Hi Everyone,
This blog contains what I said in court on Tuesday July 30, 2013. If you don’t know what I mean, than please read yesterday’s blog. As I mentioned in yesterday’s blog, today’s blog is long and it has two parts. The first part is all about the blameworthy conduct of my daughter’s father in regards to his not abiding to the COUNTLESS COURT ORDERS, one of which he initiated himself. The second part is the reasons for my delay. For anyone who is having issues with their child support, I STRONGLY suggest that they read and the following blogs. One blog will be titled, Friday May 1996 and another will be titled, Legal Aid—Ontario. There will be legal jargon in all of the blogs. If anyone needs help understanding it, please see an online legal dictionary. I am The Applicant and my daughter’s father is The Respondent. Here is today’s blog.
Your Honour, (my little introduction from yesterday’s blog)
Because our daughter has been in technological, verbal and face to face contact with her paternal family for now 6 years, I am of the belief that The Respondent knew a few months after, that our daughter moved out of the apartment that she shared with me, and that the Respondent also had knowledge of the 3 year limitation, which as I understand is not absolute. This is especially true if the payor parent, in this case The Respondent has been actively participating in blame worthy conduct for years as I believe he has.
The Respondent has refused to file his financial information as per Section 2 of the Final Court Order by Justice (name of Judge) dated December 17, 1999 as he was ordered to on several occasions since 2000. When The Respondent gave the Applicant his T4 slip, and NOT a copy of his income tax return, and notice of assessment as he was ordered to by (name of Judge) The Respondent’s T4 slip had an employment income of ( since I cannot put the exact amount it was just under $3,300) The Applicant believes that The Respondent chose to to do that to further financially intimidate The Applicant, meaning that The Applicant should be happy that The Respondent did not again ask for another reduction in child support as The now Respondent, then Applicant on May 17, 1996 by (name of Judge who is also the Judge I am speaking before) The Respondent failed to co-operate with the courts and participate in court proceedings when served and was found to be in contempt of court by Honourable Justice (name of Judge) on August 14, 2000 with costs of $1,000. The Respondent also withheld child support for in one case in the amount of $2,800.33 when the child support was $152 per month. In this case, because there are others, The Respondent was in arrears for 18.42 months or just over 1.5 years. The above arrears began in October 1999, and The Respondent had his name listed on what I refer to as a Land Transfer of a brand new house in November 2000. According to what I refer to as the Land Transfer, the value of The Respondent’s home, (address of home) was $174,000. I would like the Court to recognize that both The Respondent’s and his now wife’s surname is listed on the Land Transfer in English, yet both given names are in another language and that The Respondent provided a T4 slip dated year 2000 that states he lived at (Address of home). The Respondent also willingly gave up visitation rights in early 2001 placing another hardship on his only child and The Applicant. The Applicant believes that The Respondent purposely withheld child support from The Applicant during that time in order to increase his down payment on his new home.
It is clear that The Respondent has always put his own interests over the rights to his only child’s appropriate amount of child support. I have numbered The (Final) Court Order #1, for what I refer to as Land Transfer is Document #1,Document #8 is the Statement of Arrears of $2,800.33 and the other examples of The Respondent withholding child support are on one page, Document #1. All can be found in Exhibit E.
I am also of the belief that The Respondent requested that the child support payments be terminated at this time, again meaning when The Respondent believed was, past the 3 year limitation, in hopes of avoiding retroactive child support according to the Child Support Guidelines with interest as per the Justice Act. Even when The Respondent has refused to comply with Sections 1-4 of the (Final) Court Order, he has managed to use the rule of law to his financial benefit before.
In Exhibit B, The Respondent has already proven thrice that he can follow the rule of the law when it serves him. The first example of this is when The Respondent, then known as The Applicant, initiated what I have classified as Court Order #4, by Judge (name of Judge) dated January 19, 1995 requesting very specific rights for him to have visitation/access to his daughter via the court order.
The first example of how The Respondent has used the courts to his financial benefit is also found in Exhibit B in what I have classified as Document #12. It is there that The Respondent filed Form 13: Notice of Motion asking for an Interim Variation of Child Support, stating within the Affidavit that he could not afford to pay child support in the amount of $306.30 per month because he was unemployed. On what I have numbered page 8 of Document #12, The Respondent states he has no wages and no unemployment insurance at that time. Judge (name of Judge who I was speaking before) on May 17th, 1996 granted the now Respondent a reduction in paying child support from $306.30 to $150 per month failed to recognize that, yet that Court Order states that The now Respondent is to advise The now Applicant, me, of any change in his financial circumstances within 7 days of such change and if there is a change, to serve and file (a) new financial statement before return date. When I recognized that The now Respondent did not comply with the court order that he initiated I in turn began court proceedings.
