(Part 1): finally... grassroots accountability for deniers of parent/child access

In a naive move that exposes just how much influence special interests have with policy makers in Ontario, Dalton McGinty's provincial Liberal government via Social Services minister, Madeleine Meilleur, MPP from Ottawa Vanier, announced yesterday that her department will use "shaming" to encourage "deadbeat" parents to pay their child support. Therefore, parents who fall behind in their child support for any reason will have ultimately have their picture posted on the internet as a "deadbeat".

What percentage of these "shamed" people will be men and what percentage of these people will be women? Because custody is awarded along gender lines in an inappropriate way in a country with a Charter of Rights, 90% of child support flows to women. Most men who have custody of their children do not collect child support, sometimes because they are afraid their ex-wives will challenge them for custody of the children in a gender biased system not trusted by many. Also, the patriarchy/double standard that is pervasive in society promotes when it is convenient that men are the "breadwinners" and women are the "caregivers". Many men who are eligible are too proud. In any case, I would be surprised to see the pictures of women posted as deadbeats, apart from a token one or two to try to prove wrong this post.

Therefore, why isn't Madeleine Meilleur honest that this is really about going after just the "deadbeat dad" again and because well funded advocacy groups have forced an inappropriate policy choice.

I have written about this type of policy choice before in other jurisdictions, and why it is simply bad policy. On December 10th I wrote:

"Ironically, on a day when thousands march on behalf of highly organised advocacy organisations defence of advocacy funding in Ottawa and across Canada, the UK announces (like in the USA) that the names of "deadbeat dads" will be published on the internet to encourage compliance.

Please remember:

· 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
· 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
· 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
· 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
· 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

Simple analysis of these data suggest that there is a relationship between fathers who have access to their children and fathers who voluntarily pay child support. Connecting the issues of access and child support it seems would go a long way to making almost all fathers comply voluntarily with their obligations. Or, if one insists on being punitive, why doesn't the UK publish the names of mother's who deny access of their children to the other parent, and stigmatise those types of persons in the same way?"

If I were still a member of the party in Ontario, this would be grounds to "terminate" my membership. Other Liberals who believe in a just " society" might consider the same. After all, this is simply "bad policy" that resembles more the New Jersey model used for too long by Mike Harris' Conservatives. This is not an approach I consider to be (l)Liberal.

The spin created by advocacy funding the puts the best interests of one gender over another in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has worn thin. Finally, movements to apply the Charter to issues of the family have taken root, sadly only because of the grassroots and not because of any political will to do the right thing.

Overshadowed by this announcement is a move by "child/parents rights" organizations that will from now on hold those who "deny access" accountable by posting their pictures on the internet too. Because custody is awarded on gender lines (not because women collectively are any better or worse than men), it just so happens that the majority of parents who deny access are women. Why have governments chosen not to make access as much of priority as the enforcement of child support? The lobbies and the spin! To be equitable, the State should also equitably apply such punative approaches of "shame" to Canada's most notorious deniers of parent/child access. Or, make policy that will encourge for now men to pay their child support voluntarily by promoting access, and mothers to allow their children to have meaningful relationships with their fathers, in spite of "broken" policy and in spite of any "anger" that still lingers following the divorce.

For now, that is obviously neither here nor there.

So, for today, the poster children of the denial of access are the enablers, Madeleine Meilleur and Dalton McGinty. These persons entrusted by the public have done nothing but create bad policy that perpetuate the myths "dreamed up" and promoted by those who receive advocacy funding. These groups lobby governments to make policy that benefits one gender at the expense of the other. Meanwhile children, men, women and second families suffer and are "second class" in this otherwise great country of ours.

When I left Ontario, it was in part because Mike Harris made Ontario a "police state". Unfortunately, Dalton has "dropped the ball" by doing nothing to help Ontario become the equitable and just society it needs to be under any Liberal government.

In am sorry that the provincial cousins of my federal Liberals have it seems simply "changed dirty underwear" with Mike Harris conservatives. As a ideological liberal, my opinion is that this is a derelection of Dalton's government's responsibility to govern fairly and to uphold the human rights principles also along gender lines. I am sad to say Dalton's team do not deserve to be re-elected provincially, especially with inequitable moves like this.

