Judicial Review: Exploring how judges and lawyers survive in a biased system.

Judicial appointments can be as partisan in Canada as in the United States. Judges tend to be appointed also for political reasons.

Ontario Superior Court appointees are responsible for presiding over areas of law in which they may have little or no experience. When criminal or civil lawyers are appointed to the Superior Court of Ontario, they also will oversee a certain percentage of Family Court cases.

How is this working out and does this help or hinder the administration of justice? The Family Court raises a controversy, because of alleged Charter violations that are built into its existing procedures, which also fall under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

Is it possible to explore the successes and failures of judges in a random way? In theory yes, because it is all in the public domain. Some of it is organised in Canlii.

Judges, especially those who are appointed for being more political and less meritorious, are sometimes criticized for their decisions. Is this because of the rules, because they are too political or because they have too much discretion within legal procedure? It is hard to say.

With family policy and its administration by provincial courts being arguably Canada biggest social problem at the moment, it is important to also consider the role of judicial appointments.

Here is one scenario:

The Honourable Justice Roydon Kealey was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court in 1996 by the Attorney General and Justice Minister, Allan Rock. Kealey, an expert in legal accounting, criminal procedure and general litigation, takes on his share of family law cases.

Whether it is by accident or a part of Ottawa Master Beaudoin's process, Mr. Kealey seems to end up with at least his fair share of "unrepresented" fathers in family court for various reasons. He is also no stranger to the appeal, such as this case involving former NHL player Chris Simon, and this case involving lawyer Hunter Phillips of MacKinnon Phillips, who represented the mother.

I am aware of more than one 'unrepresented' father case before Justice Kealey where the mother's lawyer is (Aharon) Ron Paritzky, who practices with Mr. Hunter Phillips at MacKinnon Phillips. Because lawyers like Mr. Ron Paritzky and Mr. Hunter Phillips are effective in using legal procedure to their clients' advantage, they seem to have developed an expertise in extracting 'costs' from child support paying fathers who represent themselves in court.

This is almost always because self-represented fathers lack the appropriate financial resources to have access to appropriate representation and justice, even if they make too much to be eligible for legal aid. After all, Ontario's Family Responsibility Office has estimated that as much as 90% of child support flows upon gender lines from men to women because of how custody is awarded. This is in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is in part because MOST men pay their child support in after tax dollars and MANY then cannot afford representation costs in after tax dollars also to ensure visitation with their children. This is in part why close to 40% of divorced dads are denied any visitation to their children. For many it is not affordable to enforce access, after they have paid their taxes and child support, which legislatively are priority expenditures that will be enforced by publicly funded insitutions.

In contrast, women of a certain ethical strain can dip into their child support (tax free) to ensure they are always well represented. This is a minority of mothers but a statistically significant proprtion nevertheless. Furthermore, for some strange reason, monies spent to collect child support (mostly by mothers) are tax deductable unlike monies spent (mostly by fathers) to ensure reasonable access, which are 100% taxable. This typically means $1 to lawyer and $1 to the tax department.

Let's face it, fathers need to be in the highest tax bracket to have a reasonable likelihood of scraping together a retainer, without selling the "farm" - assuming there is one after the divorce - and/or the "soul". There is no dignity in that.

For lawyers of this type, who focus on legal procedures, female clients tend to be more profitable. Mr. Paritzky and Mr. Phillips know which clients have the money available to dispose on litigation and which do not. Is this within the rules? Yes. Is anything wrong with this? That is a more complicated ethical question.

In assessing how to fix Canada's broken family law system, is it best to look at only the federal and provincial systems, or do we need to also evaluate the Judges (like Roydon Kealey) and the lawyers (like Ron Paritzky and Hunter Phillips)? Or, do we need to consider how all of the aspects have contribute and maintained the problems with the family court system?

This is a chicken and egg type situation. Is Justice Kealey contributing to a broken family law system? Is biased procedure created by lobbying from special interests beyond Justice Kealey's control? Are Ron Paritzky and Hunter Phillips simply making an honest living by doing what the system will allow? Should they be blamed for continuing to profit from well funded moms who need vigorous advocates to ensure their child support monies continue to flow and that they will always remain the primary parents?

Equitability standards will in time eliminate the gender biases, even though children and second families suffer in the meantime - and special interests continue to profit.

If anyone disagrees with me that this should be on the agenda for change by the "new" Liberal party, I would like to hear from you.

Otherwise, I trust those Liberals who still yearn for a just and fair society will speak up at the appropriate time and support change in family policy at both the macro and micro levels.