitable to remove the assets of clients.
Questionable liens, writs, caveats, judgments and other tools these lawyers use are given to courthouse taxation officers for the purpose of removing the real estate assets of clients who have been bilked by their lawyers.
The divorce act is just another piece of laughable federal legislation being circumvented by lawyers and courts in every province in Canada.
Lawyers should not be able to participate in any real estate transactions and this should be left for other professionals far removed from the national lawyer gangs.
Lawyers govern themselves using Law Societies (self governance) and this is more of a protection racket than anything else.
Law Societies provide no value to Canadians and their self governing power needs to be removed from them.
There are many more courthouse liars than you think.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:25 AM on April 10, 2011
Harper can fix this. He can fix anything. Just ask. http://www.Canada-Elections.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
9:26 AM on April 10, 2011
Unique among the authors in this series, this woman actually makes sense.
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:57 AM on April 10, 2011
Growing up Iwas kept from my father & & the stories were perpetuated to justify his absense to me. I was 27 before I saw him again. He mwas not perfect but he was my father. I carried resentment to my mothers death. I did not want this for either.
at 27 my waife decided to take advantage of the new divorce laws introducded in the mid 80's. she was stepping outside the marriage and wanted out. I came home to an empty two todlers that were everything to me gone. I was prepared to do anything not to put my children through what I had gone through.
3 years 10's of thousands bankruptcy and 5 lawyers later I found out thatthe system was not fair and I lost contact with my children for ten years.
My children are now grown with their own children. I do not speak poison, but I beg both my daughter and son and spouses not to repat my history again..
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:47 AM on April 10, 2011
The court system right now is very biased against men. I know of a man who is non custodial but tries to be very active in his children's lives. He pays an exorbidant amount of child maintenance every month. Yet another man I know has custody for a very good reason and has had to fight tooth and nail to get any child maintenance and when it did get ordered it was next to nothing. His ex has used the system to the hilt and gets away with it yet hurts the child because the child seens to have no rights in this matter! I was always told the good of the child is always uppermost in the minds of lawyers and judges. I have not seen it yet! What has been shown to be important is the money which would look so much better in the child's education account instead of some lawyer's bank account!
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
8:43 AM on April 10, 2011
You had my attention up until the part that said "let's create a monolithic tax-funded program to assist people in getting a divorce"
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:40 AM on April 10, 2011
What we need to do is to start letting the children have a voice. They know what they need and they also know when and who is using them in this terrible game. I am tired of seeing children hurt because of one vengeful parent!
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:33 AM on April 10, 2011
Long overdue.
thanks again canada.com
" With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter. "
here is the link; http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/real-agenda/story.html?id=4585240
and here is the story copied and pasted "just in case it dissaperas"
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/images/banner_real_agenda.jpg
Georgialee Lang: "Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse."
Canada’s system of family law is decimating us, one family at a time. With nearly 40 per cent of Canadian marriages ending in divorce, our next government needs to stop the bleeding, financial and emotional.
Our adversarial court system pits husband against wife in a dangerous game that all too often spirals out of control, taking whole families down and destroying children’s lives in the process.
Custody cases are among the worst. Separating parents, usually fathers, are caught in a black vortex, fighting for the ability to remain an active part of their children’s lives, sparring with mothers who too frequently use their hurt and anger to alienate their partners from their children.
To date, our governments have refused to make the changes that most jurisdictions in North America have already adopted: a move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.
Regrettably, our system does neither parent any favours. With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.
Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse.
What Canadians face is a shortage of judges and court staff, who gamely try to administer an underfunded bureaucracy that cannot meet their needs, and a process where the battle lines are drawn before they get there — the beginning of their long wait for justice.
Legislators, law reformers, judges and lawyers have long recognized that court is no place to resolve family law disputes. Ontario’s Law Commission released a report last September entitled “Voices From a Broken Family Law Justice System” decrying longer trials and increasing court and legal fees that are crippling a system that cannot deal with the intense emotional fallout of personal disputes.
