A. Rebel's Rant

Hi Everyone,

Here is my compliant letter to the Canadian Judicial Council of Canada. The only two things that I have changed in this letter are removing my daughter’s fathers’ name and replaced it with, he/his and the complete address of his parents. I have put both in brackets.  I did consider doing the above for all of the Judges’ names too, but in my opinion, after that one judge’s decision on Friday May 17, 1996, few after have truly helped me help myself which meant, and still means, helping me help my daughter.

Just so everyone knows, this complaint letter revolves around how my daughter’s father requested a reduction in child support because he solemnly declared that he was unemployed and had no money coming in. At the same time, I would like to remind everyone, that when a judge is appointed it doesn’t mean that they are trying, or handling cases, that they actually have any experience with. That means that a former lawyer who was tax specialist, may in fact be hearing and then making life altering decisions on cases in family law. I am serious. That form of “training” has been in practice for years and it still happens today. I am of the opinion that the judge who tried, or heard, my case was not qualified. At that time she was a provincial judge, but now she is a federal one.

Here we go.

To Whom this may be presented,

This email is in regard to the former File #D141/92 which is presently File # FC-92-141 and a Court Order by now Honourable Madame M. A. Scott dated Friday May 17, 1996. I would like to add, that there is Settlement Conference and Trial Management Conference (combined conference) regarding this matter set for Friday November 8, 2013. I recognize that this may be short notice however I was unaware of this service and have contacted you as soon as I discovered it.

On Thursday February 15, 1996, the then Applicant, (name of my daughter’s father) filed a Notice of Motion Form 13, an Affidavit in Support of Motion Form 12, an Application Form 5, a Support Deduction Order Information Form, and a Form 6 which is where (he) claimed that while living with his parents, his after tax Income and Expenses on Page 1, his Assets on Page 2 and his Debts on Page 3. I do not have a copy of Page 4.

On Page 1 of Form 6, The Applicant, (my daughter’s father) claimed that he had ABSOLUTELY no income in Part 1: Income. However, in Part 2: Expenses—Column A, the table below, (he) claimed $1,500 worth of after tax expenses which includes $150 in Meals outside of the home, $200 in Clothing, $100 in Dental and $320 in Payments on debt. Those four expenses alone total $770.

In Part 2: Expenses—Column B, also found on Page 1 of 4 of Form 6, (he) claimed expenses of $598.30, however if added correctly, total $698.30 of which $306.30 of those expenses are child support payments.  Please see the table below.

Although (he) claimed an expense for Public transit, taxis etc., in the amount of $60 per month, he also claimed an expense for Vehicle operation, gas, and oil in the amount of $100 per month, yet failed to claim an expense for Insurance and license.

In Part 3: Assets, found on Page 2 of 4, (he) claimed that his assets were $11,000 of which $8,000 is in audio/video equipment. Please see the below table.

In Part 4: Debts, found on Page 3 of 4 of Form 6, (he) claimed that he had a debt of $1,000 and that he was making monthly payments of $324 per month. If you cross reference that amount, of $324 with the amount in Part 2: Expenses—Column A, found on Page 1 of Form 6, of $320 per month, you will see that the amounts differ by $4 per month. It would appear that (he) “created” a list of expenses and debts. The total of his after tax monthly expenses including child support are $2,198.30 or $26,379.60 after tax dollars per year for the year of 1996.

I have never been fully convinced that the now Honourable Madame, M. A. Scott thoroughly reviewed the Applicant’s information before her on Friday May 17, 1996. I am of the opinion that if she had, then she would have questioned the Applicant’s monthly after tax expenses such as $150 for Meals outside of the home, his $200 monthly after tax Clothing expense, his $320 after tax Payment on debt and would have noticed the discrepancy of $320 Payment on debt that Barry Gill claimed on Page 1 Part 2: Expenses—Column A, and the monthly payment of $324 he claimed in Part 4: Debts on Page 3 of 4 of the Form 6, etc.

At the same time, I have never been fully convinced that (he) was living with his parents or unemployed at that time. I recall informing Duty Counsel of my concerns regarding both matters, yet I do not recall, if the now Honourable Madame M. A. Scott questioned the Applicant, (he) of his living arrangements, or his employment on the day of Friday May 17, 1996. Nor do I  recall if the now Honourable Madame M.A. Scott, questioned the Applicant, (he) if he had applied for now Employment Insurance, how, when or why he became unemployed, what his skill set was, or if he was actively seeking employment.

I do however have a photocopy of (his) 1997 income tax summary form Revenue Canada, which states that he did in fact receive Employment Insurance in the amount of, $9,507 for the year of 1997, which leads me to believe that (he) was in fact employed in 1996, when he filed all of the above forms. I would like any and everyone reviewing this complaint to note that the 1997 income summary that (he) gave me, from Revenue Canada, has a fictitious address as there is no such address as (fake address) Ajax, Ontario and that (he) claims that he was living with his parents at (parents address) Ajax, Ontario.

I would a review be done on the former File #D141/92 which is presently File # FC-92-141 and would like special attention paid to all pages of Form 6 that The Applicant (he) solemnly declared the details of his financial situation and the Court Order by now Honourable Madame M. A. Scott dated Friday May 17, 1996 because I am not fully convinced of the conduct of now Honourable Madame M. A. Scott, in this matter.

The reason I would like a review to be done is because this is an on-going matter that I have tried to resolve via the Family Courts, with the assistance of Legal Aid, since Friday May 17, 1996. My other court appearances, which have resulted in new court orders, yet have only resulted in an increase in child support of $2 per month, beginning January 1, 2000, are as follows,

I am of the belief that the conduct of now Honourable Madame M. A. Scott on Friday May 17, 1996 has gravely affected the economic position of my daughter and myself and has caused us undue emotional and financial hardship which in turn has affected our physiological and over all well-being since that day. I would also like to add that since Friday May 17, 1996, (he) the Applicant for the reduction in child support has NEVER COMPLIED with the court order that he, himself, initiated, and was set out by now Honourable Madame, M. A. Scott, and that (he) has also NEVER COMPLIED with any court orders since that time and has actively and knowingly participated in EVERY form of blameworthy conduct that Justice Bastarache, deems as profiting at the expense of the child, whom is our, daughter, his only child to this day.

Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the review of this matter. As I have mentioned above, there is a Settlement Conference and Trial Management Conference (combined conference) regarding this matter set for Friday November 8, 2013. Once again, I recognize that this may be short notice however I was unaware of this service and have contacted you as soon as I discovered it.

Sincerely,

Anna Leber.

So have I heard anything from the Canadian Judicial Council? Not yet, but there is still time.

My blog, Media Attention Anyone, has a slew of links that relate to this blog. Here’s the link,

http://arebelsrant.com/media-attention-anyone/

Thank you for reading, A. Rebel’s rant! ;D

by

by