When I initiated an Application against The Respondent, Judge (name of Judge) ordered, on October 24, 1996, in what I have classified as Court Order #2, found in Exhibit A, that The then Applicant, The now Respondent, again is to advise me, the then Applicant, of any change in his employment status within 30 days of obtaining such employment and that he, The now Respondent shall file with the court and provide a copy of his financial statement reflecting his change in income. As per Revenue Canada, line 119, Unemployment Insurance, now called Employment Insurance, is a form of income because it is and always been taxable income. Since I do not have a copy of The Respondent filing a financial statement, because he chose not to comply with a court order he himself initiated, I would like to ask the courts today if they do. If not, then The Respondent did not submit one, thereby deceiving the courts and proving blameworthy conduct as The Respondent did in fact receive unemployment insurance benefits in the amount of (just under $10,000) in the year of 1997 as per what I have classified as Document #4 in Exhibit B and most likely received Unemployment Insurance in the 1996, yet The now Respondent has never complied with the order he initiated with Judge (name of Judge I am speaking before) dated May 17, 1996, or the Court Order I initiated with Judge (name of Judge) on October 24, 1996. That Court Order can be found in Exhibit A, Court Order # 2. Here is a copy of the Court Order by Judge (name of Judge I am speaking before) dated May 17, 1996.
The third example of how The Respondent can and will follow the rule of the law when it financially benefits him can also be found in Exhibit B, on what I have classified as Document #11. This document from FRO dated January 4, 2004 has an annual COLA increase, but the interesting fact about Document #11 is that The Respondent requested that FRO comply with Section 7 with what I have classified as (Final) Court Order #1, by (name of Judge) dated December 17, 1999. The Respondent was then granted the reduction of child support to meet the Section 7 of that Final Court Order to the amount of $152 per month. I would like to remind the Court that not only did The Respondent breach all of the sections of that court order regarding his providing his financial information, home address and home and business phone numbers, all of which can be found in Sections 1-3 of the Final Court Order, I would also like to remind the Court that it is on record that The Respondent did not appear in court the day of the (Final) Court Order and was later found by Honourable Justice J. James, on August 14, 2000 to be in contempt of court and that costs of $1,000 were placed on The Respondent.
Your honour, the above three examples prove that The Respondent can and will file motions, notices and comply with Court Orders when it financially serves him. And this also proves the beginning of a lengthy series of The Respondent’s element of intent to withhold not only financial information to accurately assess the child support as per the Child Support Guidelines, but that The Respondent also chose to withhold child support itself thus proving blameworthy conduct as per the Final Court Order, what I have stated as Court Order #1 which can be found in Exhibits A and B etc.
Unfortunately while The Respondents’ only child lived at or slightly above the poverty line since The Respondent initiated a Notice of Motion and was granted a reduction in child support from $306.33 per month to $150 per month by Judge (name of Judge I am speaking before) on May 17th, 1996 which was later increased to $152 per month by Judge (name of Judge), The Respondent was living an affluent lifestyle. The first example of this is The Respondent’s first brand new home valued at $174,000 as per the Land Transfer and sold it for $304,000 also as per the Land Transfer. I would like to remind the Court that that residence was purchased at the time when The Respondent was in arrears for 13 months in the amount of $1,950.
Since The Respondent and his lawyer, (name of lawyer), have requested that child support to be terminated as of January 1, 2010 and not May 31, 2009 as per the (Final) Court Order ordered by Justice J. James, I, am requesting that the courts take that into consideration. I would also like the Court to have The Respondent adhere to that court order by CAREFULLY EXAIMING the very specific financial disclosure in Sections 1-3 that The Respondent was ordered to provide The Applicant on several occasions until our daughter was no longer to receive child support and to strongly address how The Respondent has put his own interests over the rights of his only child’s right to appropriate support due to his conscious blameworthy conduct. I would also like the Court to recognize that The Respondent has brought retroactive child support with interest as per the Justice Act upon himself. Had The Respondent chosen to behave in a reasonable manner and complied with the Final Court Order, he would not have lived his past and present affluent lifestyle. That is why I am asking that The Respondent not be allowed to avoid ANY financial hardship in this matter.