Perhaps David would talk some sense into his brother, please?

Will Tie Domi be frozen out? Guilt before innocence the norm in matters of the family

I keep thinking I will be able to wind down on this theme. Unfortunately, new "garbage" seems to surface almost every day. Again yesterday, my social justice alarm went off and you get to read about it today.

Was anyone else not surprised to hear that Leanne Domi, seems to be doing everything the law will allow to destroy her soon to be ex-husband, former NHL hockey player Tie Domi. I'm not! And, she has many weapons at her disposal because of fundamental and inequitable flaws in family law.

In September I wrote a post when the story broke explaining how gender bias within the judiciary in Ontario's family courts could destroy Tie Domi. Now Leanne Domi is doing what so many persons do within a biased system (with their lawyers encouraging them) while they are still very angry. She is making allegations that are putting in question Tie's relationship with his children. CTV reports:

According to the documents, Leanne's lawyer is seeking an order "suspending (Domi's) access to the children, pending delivery of recommendations by the psychologists."

Leanne Domi seems to be using her dispute with Tie to go after her children's relationship with him. This is common in some cases of divorce. Some people who go though an already emotional divorce with conflict in an adversary system make decisions they might not otherwise make.

These are often also decisions that are not in the best interest of "the children" even if courts typically go first with the preferences of the primary caregiver, who is usually the mother, because custody is still awarded along gender lines. In spite of this, Canadian governments have not taken it upon themselves to create accessible, affordable or timely ways of protecting against access denial and/or divorce poison. Why? The lobbies and the spin. So what is the deterrent apart from this?

The facts are that children will not remain neutral in cases of high conflict divorce. If the residential parent is overly critical of the non-residential parent or not overtly supportive of the children having a relationship with the other parent, children will typically remain loyal only to the parent they perceive to be more powerful. Children will typically be loyal to the parent to whom they have most access.

In Ontario, where courts favour mothers, loyalty choices are made by children in favour of their mothers and at the expense of their fathers - even if they suffer emotionally as adults. For all intents and purposes, the courts will do nothing.

As such, citizens like Tie who were formerly respected and admired while a part of a nuclear family can become second class citizens if their marriages fall apart. With 75% of divorce applications in Canada being filed by women, is anyone really safe from such a tragic downfall? Could anyone lose their kids if the circumstances went sour?

Therefore, for parents like Leanne Domi who are so obviously angry at her ex because of the breakdown of the marriage, some children become loyalty pawns and may turn against the other parent. The clinical term for this condition is "parental alienation syndrome" where children demonstrate uncharacteristic "hatred" and "anger" against the estranged parent. "Malicious mother's syndrome" is another clinical condition which could be so in the case of Leanne Domi. Yet, courts at first will always turn a "blind eye".

From what I have read, Leanne seems so angry with Tie (because relationship breakdowns and alleged infidelity can cause people to make irrational decisions) if she were judging her own case she would take Tie for everything he is worth and she would also deny him access to his children. Do courts have a responsibility to catch such unjust behaviour? Or, is there also an obligation for governments to create, promote and enforce consequences for those who might go too far.

After all, it is without a doubt in the best interests of children to have meaningful relationships with both parents. Is this in the children's best interest? Is it because of her anger?Is it about getting even or more money? What is it?

As a gesture to try to recognise the needs of Tie's children in all of this, I republish again Sinestra's now famous policy resolution unanimously passed by the Quebec Women’s Commission in 2005. It became Liberal policy at the Quebec General Council in November of 2005 but it fell off the radar because LPCQ felt the need to replace it with new resolutions, including the Nation resolution, which were made in an ivory tower with the purpose of crowning one leadership candidate in particular.

Resolution on the Right of the Child to Have Meaningful Access to Both Parents

Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that children should have access to family members;

Whereas it is in the best interest of the child to have access to and strong relationships with both parents;

Whereas the federal government has not implemented policy that is in the best interest of the child or the blended family, despite reports in 1998 and 2002;

Whereas non-residential parents can be unilaterally and with no involvement of a higher authority denied access to their children without adequate, timely or accessible remedies.

