 | |
| VIDEO UPDATED: 7 hour standoff over, home reduced to rubble | |
| Last Updated: Friday, May 18th, 2012 | 12:15pm PDT | Story by: Chad Harris |
Friday, May 18, 2012
More turmoil over divorce
Monday, May 14, 2012
Canadian Father Blog
For the purpose of this page I only deal with Canadian Family Law, the province of BC in particular. Not sure if you know or have head of what is known as Familily Maintanence Enforcement Program (aka FMEP) but for all intense and purposes it is a subset and pretty secretive arm of the government that has authority to do anything to an individual from bad credit to jail and all in between that they want including preventing the crossing of borderes, not sure where you are located but divorce in this country is made very expensive by the lawyers and judges and of course intentioally made adversarial to line their own pockets, when all is said and done neither party is really further ahead but one parent is assigned to pay for a basically an unresitricted living for the other parent whether or not childen involved are their genetic childre or not, whether the other parent is capable of working or not etc.. so in a lot of cases one parent (usually the father) becomes broke, frustrated, depressed, suicidal, or worse allienated.. FMEP is relentless and makes you go back to court, but again most have no money, to try and prove that you can't survive... Then the worst of all this is the government of Canada set up this FMEP system to enforce money only.. So custody and access to children or even what is in the best interest of children is left to the wind.. so we can easily be made to feel like terrorists..
FMEP; The Ugly Truth!
FMEP; The Ugly Truth!
British Columbia’s answer to collecting Court Ordered financial support, known as ‘Family Maintenance Enforcement Program’.
This government bureaucracy is within the Attorney General’s Ministry, headed by “The Director” a.k.a. Mr. Chris Beresford, (and we can all feel secure about those officials right?).
Frankly this is nothing more than a government authorized ‘collection agency’ which, IMHO is contributing to the breakdown of families and hence our society as a whole.
‘Excessive’ authority is exercised by employees of this agency, rightly called Enforcement Officers. These abusive government employees operate in secrecy from an undisclosed location for good reason. Even telephone calls are carefully monitored and restricted, callers being required to use a code before talking to EO’s.
FMEP collection officers are authorized by the government to literally wreak havoc on ‘Payors’, in fact they very substantially influence, and undermine, the lives of many, and bear in mind that Payors are simply non-criminal, B.C. citizens!
FMEP legislated authority comes from the ‘Family Maintenance Enforcement Act’ (FMEA), established for the expressed purpose of enforcing support payments ordered by the Courts.
Court decisions on ‘maintenance’ (financial support), are supposedly made for the benefit of disadvantaged parties to a divorce, usually wives and children. Sounds high-minded doesn’t it?
But the legal process and those court decisions often have a major detrimental impact on the lives of divorced mates and parents, usually Payors are husbands and fathers.
Regardless of that fact, ‘Payors’ are treated as ‘collateral damage’ by Enforcement Officers.
Whenever a government assumes the role of ‘enforcer’ of its citizens, red flags should be flying. There are inherent and significant dangers for society in this kind of legislation. At the very least, healthy public oversight should prevail from beginning to end. That is definitely not the case with the FMEP.
FMEP enforcement powers include everything from serious invasions of privacy and cleaning out personal bank accounts at will; to imposition of liens on homes, cars, and any other material assets. Then there’s the punitive crippling of credit ratings; prevention of drivers license renewals and passports; just to name a few of the destructive ‘tools’ available to them!
Even CPP and Old Age Pensions are not protected from exploitation and garnishee by these FMEP government agents!
What was the motive for creating this arbitrary and abusive monstrosity? Perhaps we should ask; "Do governments ever prioritize the public interest over ‘their own’ best interests?!"
For example if divorcees weren’t forced to pay support to unemployed former spouses, it would fall to the government to provide some form of relief. That may well explain the motive for law-makers passing this abusive legislation. Forcing non-criminal citizens to pay support relieves the government from considerable social safety-net responsibility.
Ironically, in recent years moral judgments have been disregarded in favor of a secular approach under the Canada Divorce Act. For example unfaithful or disloyal spouses are not judged on the basis of morality. Divorced parties are simply instructed to realistically ‘become self-supporting as soon as possible following divorce’.
So from the Federal Divorce Act point of view, the marriage is viewed much as any other commercial ‘contract’.
Yet, in spite of the Divorce Act’s secular approach, Provincial court decisions continue to impose financial responsibility on Payors in a way that goes well beyond a merely secular approach.
The effect of those ‘quasi-moral’ decisions go well beyond simple contract obligations. They deeply affect the lives of divorced parties, especially Payors, to their long-term detriment. I believe this is also detrimental for families and society as a whole.
There is no argument that its necessary to fairly divide material assets ‘at the time of divorce’, taking into account any underage children involved.
However, imposing the burden of long-term financial support for the sole benefit of a former spouse with no handicaps, or children to care for, is clearly wrong! This is often done.
Support for divorced wives may have been necessary a century ago, but that historic method is out of date. Women have equal employment opportunities (sometimes more and sometimes less), and as mentioned, the Federally legislated obligation to become self-supporting!
Forcing a former spouse to pay long-term support inevitably fosters animosity,besides providing an actual incentive for self-seeking wives to initiate divorce in the first place!