Unlike The Applicant, The Respondent has always had access to a car or motorcycle, has had the means to find The Applicant if he could not find The Applicant himself, he could have hired a private investigator. Or The Respondent could have had his nephew tell our daughter where he was living via Instant Messaging if he wanted to be found that is.
Reasons For the Delay
As I have mentioned in, The Reasons I am filing Now—Overview, Exhibit A, and in Undue Emotional and Financial Hardships and Opportunity Costs, Exhibit G, I have always felt as though I was fighting an uphill battle every time I either went to Court or considered putting myself through the emotional turmoil of preparing for Court. The Applicant has repeatedly asked The Respondent’s parents to help her by giving her The Respondent’s home address and/or phone number but they have refused, yet they want to see their first grand-daughter. The Applicant has always felt very much alone, scared and unprotected.
This is especially true when The Respondent in 2004 asked FRO to comply with Section 7 of the Final Court Order to have the child support reduced to $152 per month from $168 per month. I could not comprehend how The Respondent could be allowed to follow a Court Order when it financially served him while he refused to comply with Sections 1-3 ordering him to disclose his full financial information. That made me feel very emotionally powerless and financially weak.
Unfortunately because The Respondent chose to generally pay the child support in the meager amount of $152 per month via federal garnishment because I am of the belief, it was convenient for him, The Applicant and The Respondent’s daughter lived with such a high degree of financial insecurity that it was fiscally impossible for The Applicant to take any time off from work to pursue any legal action. The Applicant had to find a way to provide our daughter with the most basic of needs like food and shelter. The Applicant was forced to work at two jobs, 7 days a week for months on end, sometimes working at both jobs in the same day. Unlike The Respondent, The Applicant simply did not have the time, money, emotional energy or support system.
Even though The Applicant has always believed that The Respondent should be paying far more for child support, The Applicant always feared that The Respondent would have the funds to pay for a highly experienced lawyer that would find a way to have The Respondent not pay ANY child support, thereby adding even more fear to The Applicant’s and The Respondent’s daughter financial insecurity. The reality was that The Applicant needed the child support of $152 per month and could not afford to risk losing that. Couple that with the fact that The Respondent and his then girlfriend, now wife would always scream profanities at The Applicant before and after court was simply too much for The Applicant to deal with. Both The Respondent and his now wife, are very explosive and physically and emotionally intimidating.
My main priority was always to provide for our daughter. That is why I had to decide which financial risk I was going to take. Should I take time off of work, thereby lose pay for the day(s) and also risk not working the next week, because I was a temporary employee and had a seasonal job? I needed the money so desperately every week that I could not afford to take that chance. If so, what if The Respondent could find a way to NOT pay anything for child support? If The Respondent had FRO comply with Section 7 without a lawyer, what could he do if he retained a highly experienced lawyer? Then what? I decided to take the lesser of two evils and continue what I was doing which was work as many hours as I could to provide for our daughter.
When our daughter began Instant Messaging with her cousin (name of cousin) in July/August 2007, and was informed by him that The Respondent was married and had moved into a new house June 4, 2000, I asked her to ask him the address. He didn’t know and his mother didn’t know either.
In August of 2007 when The Applicant met with The Respondent’s father in a Starbucks, The Applicant asked him for The Respondent’s new address and The Applicant was told, “He is married and happy now,” he, meaning The Respondent. When The Applicant told The Respondent’s father of his first granddaughter living at or slightly above poverty he still did not tell The Applicant where The Respondent lived or gave a telephone number.
With the whole family protecting The Respondent, I just gave up. (name of cousin, his mother, The Respondent’s father)
So there you have it people, that’s what I said, verbatim and that’s what got me my new court date. On Friday November 8, 2013 the taxpayers of Ontario will AGAIN be paying for my speaking with Duty Counsel, the Court Greeter, the Judge, the Court Recorder, and ALL of the other behind the scenes people and there are A LOT all because The Respondent was allowed to continuously slip through what I affectionately refer to as, the ever-widening gaps of our legal system! Had I succumbed to social assistance the taxpayers would be paying for that too! But I didn’t. Thank you for reading, A. Rebel’s Rant! ;D
by 
by