Whereas the federal government had prioritized child support and remains inactive on child access;

Whereas children and their non-residential families stagnate under lopsided policy priorities;

Whereas the provinces administer and interpret the federal Divorce Act, with long delays and inadequate remedies to child access issues that hurt child-parent relationships;

Therefore be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to implement policy prioritizing access and protecting the rights of children to have access to both parents.

be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to implement policy giving equal weight to relationship support between parents and children as to financial support.

be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to create standards and legislation to support provincial and territorial governments in the enforcement of child access similar to those set up previously to support the enforcement of child support.

The bottom line is that in a progressive society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Tie should not be found guilty before being proven innocent of not being a good parent, like could happen here. Furthermore, his children have a right to have meaningful access to both parents even though it appears that Leanne cannot control her anger still. Where are the real problems?

Some people may stand up and say this is wrong. Some "healthy sceptics" may wait until they experience such injustices themselves before making a stand. Meanwhile fathers, women, children and second families continue to suffer while special interests (including the legal industry) continue to benefit. Go figure!

Stephane Dion: a dignified and universal approach to leadership

Did anyone else take Sinestra up on her suggestion to read the very long article in the Globe yesterday about Stephane Dion? I did. I also realised you can see the Montreal Oratory on Mount Royal in this water's edge view taken earlier today in our humble leader's home town.

The article draws much on Dion's relationship with his family, events during his life and political career. Several defining situations in his life are described that provide further insight into our leader. Some of that insight comes from his wife, Ms. Krieber.

After watching in person the dignified way in which Mr. Dion treated his fellow candidates at convention, and all Liberals since, I can confidently say his collectively interested decision-making process bodes well for the future of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I can't help but share again the quote picked out of the Globe by Sinestra. It speaks volumes:

That was not enough for Paul Martin. When he took over from Mr. Chrétien in 2003, the new prime minister dumped Mr. Dion from the cabinet. Led by David Herle, the coterie of advisers that surrounded Mr. Martin considered Mr. Dion a liability in Quebec. The prime minister's Quebec lieutenant, Jean Lapierre, called the Clarity Act a “useless” piece of legislation.

“That was very hard for Stéphane,” says Pierre Pettigrew. “He was someone who had gone into politics for all the right reasons.”

Then a rival, Martin-backed candidate started selling Liberal memberships in Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. “When they tried to take away his riding, that is the moment he became a politician,” Ms. Krieber declares. “It was not an ideological debate. It was a power struggle.

“They could have asked me how to get rid of him and I would have told them: ‘Leave him alone, ignore him.' Instead they provoked him. . . . You know, my husband is a romantic knight.”

Ms. Krieber is correct to say the best approach sometimes is to leave well enough alone. Ironically, Mr. Dion took an irritation and turned it into something positive. And, along the way, he seems to have become exactly the kind of leader the Liberal Party of Canada needs at the moment.

The formula so far seems to be about some universal principles that make me quite comfortable with Dion's leadership: merit, loyalty, fairness of process and perhaps a touch of Machiavelli as per Sinestra which is great to ensure there is some accountability.

Well done Stephane!

Do Canadians divorce more because current family policy makes it better for some to do so?

The National Post published a front page story today about senior women who are filing for divorce at an alarming rate. The Edmonton Journal published a story in December suggesting that more couples over 50 are pulling the plug on their marriages while younger persons are divorcing less frequently.

Never before have as many women in Canada and the United States chosen to live on their own. The most obvious analysis of these trends suggests that women live on their own more because they can better afford it now than before. Does this mean that increasing parity between the percentage of women versus men in the workforce (along with much greater pay equity) has given women more options with respect to how they choose to live?

Is this a good thing? It could be. Or, does this represent a further indication that divorce itself benefits women more than men?

There are those who are proponents of government policies that create incentives for families to stay together. Others argue that the State needs to make divorce accessible for “victims of violence” to be able to leave their marriages more easily and comfortably. If family policy were designed around the assumption that "men are the aggressors and the breadwinners" and "women are the victims and the caregivers", the correct policy choice might be to make it more difficult for men to leave a marriage while making it easier for women to leave ) as need be to escape the violence and especially with the children.