To restate; Provincial Court support orders fly in the face of the Federal Divorce Act which implies the failed marriage is in the category of a broken contract, which it arguably is.
Imposing an ongoing burden of support on former husbands contributes to divorce actions and has a debilitating effect on society as a whole. Its divisive, contentious, and in many cases, grossly unfair as countless men will testify. It is a virtual ‘ball and chain’.
This is the ugly truth, made more so by the excessive collection powers granted to a handful of government bureaucrats.
Adding insult to injury once those support orders are made it becomes a debilitating drain on Payors to mount a court challenge in order to try to change their support order. Courts are very reluctant to make changes to orders issued by their peers, regardless of difficulties and changes in the lives of the men burdened by them.
Courts regard most life-changes as merely the ‘choice’ of the payor, irrelevant to the ordered support payments!? Genuine free choice is therefore not possible for payors. Is that not an abuse of human rights and freedoms?
Is it even remotely possible for imperfect Judges to stipulate a completely fair and balanced support order? An ongoing debilitating effect on Payors that will have a major impact on them for five, ten, or even twenty years in the future..? Hardly!
So stressed by court imposed support orders, some distraught Payors have committed suicide. (And that’s not even mentioning the trauma of child custody issues.)
No, I certainly don’t have all the answers to these difficult divorce issues, but the present method of placing the primary burden of support on divorced husbands is clearly not the answer and should not be ordered by the courts.
Unfortunately, most people are unaware of these quasi-police powers grated to the FMEP bureaucracy by the government. Why doesn’t this agency have public oversight and review?
They can, and do, abuse innocent citizens with no regard for the charter of rights and freedoms.
In fact its very questionable if the Family Maintenance Act would be able to withstand a Supreme Court of Canada legal challenge.
The FMEP is not even accountable to a provincial ombudsmen! They can and do blithely enforce flawed court decisions with impunity. The have been given powers well beyond those allowed for mere debt-collectors. This is blind-folded justice and frankly; it stinks!
There are few, if any, benefits to society from granting such authority to mere public employees.
Its not working well, and never will work well. I rest my case.
——————–
Supplemental added July 26, 2010;
Here’s an example of FMEP policy…
Question: “How would it be known if the recipient is deceased, i.e. someone wrongly receiving their payments, forwarded by the FMEP collection agency?’
FMEP answer: “It would be up to someone to notify us if the recipient has passed away. We do not check on a regular basis.”
In other words ‘FMEP is unconcerned if the money collected from Payor’s is even getting to their clients. How hypocritical is that!?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The nerd defence: Non-prescription glasses the latest trend in criminal testimony
The nerd defence: Non-prescription glasses the latest trend in criminal testimony
By Lindsay MacAdam | Shine On – Tue, 3 Apr, 2012 8:31 AM EDT
Email
Print
In a recent U.S. court case, defendants all wore plastic thick glasses to give the impression of innocence, under the suggestion of their lawyer. Do you believe this is ethical? (Credit: Thinkstock)
Thick, plastic-framed glasses are no longer reserved for hipsters, fashion editors and computer geeks. In the world of criminal law in the United States, it seems they've become the new 'it' accessory, donned by defendants in an effort to convince the jury of their innocence.
A prime example: Five men charged with a 2010 string of murders in the District of Columbia caused quite a stir when they showed up to their recent trial, each wearing a pair of non-prescription, plastic-framed glasses, reports the Washington Post.
The prosecutor drew attention to the strange coincidence, and after asking a witness if he had ever seen the defendants wearing glasses before, the answer was a resounding "No."
Related: Bringing your dog to work could make you feel less stressed
"This goes beyond shirts and ties," says Richard Waites, chief executive of jury consulting firm The Advocates, to the Washington Post. "Jurors expect to see defendants wearing those. Jurors don't expect to see defendants wearing glasses if they don't have to."
The idea behind the glasses is, of course, to make the accused appear less intimidating and more trust-worthy. In fact, a study published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology in 2008, found that African American defendants were believed to be more honest and intelligent and less threatening when they were wearing glasses. The accused in the D.C. murder case were all African American.
That isn't the only case where non-prescription glasses have been used to sway a jury. Harvey Slovis, a New York-based defence lawyer, makes all of his clients wear glasses in the courtroom. According to the Washington Post, Slovis calls it his "nerd defence."
Related: Gucci vs. Guess: A trademark lawsuit over the letter 'G'
Whether the glasses succeed in persuading the jurors or not, the question on everyone's mind is whether or not this type of strategy should be permitted in a court of law. Is it ethical? Some people don't think so.
"It says you're trying to hide," says Gladys Weatherspoon, a Washington-based defence attorney, to the Washington Post. "It makes them look more guilty because it's not who they are."
Patricia Jefferies, a grandmother of one of the D.C. murder victims, didn't shy away from voicing her opinion about the accuseds' glasses. "Those glasses are influencing the jury, trying to make them think they're Boy Scouts or something," Jefferies tells the Washington Post outside the courtroom.
What are your thoughts on the use of misleading props in the courtroom? Where should judges draw the line?