In a recent family law case, Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568, Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario began his Reasons for Judgment with a feigned cry for help—“Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud”—a provocative introduction to a bizarre family law case that was ill-suited for court intervention. Justice Quinn referred to the “roulette of family law.”
The case took seven days of court time over a period of several months; not unusual since judges are routinely overbooked. Much of the evidence had nothing to do with the two legal issues: a claim to set aside a separation agreement and an allegation that Ms. Bruni had alienated the children from their father. The level of vitriol stunned Justice Quinn, who refused to set aside the agreement and admonished the parties for their childish, bordering on criminal, behaviour. Justice Quinn took the brave step of denying Ms. Bruni spousal support as a rebuke for the wedge she had driven between the children and their father.
My solution? Take family law out of court and move it to Family Centres with a one-stop shopping approach. Provide education, counsellors, child-development professionals, mediators, arbitrators, divorce coaches, parenting coordinators and financial experts. These services should not be free, but should be paid for by those who access the programs on a sliding scale commensurate with their family income. For the poor and working poor, legal aid should be provided.
For those cases that will never settle without judicial intervention, appoint highly experienced judges who want to be there, as opposed to judges who find family law work a grind they would rather avoid.
Is there a political party that will heed the cries of millions of Canadians?
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
STORY TOOLS
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Comments (13)
Share this Article
Font:
RegisterLogin or
What Do You Think?
Want to rate posts and get your own personalized user name? Please register an account today!Questions? - Visit our FAQ
Post My Reply
14 comments
Sort:
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:56 AM on April 10, 2011
Thrusting divorce on children is the most common form of child abuse. Its the right of every child to have their parents around and taking care of them for their entire childhood. Have any divorced 'losers' asked their children how they felt? It should be illegal to divorce if there are children under 18. If you are unhappy or just want to start test driving again, wait until the children grow up. That is the sacrifice expected of every parent.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:32 AM on April 10, 2011
Wow! Another well thought-out, thoroughly researched and timely article by Ms. Lang. When will the politicians get it? As soon as we the electorate get energized ton make it Ana election issue. Ms. Lang is doing her part, do yours.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:16 AM on April 10, 2011
Family Centers make a lot of sense to ease the process of divorce - especially when custody of children is involved. But what about prevention? Could these Family Centers offer pre-marriage services? Is it possible to prevent the destruction of Canadian families by giving couples the tools they need to solve their issues? While I agree with the approach of taking this process out of court unless absolutely necessary, the generalizations provided by Me. Lang are tiresome and border on offensive. I agree that fathers are often the ones fighting for more time with their children. Mothers tend to be primary caregivers. But to paint mothers as embittered harridans who want nothing more than to punish their ex and their children is an over-used and inaccurate generalization that has no place in this process. Every woman I know who has faced a custody battle in her divorce has acted honourably with her children's best interests at heart.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:51 AM on April 10, 2011
this is a great idea, just make sure to charge the users for the expense....
start paying to take care of your own children, and I am certainly not paying for your failed relationship.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:32 AM on April 10, 2011
The lawyers (vultures) do not wish to change anything as it is very profitable to remove the assets of clients.
Questionable liens, writs, caveats, judgments and other tools these lawyers use are given to courthouse taxation officers for the purpose of removing the real estate assets of clients who have been bilked by their lawyers.
The divorce act is just another piece of laughable federal legislation being circumvented by lawyers and courts in every province in Canada.
Lawyers should not be able to participate in any real estate transactions and this should be left for other professionals far removed from the national lawyer gangs.
Lawyers govern themselves using Law Societies (self governance) and this is more of a protection racket than anything else.
Law Societies provide no value to Canadians and their self governing power needs to be removed from them.
There are many more courthouse liars than you think.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:25 AM on April 10, 2011
Harper can fix this. He can fix anything. Just ask. http://www.Canada-Elections.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
9:26 AM on April 10, 2011
Unique among the authors in this series, this woman actually makes sense.