By Lindsay MacAdam | Shine On – Tue, 3 Apr, 2012 8:31 AM EDT
In a recent U.S. court case, defendants all wore plastic thick glasses to give the impression of innocence, under the suggestion of their lawyer. Do you believe this is ethical? (Credit: Thinkstock)
Thick, plastic-framed glasses are no longer reserved for hipsters, fashion editors and computer geeks. In the world of criminal law in the United States, it seems they've become the new 'it' accessory, donned by defendants in an effort to convince the jury of their innocence.
A prime example: Five men charged with a 2010 string of murders in the District of Columbia caused quite a stir when they showed up to their recent trial, each wearing a pair of non-prescription, plastic-framed glasses, reports the Washington Post.
The prosecutor drew attention to the strange coincidence, and after asking a witness if he had ever seen the defendants wearing glasses before, the answer was a resounding "No."
Related: Bringing your dog to work could make you feel less stressed
"This goes beyond shirts and ties," says Richard Waites, chief executive of jury consulting firm The Advocates, to the Washington Post. "Jurors expect to see defendants wearing those. Jurors don't expect to see defendants wearing glasses if they don't have to."
The idea behind the glasses is, of course, to make the accused appear less intimidating and more trust-worthy. In fact, a study published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology in 2008, found that African American defendants were believed to be more honest and intelligent and less threatening when they were wearing glasses. The accused in the D.C. murder case were all African American.
That isn't the only case where non-prescription glasses have been used to sway a jury. Harvey Slovis, a New York-based defence lawyer, makes all of his clients wear glasses in the courtroom. According to the Washington Post, Slovis calls it his "nerd defence."
Related: Gucci vs. Guess: A trademark lawsuit over the letter 'G'
Whether the glasses succeed in persuading the jurors or not, the question on everyone's mind is whether or not this type of strategy should be permitted in a court of law. Is it ethical? Some people don't think so.
"It says you're trying to hide," says Gladys Weatherspoon, a Washington-based defence attorney, to the Washington Post. "It makes them look more guilty because it's not who they are."
Patricia Jefferies, a grandmother of one of the D.C. murder victims, didn't shy away from voicing her opinion about the accuseds' glasses. "Those glasses are influencing the jury, trying to make them think they're Boy Scouts or something," Jefferies tells the Washington Post outside the courtroom.
What are your thoughts on the use of misleading props in the courtroom? Where should judges draw the line?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Divorce Can Be Profitable
Divorce Can Be Profitable
A growing industry is developing in the area of litigation loans. Though not unusual in personal injury cases or residential school litigation, entrepreneurs are beginning to look to the lucrative divorce market to turn a profit.
In high-net worth divorce cases it is typical to hear that only one of the spouses has their hands on the purse-strings of the family wealth, usually the husband, but not always. The economically challenged spouse may reside in a beautiful family home and drive a BMW, but once her savings have been used for her lawyer’s retainer and her credit cards are maxed out, she is playing on a field skewed in favour of her cash-rich spouse.
In British Columbia the Supreme Court may order that family funds be made available to a spouse who has run out of financial options, but only for the purpose of hiring expert witnesses, such as a chartered accountant, business valuator or property appraiser.
The Court will not order one spouse to pay the ongoing legal fees of the other, except in the most extreme circumstances. Of course, the rules on the costs of a court case do allow a court to order the losing spouse to pay the winning spouse, but that comes at the end of the litigation. Also, it is not full reimbursement, but a limited contribution to the victorious spouse’s legal fees.
Business woman and lawyer, Stacey Napp of California, has jumped on the litigation financing bandwagon with her firm, Balance Point Divorce Funding, a company she founded after her own brutal eight-year divorce.
Borrowing from friends and relatives, Ms. Napp settled her divorce case by agreeing to retain the family home and receive $500,000 as her share of her husband’s mobile home parks business. Not a bad deal you say?
It turned out to be a very bad deal, since shortly after the settlement; her husband offered his business for sale for the princely sum of $5.7 million.
Eventually an Arizona judge reopened the fraudulent settlement and awarded her an appropriate share of the actual value of the business. Using the funds from the court judgment Ms. Napp decided to put her money to work, funding divorce cases for others who like her, did not have the financial means to compete with their husbands’ deep pockets.
As a lawyer with a career in finance, Ms. Napp recognized she had all the skills required to run her new business. She knew how to find assets, understood the litigation process and had the money to make loans.
As for her clients, they don’t see it as a loan; rather they view it as an investment in their future financial security.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
A growing industry is developing in the area of litigation loans. Though not unusual in personal injury cases or residential school litigation, entrepreneurs are beginning to look to the lucrative divorce market to turn a profit.
In high-net worth divorce cases it is typical to hear that only one of the spouses has their hands on the purse-strings of the family wealth, usually the husband, but not always. The economically challenged spouse may reside in a beautiful family home and drive a BMW, but once her savings have been used for her lawyer’s retainer and her credit cards are maxed out, she is playing on a field skewed in favour of her cash-rich spouse.
In British Columbia the Supreme Court may order that family funds be made available to a spouse who has run out of financial options, but only for the purpose of hiring expert witnesses, such as a chartered accountant, business valuator or property appraiser.
The Court will not order one spouse to pay the ongoing legal fees of the other, except in the most extreme circumstances. Of course, the rules on the costs of a court case do allow a court to order the losing spouse to pay the winning spouse, but that comes at the end of the litigation. Also, it is not full reimbursement, but a limited contribution to the victorious spouse’s legal fees.
Business woman and lawyer, Stacey Napp of California, has jumped on the litigation financing bandwagon with her firm, Balance Point Divorce Funding, a company she founded after her own brutal eight-year divorce.
Borrowing from friends and relatives, Ms. Napp settled her divorce case by agreeing to retain the family home and receive $500,000 as her share of her husband’s mobile home parks business. Not a bad deal you say?
It turned out to be a very bad deal, since shortly after the settlement; her husband offered his business for sale for the princely sum of $5.7 million.
Eventually an Arizona judge reopened the fraudulent settlement and awarded her an appropriate share of the actual value of the business. Using the funds from the court judgment Ms. Napp decided to put her money to work, funding divorce cases for others who like her, did not have the financial means to compete with their husbands’ deep pockets.
As a lawyer with a career in finance, Ms. Napp recognized she had all the skills required to run her new business. She knew how to find assets, understood the litigation process and had the money to make loans.
As for her clients, they don’t see it as a loan; rather they view it as an investment in their future financial security.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law
Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law
You can’t quarrel with the fact that a stay-at-home mom, who has been married for 20 years, has three kids and has never worked, is a worthy recipient of spousal support. And, believe me…she needs it.
It took some time for Canadian men to accept that if they had income and their ex-wife did not, they were bound to pay some spousal support, even if their spouse left the marriage or worse even took up with another partner. Forty-years ago it was not too big a “hit”, as our Courts favored a “clean break” approach, meaning not much support, for not very long.
A few years later, as lawyers, legislators and judges encouraged and promoted support agreements, supported spouses who entered into separation agreements, but wanted or needed more support, had to prove their increased need was based on a “radical” change in their circumstances, causally related to the marriage. That too posed a challenge for women seeking support and carried on the pattern of low support orders for limited periods of time.
In the 1990’s the law changed rapidly and saw more women getting more support for longer periods of time, until 2006 when the federal government empowered law professors Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson to create “Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines”, which though never passed into law, were quickly adopted by all the Provinces.
This was real change. It became more difficult for a smooth-talking lawyer to convince a judge that the old rules still applied, namely that spousal support should be “short and not sweet”. The Guidelines provided schedules based on the payor’s income that introduced consistency in support awards across Canada and the new theme meant that men had to dig deeper and pay for a much longer period of time, even indefinitely.
Any hope of reprieve for long-time support payors was that when their financial circumstances changed due to illness, retirement or the vicissitudes of life, they could go back to court and apply for a reduction in spousal support, based on a “material change” in circumstances, theirs or their ex-spouse’s.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada gave short shrift to support payors’ “faint-hope”. What the majority of the Court said was because a separation “may result in dramatic life changes and emotional stress…these circumstances give rise to the possibility that the ability of separating spouses to realistically and objectively assess their current and future needs and preferences, can be impaired”.
In other words, don’t count on a separation agreement dealing with spousal support to be upheld in Canada. The Court held that the notion that separation agreements should be accorded “significant weight…is problematic”. Now they tell us?
Lawyers, who have been criticized for years, for “promoting” litigation, have just learned that Canada’s highest court eschews long-held contract principles of finality and certainty, comparing them to the condemned “clean break” approach of the 1970’s.
For what good it does, it must be noted that Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Cromwell took a different view, holding that a support agreement plays a central role in the variation of a support order. They voiced puzzlement at the logic employed by the majority of the court, saying their approach is at odds with the “basic purpose of agreements, namely to apportion the risks of future uncertain events in order to achieve finality and certainty.”
What is certain is that while there is a new wave of American lawmakers restricting long-term alimony, Canada is on the opposite track. If this is the Court’s way of discouraging divorce, they may be on to something.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Divorce Can Be Deadly
Divorce Can Be Deadly
We’ve been told by experts that smoking, overeating and excessive consumption of alcohol can shorten our life span, but now we find out that divorce may be as bad as the above-mentioned vices.
A new study from the University of Arizona reveals that the risk of premature death is 23% higher in divorced people than those whose marital bonds are still intact.
The research involved more than 6.5 million adults in eleven countries, over a time span of 27 years. To ensure accuracy, the research was statistically controlled for age, smoking, weight and medical conditions, allowing only the effects of divorce to be measured. Breaking the data down into gender, divorced men were at a substantially higher risk than divorced women.
Professor David Sbarra, who led the study, left open the issue of cause and effect. Does divorce lead to poor health or does poor health lead to divorce? He noted that further research is required to determine how divorce affects us biologically.