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:57 AM on April 10, 2011
Growing up Iwas kept from my father & & the stories were perpetuated to justify his absense to me. I was 27 before I saw him again. He mwas not perfect but he was my father. I carried resentment to my mothers death. I did not want this for either.
at 27 my waife decided to take advantage of the new divorce laws introducded in the mid 80's. she was stepping outside the marriage and wanted out. I came home to an empty two todlers that were everything to me gone. I was prepared to do anything not to put my children through what I had gone through.
3 years 10's of thousands bankruptcy and 5 lawyers later I found out thatthe system was not fair and I lost contact with my children for ten years.
My children are now grown with their own children. I do not speak poison, but I beg both my daughter and son and spouses not to repat my history again..
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:47 AM on April 10, 2011
The court system right now is very biased against men. I know of a man who is non custodial but tries to be very active in his children's lives. He pays an exorbidant amount of child maintenance every month. Yet another man I know has custody for a very good reason and has had to fight tooth and nail to get any child maintenance and when it did get ordered it was next to nothing. His ex has used the system to the hilt and gets away with it yet hurts the child because the child seens to have no rights in this matter! I was always told the good of the child is always uppermost in the minds of lawyers and judges. I have not seen it yet! What has been shown to be important is the money which would look so much better in the child's education account instead of some lawyer's bank account!
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
8:43 AM on April 10, 2011
You had my attention up until the part that said "let's create a monolithic tax-funded program to assist people in getting a divorce"
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:40 AM on April 10, 2011
What we need to do is to start letting the children have a voice. They know what they need and they also know when and who is using them in this terrible game. I am tired of seeing children hurt because of one vengeful parent!
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:33 AM on April 10, 2011
Long overdue.
thanks again canada.com
Saturday, June 19, 2010
A bit more of my story, but I need help now please...
Does anybody out there understand Canadian Family Law and maybe how to fight legal badagering? A quick overview of my issues... 2004 I find out my ex has been cheating on me for our entire relationship, I tried to overlook it and we do councilling. 2005 Her oldest daughter who was big in to drugs, drinking, and working the streets threatens to kill the 4 other children and gramma one night, so I said the daughter had to get help and live elsewhere until she did. The ex decides that her troubled daughter was more important than the family (yes the ex has many personal issues as well) her other daughter and our son (along with her boyfriends) and moves out saing "she just needs space" but drags he other daughter and our son with her. So teachers (against standard policy), coucillors and several judges agree that at least our son should not live in that environment and should live with me (dad), mom finds free , moraless and unscrupulus lawyer who in last count dragged me to the tune of 10's of thousands of dollars to 7+ judges and court proceedings to get our son on a 7 day rotation (I wont tell you here what this has done to his life or schooling). (The ex also dragged her other 3 childrens 3 fathers through hell to the point where they basically dont exist in the kids lives). So now Im broke and doing my best for our son and the kids I can help. Lots more story.... anyway I bring you to today... My house burnt down May 1st 2010, I was stupid enough to put her name on the house along with mine but other than outright taking the house from me she would settle for nothing and would not take her name off, she has no posessions in the house and has not lived there for 6 years. After the fire she signed off on conents and living allaowance with the insurance company, which I thought was great. and we would deal with the structure seperatly. Well now she has trying to get her lawyer to withdraw that agreement and she wants control of the living allowance and content monies. Which would essentially at this point put me on the street which as I see itat would now show me as incapable of taking care of our son and probably remove him from me (I may be wrong in my thinking here, I am not her, maybe she only wants more money, both in insurance and support). So what I hope someone can give me insight to law or canadian law as how she has any right or claim to something she has no (what should be) legal interest in. I cannot afford a lawyer, so I will have to represent myself. I hope I make a little sense in what i wrote, the story is much bigger and longer, but anything will help. Thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)