I can hear people saying “If I had stayed with my husband/wife I’d be in the grave by now!”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
No Spousal Support Reform for Canadians
No Spousal Support Reform for Canadians
Yes, it’s true that it hasn’t always been this way. In the early 1980’s a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Messier v. Delage held strong to the philosophy that the obligation of support between ex-spouses “should not continue indefinitely when the marriage bond is dissolved,” and decried the notion that “one spouse could continue to be a drag on the other indefinitely; acquire a lifetime pension as a result of the marriage; or luxuriate in idleness at the expense of the other.”The support noose got even tighter in 1987 after a trio of cases made their way up to Canada’s highest court. In Pelech v. Pelech, Caron v. Caron and Richardson v. Richardson the Court determined that spouses who had signed agreements dealing with spousal support could not easily shake loose of them.
The test to challenge an agreement to obtain support, to increase support, or to extend support required the applicant spouse to show there had been a radical change in circumstances causally linked to the marriage.
The first part of the legal requirement, establishing that a change was radical, was relatively easy. If a wife agreed to take no support and later became fully disabled it was not difficult to characterize the change in her ability to work as radical.
More stringent, however, was the additional requirement that the radical change be attributable to the marriage. So, for example, if a wife signed a separation agreement that gave her no spousal support because she was fully self-supporting, and she later became disabled from an illness that did not manifest itself until after the divorce, her financial need could not be linked to her marriage.
For women who found themselves in this situation, their only hope was family support, welfare, or a second marriage. Meanwhile, the federal government overhauled the Divorce Act 1968 and replaced it with a new Divorce Act in 1985. The new model for support became an analysis of the economic advantages and disadvantages suffered by both spouses from the marriage or from the breakdown of the marriage. The stage was now set for a groundbreaking Supreme Court of Canada decision.
In 1992 the support pendulum swung hard in the opposite direction with a case that involved a spousal support payment of a mere $100.00 per month. In Moge v. Moge the Supreme Court of Canada introduced a new way of thinking about spousal support with a support rationale that was based on compensation to a spouse, instead of just a consideration of “means and needs”.
In this ground breaking decision the Court directed judges to explore the economic consequences of divorce with a greater focus on women’s work at home as mothers and wives and the aftermath of staying at home, while their husbands worked.
The Court recognized that women in this position typically had no job skills, limited opportunities for education, and no pensions, savings, or health benefits.
Fast forward to 2006 when the federal government introduced Canada’s Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, a further move to a more generous system of spousal support. The Guidelines provided a scheme to ensure that supported spouses received support that was up to 43% of their partner’s gross income. They also set a formula to determine how long support would be paid.
The upshot was that spouses who were married for 20 years or more typically received indefinite support that could be reviewed or varied if there was a material change in circumstances. Spouses in marriages under 20 years would receive support equivalent to the length of their marriage, also subject to variation if the supporting spouse could show a material change in circumstances.
While this analysis is a simplification of the Guidelines, there could be no doubt that women benefitted and men were burdened with higher support payments paid for a greater length of time.
In recent cases in British Columbia, men seeking to decrease their support have only been mildly successful, while most obtain no relief at all.
Last month the Supreme Court of Canada reinforced their model of generosity in L.M.P.v. L.S. where they decided that spouses receiving support pursuant to an agreement were not necessarily bound by the terms of their agreement because recipient spouses may have been under intense emotional strain at the time they negotiated their agreements.
As a result of this decision husbands in Canada can now wave good-bye to well-established principles of certainty and finality when they settle support issues.
Hearkening back to my original point, the Canadian trend in spousal support in no way resembles the burgeoning alimony reform sweeping through the United States. In fact, Canada continues to move in a direction that will eventually financially cripple husbands, particularly those that pay both child support and spousal support.
Yes, we need alimony reform but we are unlikely to get it anytime soon.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Grass Roots Group’s Goal is to Change Family Law
Grass Roots Group’s Goal is to Change Family Law
Concerned citizens in Sarnia, Ontario banded together last summer to form “Canadians For Family Law Reform”, after years of frustration with Canada’s family law justice system. Beginning with a core group of nine members, the organization continues to grow as it raises its profile in Sarnia.
The CFLR organized a public rally last month in front of the Sarnia Courthouse where 50 members converged with signs to picket throughout the day. The group also picketed outside the office of one of Sarnia’s family law lawyers, referring to him as a “poster boy for what is wrong in family law”. This unnamed lawyer allegedly has the largest family law case load in the city and it was reported that on one day in court he was counsel in 37 of 39 family law cases being heard.
Some of the reforms sought by CFLR include:
1. Simplification of the court process;
2. More expedient decisions from judges;
3. Deterring lawyers from overbilling;
4. Eliminating conflicts of interest where lawyers and judges are closely connected;
5. Avoiding the tendency to push proceedings into higher courts;
6. Stopping lawyers from creating hostilities where none exist;
7. Addressing the practice of adjourning cases for months or years.
The group will rally again on February 16, 2012 at the Sarnia courthouse and hold a candlelight vigil on February 20, 2010 to commemorate “the tragic death of families due to an antagonistic family legal system”. Check out their Facebook page for other events.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Concerned citizens in Sarnia, Ontario banded together last summer to form “Canadians For Family Law Reform”, after years of frustration with Canada’s family law justice system. Beginning with a core group of nine members, the organization continues to grow as it raises its profile in Sarnia.
The CFLR organized a public rally last month in front of the Sarnia Courthouse where 50 members converged with signs to picket throughout the day. The group also picketed outside the office of one of Sarnia’s family law lawyers, referring to him as a “poster boy for what is wrong in family law”. This unnamed lawyer allegedly has the largest family law case load in the city and it was reported that on one day in court he was counsel in 37 of 39 family law cases being heard.
Some of the reforms sought by CFLR include:
1. Simplification of the court process;
2. More expedient decisions from judges;
3. Deterring lawyers from overbilling;
4. Eliminating conflicts of interest where lawyers and judges are closely connected;
5. Avoiding the tendency to push proceedings into higher courts;
6. Stopping lawyers from creating hostilities where none exist;
7. Addressing the practice of adjourning cases for months or years.
The group will rally again on February 16, 2012 at the Sarnia courthouse and hold a candlelight vigil on February 20, 2010 to commemorate “the tragic death of families due to an antagonistic family legal system”. Check out their Facebook page for other events.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
The Lighter Side of Divorce
The Lighter Side of Divorce
We all need a few laughs once in while, so today’s post is intended to focus on the lighter side of divorce, which, believe me, does not exist when you are in the middle of it. It is always amusing to see what Hollywood has to say about the subject, given their residents are abundant among the divorce statistics.
For those who have survived divorce and those who watch from a distance (and are grateful for that), consider the following sound bites and barbs.
1. “Ah yes divorce, the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet.”
ROBIN WILLIAMS, divorced twice
2. “I’m an excellent housekeeper. Every time I divorce, I keep the house.”
ZSA ZSA GABOR, divorced seven times, one anulment
3. “The difference between a legal separation and a divorce is that a legal separation gives the husband a chance to hide his money.” JOHNNY CARSON, divorced three times
4. “Today Pamela and Tommy Lee announced they are getting back together. You know what that means? There’s still hope for Ike and Tina Turner.”JAY LENO, married for 30 years
5. “I’ve given my memoirs more thought than my marriages. You can’t divorce a book.”
GLORIA SWANSON, divorced four times
6. “The secret of a happy marriage remains a secret.”
HENNY YOUNGMAN, married for 60 years
The literary world also has something to say on the topic of divorce:
6. “A divorce is like an amputation, you survive it, but there’s less of you.”
MARGARET ATWOOD, divorced once
7. “The worst reconciliation is better than the best divorce.”
MIGUEL DE CERVANTES, married for 32 years
8. “When two people get a divorce, it isn’t a sign that they “don’t understand” one another,
but a sign that they have at last, begun to.”
HELEN ROWLAND, marital status unknown
As Billy Joel once said “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang, happily married for 23 years!
Defamed Husband Sets the Record Straight
Defamed Husband Sets the Record Straight
The rumour mill was running rampant in the village of St. Michaels on the Lancashire coast in England when Gary Dean said “That’s enough.”
Dean, a successful advertising executive and publishing entrepreneur, decided to set the record straight by starting a website at deandivorce.com called “The Truth About Helen Louise Dean v. Gary Dean.”
Dean and his wife separated after nineteen years of marriage and four children. The divorce was finalized in 2007 and all financial issues had been resolved, yet the gossip mill continued to pump out offensive, inflammatory, even defamatory stories about how Dean left his wife and children penniless. He was describe as “greedy, tight, and ruthless.”
The problem was none of it was true, so Mr. Dean posted the settlement pronounced in the local Preston Court on his website. He disclosed that his wife received $5.9 million, including diamonds, other jewelery, watches, a Mercedes and an Audi convertible together with $24,000 per year for each of the four children and payment of the children’s private school fees.
Dean remarked that if he lived in in London, Manchester or a similar city, his divorce would not have attracted any attention, but in his small village, which he likened to “Coronation Street”, he was forced to go public.
At the time of the Dean’s divorce, family law hearings were private and the media had no access to decisions. As of April 2009, the law has changed and divorce and family law cases in England are now in the public arena.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
The rumour mill was running rampant in the village of St. Michaels on the Lancashire coast in England when Gary Dean said “That’s enough.”
Dean, a successful advertising executive and publishing entrepreneur, decided to set the record straight by starting a website at deandivorce.com called “The Truth About Helen Louise Dean v. Gary Dean.”
Dean and his wife separated after nineteen years of marriage and four children. The divorce was finalized in 2007 and all financial issues had been resolved, yet the gossip mill continued to pump out offensive, inflammatory, even defamatory stories about how Dean left his wife and children penniless. He was describe as “greedy, tight, and ruthless.”
The problem was none of it was true, so Mr. Dean posted the settlement pronounced in the local Preston Court on his website. He disclosed that his wife received $5.9 million, including diamonds, other jewelery, watches, a Mercedes and an Audi convertible together with $24,000 per year for each of the four children and payment of the children’s private school fees.
Dean remarked that if he lived in in London, Manchester or a similar city, his divorce would not have attracted any attention, but in his small village, which he likened to “Coronation Street”, he was forced to go public.
At the time of the Dean’s divorce, family law hearings were private and the media had no access to decisions. As of April 2009, the law has changed and divorce and family law cases in England are now in the public arena.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Wives Want Out
Wives Want Out
While statistics are highly manoeuvrable, the consensus among government agencies that track the data is that in Great Britain the divorce rate for first marriages is 40%, while second marriages and third marriages have a 60% and 75% rate of failure.
The United States divorce rates are similar although 50% of first marriages are likely to fail, while 67% of second marriages and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. Canadian statistics fall somewhere between the United Kingdom and the United States.
So, why are the unhappy British wives staying in their marriages? The survey showed the following:
12% stayed to have an “easy life”
30% stayed to avoid a major upheaval in their lives
37% stayed for the children
42% stayed so they would not lose their homes
33% stayed because they feared if they left they would get nothing
25% stayed because of the cost of legal fees in a divorce
Additional data indicated that 30% of men stay in a “loveless” marriage because they fear losing contact with their children. Were the survey participants open to marriage counselling? Yes, 50% would welcome marital therapy while 20% said they wouldn’t bother.
Surprisingly, 60% of the participants were unaware of mediation as an alternative to a court battle to resolve issues arising from marriage breakdown.
I often remind clients who are weighing the pros and cons of divorce to consider that marriage requires hard work and it doesn’t get any easier the second time around. Like author and marriage therapist Lori Gordon PhD says “Love is a feeling, marriage is a contract and relationships are work.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
While statistics are highly manoeuvrable, the consensus among government agencies that track the data is that in Great Britain the divorce rate for first marriages is 40%, while second marriages and third marriages have a 60% and 75% rate of failure.
The United States divorce rates are similar although 50% of first marriages are likely to fail, while 67% of second marriages and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. Canadian statistics fall somewhere between the United Kingdom and the United States.
So, why are the unhappy British wives staying in their marriages? The survey showed the following:
12% stayed to have an “easy life”
30% stayed to avoid a major upheaval in their lives
37% stayed for the children
42% stayed so they would not lose their homes
33% stayed because they feared if they left they would get nothing
25% stayed because of the cost of legal fees in a divorce
Additional data indicated that 30% of men stay in a “loveless” marriage because they fear losing contact with their children. Were the survey participants open to marriage counselling? Yes, 50% would welcome marital therapy while 20% said they wouldn’t bother.
Surprisingly, 60% of the participants were unaware of mediation as an alternative to a court battle to resolve issues arising from marriage breakdown.
I often remind clients who are weighing the pros and cons of divorce to consider that marriage requires hard work and it doesn’t get any easier the second time around. Like author and marriage therapist Lori Gordon PhD says “Love is a feeling, marriage is a contract and relationships are work.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawyer Liable for $950,000 Judgment in Parental Abduction Case
Lawyer Liable for $950,000 Judgment in Parental Abduction Case
Posted February 16, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, Marie Carrascosa, parental abduction, Peter Innes, Spain, Victoria Innes. 4 Comments
A lawyer who mistakenly released a child’s passport to the child’s mother, contrary to a court order, has been ordered to pay $950,000 to the father of a child abducted by her client from New Jersy to Spain.
The parents of Victoria Innes, Peter Innes and Marie Carrascosa, were married in Spain in 1999 but resided in the United States. Their daughter, Victoria, was born in 2000. Their marriage ended in 2004. Victoria had both US and Spanish citizenship.
After an acrimonious dispute Victoria’s parents signed an agreement in 2004 that prohibited both parties from international travel with Victoria without the consent of the other parent. The agreement also provided that Victoria’s passport would be held in trust by Ms. Carrascosa’s lawyer.
When Ms. Carrascosa changed lawyers her file was delivered to the new lawyer, however, her new lawyer, Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, was not aware that Victoria’s passport was to held by her and not released to her client without Mr. Innes’ consent or a court order.
Ms. Carrascosa, a lawyer in Spain, took advantage of the situation, obtained the passport from her lawyer and promptly fled to Spain where she and her daughter stayed with Victoria’s maternal grandmother. Later Ms. Carrascosa returned to New Jersey but refused to return Victoria, alleging the Spanish court had jurisdiction and would not let Victoria leave the country until she was 18-years-old.
In the meantime, Victoria’s father had obtained an American order for custody of Victoria and attempted to enforce it, to no avail. Ms. Carrascosa was charged with contempt of court and interfering with custody and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison, where she has been languishing since 2006, determined not to comply with American justice.
Despite all efforts and the involvement of Spanish/ American judicial mediators at the Hague Court in Holland, Victoria remains in Spain.
Parental abduction is the worst form of child abuse. While the Hackensack court undoubtedly meted out strict punishment, so far it has not motivated Victoria’s mother to relinquish her hold on Victoria.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Posted February 16, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, Marie Carrascosa, parental abduction, Peter Innes, Spain, Victoria Innes. 4 Comments
A lawyer who mistakenly released a child’s passport to the child’s mother, contrary to a court order, has been ordered to pay $950,000 to the father of a child abducted by her client from New Jersy to Spain.
The parents of Victoria Innes, Peter Innes and Marie Carrascosa, were married in Spain in 1999 but resided in the United States. Their daughter, Victoria, was born in 2000. Their marriage ended in 2004. Victoria had both US and Spanish citizenship.
After an acrimonious dispute Victoria’s parents signed an agreement in 2004 that prohibited both parties from international travel with Victoria without the consent of the other parent. The agreement also provided that Victoria’s passport would be held in trust by Ms. Carrascosa’s lawyer.
When Ms. Carrascosa changed lawyers her file was delivered to the new lawyer, however, her new lawyer, Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, was not aware that Victoria’s passport was to held by her and not released to her client without Mr. Innes’ consent or a court order.
Ms. Carrascosa, a lawyer in Spain, took advantage of the situation, obtained the passport from her lawyer and promptly fled to Spain where she and her daughter stayed with Victoria’s maternal grandmother. Later Ms. Carrascosa returned to New Jersey but refused to return Victoria, alleging the Spanish court had jurisdiction and would not let Victoria leave the country until she was 18-years-old.
In the meantime, Victoria’s father had obtained an American order for custody of Victoria and attempted to enforce it, to no avail. Ms. Carrascosa was charged with contempt of court and interfering with custody and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison, where she has been languishing since 2006, determined not to comply with American justice.
Despite all efforts and the involvement of Spanish/ American judicial mediators at the Hague Court in Holland, Victoria remains in Spain.
Parental abduction is the worst form of child abuse. While the Hackensack court undoubtedly meted out strict punishment, so far it has not motivated Victoria’s mother to relinquish her hold on Victoria.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month wins reduction of payments to ex-wife
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
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
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
Divorcing Couple Ordered to Exchange Social Media Passwords
Nov
By now everyone should know that Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. can provide fertile ground for discovering information about your neighbour, your kids and most importantly, your ex-wife. Recently Judge Kenneth Schluger ordered a divorcing Connecticut couple, Stephen and Courtney Gallion, to exchange their Facebook and dating website passwords.
It seems that Mr. Gallion found some incriminating information about his wife while surfing the web on the computer he shared with her. Courtney Gallion had posted comments about their children and her feelings about their role in her life that her husband thought might be useful for him in his goal to obtain custody of their children.
During a deposition of Ms. Gallion, her husband’s lawyer asked her to provide passwords for her Facebook account and two dating sites she had joined: EHarmony and Match. Her lawyer initially refused to reveal the passwords but later relented.
Upon releasing the passwords, Ms. Gallion texted a close friend and asked her to change the passwords and delete some messages she had posted. That’s when the matter came before Judge Schluger as Mr. Gallion sought to prevent his wife from deleting messages and asked the judge to order the exchange of passwords.
The Court made the orders sought and directed that neither of the parties could visit the websites of the other and post messages purporting to be the other.
But it is not just divorce cases where social media can play an evidentiary role. In a case in Pennsylvania a professional racecar driver sued the owner of a motor speedway for injuries suffered during a race.
The Court ordered the plaintiff to provide his Facebook and MySpace passwords which revealed photos of a fishing trip and a jaunt to the Daytona 500 which undermined the plaintiff’s assertions of physical injury. (McMillan v. Hummingway Speedway #113-2010 CD, Pennsylvania, Sept. 9, 2010)
In another case the Court became a “friend” of the litigant so the Judge could personally review the Facebook postings, looking for relevant evidence in another personal injury case. (Offenback v. Bowman 10- CV 1789 Pennsylvania October 2011).
So, what happened to privacy? It appears that litigation trumps any expectation of privacy in our new world of social media.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Divorcing Couple Ordered to Exchange Social Media Passwords
By now everyone should know that Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. can provide fertile ground for discovering information about your neighbour, your kids and most importantly, your ex-wife. Recently Judge Kenneth Schluger ordered a divorcing Connecticut couple, Stephen and Courtney Gallion, to exchange their Facebook and dating website passwords.It seems that Mr. Gallion found some incriminating information about his wife while surfing the web on the computer he shared with her. Courtney Gallion had posted comments about their children and her feelings about their role in her life that her husband thought might be useful for him in his goal to obtain custody of their children.
During a deposition of Ms. Gallion, her husband’s lawyer asked her to provide passwords for her Facebook account and two dating sites she had joined: EHarmony and Match. Her lawyer initially refused to reveal the passwords but later relented.
Upon releasing the passwords, Ms. Gallion texted a close friend and asked her to change the passwords and delete some messages she had posted. That’s when the matter came before Judge Schluger as Mr. Gallion sought to prevent his wife from deleting messages and asked the judge to order the exchange of passwords.
The Court made the orders sought and directed that neither of the parties could visit the websites of the other and post messages purporting to be the other.
But it is not just divorce cases where social media can play an evidentiary role. In a case in Pennsylvania a professional racecar driver sued the owner of a motor speedway for injuries suffered during a race.
The Court ordered the plaintiff to provide his Facebook and MySpace passwords which revealed photos of a fishing trip and a jaunt to the Daytona 500 which undermined the plaintiff’s assertions of physical injury. (McMillan v. Hummingway Speedway #113-2010 CD, Pennsylvania, Sept. 9, 2010)
In another case the Court became a “friend” of the litigant so the Judge could personally review the Facebook postings, looking for relevant evidence in another personal injury case. (Offenback v. Bowman 10- CV 1789 Pennsylvania October 2011).
So, what happened to privacy? It appears that litigation trumps any expectation of privacy in our new world of social media.
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 Hadaway
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)