This seems to be precisely the ongoing message of the Canada’s influential women's lobby. If that message were true, Canada's current approach to the issue of divorce would be more or less right on the mark. However, if this were proven to be 'spin' and not really true, incorrect assumptions by policy makers could be responsible for alleged policy failures with respect to the family and divorce.

What is alarming and what gives credence to the possibillity that this is simple advocacy spin are the numbers. Statistics Canada shows that between 1991 and 1994, men made applications for divorce 25.77% to 23.87% of the time while women did so between 67.85% to 68.10%. The number of shared applications for divorce in those years grew from 6.38% to 8.03% of the time. Statistics Canada also shows a downward trend for male applications and an upward trend for female applications in recent years.

What if the assumption that men are both the “breadwinners and the aggressors” was incorrect? Would that be proof that the Divorce Act has been shaped by a set of incorrect assumptions?

This entire package of domestic public policy could be “off track” because policy makers have a incorrectly recognised arguments by special interests that are based on patriarchal values used only when it is convenient to do so. This is in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is arguably only valuable as an enforcement mechanism on issues of the family . Practically speaking, the Charter may not be practically applicable in cases of possible “reverse” gender discrimination. Jurisprudence could change that.

There is considerable proof that the generalisation that "men are aggressors and breadwinners" and "women are victims and caregivers" is simply incorrect. For example, Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach examined 196 scholarly investigations, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the studies reviewed by Dr. Fiebert in helping him to conclude this exceeds 177,100.

Furthermore, the stereotype that men are not important as to the development of their children has been disproven by other psychologists, including Dr. Richard Warshak. This is in spite of the fact that Canadian family policy and the application of the Divorce Act still seems to be driven by the principles of the "the tender years doctrine", which traditionally protected the “special relationships between mothers and their children. Arguably, the appropriateness of "tender year’s doctrine" wore off with the entry of women at equal levels into the workforce, the frequency with which men care for their children while their wives work, the discovery that special relationships also exist between children and their fathers. Warshak’s research confirms this and suggests instead that children are best served by having meaningful access and relationships with both parents.

Given this research, should we be looking to fix the Divorce Act so that it is not administered in a way that benefits one gender over another? Federal reports commissioned by the Liberal Party in 1998 and 2002 recommended this so perhaps change is long overdue. Could our approach to the issue of divorce be Canada’s biggest social justice problem at the moment? Perhaps. Has advocacy funding administered improperly to put the interests of one gender over another contributed to the acceptance of certain myths that have helped shape our current policy and legislation. It sure looks that way.

Only when incentives and/or disincentives to divorce are shared equally by men and women will Canada’s policy or lack of policy on divorce begin to demonstrate the standards that are demanded by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If individuals divorce their spouse (or become divorced by their spouse) for reasons contained within the relationship and the corresponding alternatives, all’s fair. If public policy creates an incentive for one gender to divorce and another to stay in the relationship, it is logical to conclude divorce policy in Canada is very “broken”.

For the sake of families and especially “mature families”, which seem to be falling apart at an increasingly frequent rate, I hope the involvement of the State will have a less a destructive influence in the future than it has in the past.

New Quebec Constitution: Mario's idea ... Harper's motion.

A letter to all Quebecers obtained by the Canadian Press could be designed to garner some political attention for Quebec's third political party, the Action Democratique (ADQ).

In a period leading up to an election announcement in Quebec which is anticipated shortly, the ADQ and its confusing "middle-ground" ideas on Quebec have been nearly invisible recently. That is, unless one considers Stephen Harper's November Nation motion to count also for the ADQ.

The party's leader, Mario Dumont, has struggled to find room politically between the federalist ways of Jean Charest's Liberals and the soveignist Parti Quebecois (PQ). In the past he has tried to differentiate the ADQ from the "Liberals' submission to status quo federalism and the Parti Québécois' obsession with referendums on sovereignty." He has also previously proposed for Quebec to adopt its own constitution, collect all federal taxes and break federal laws if necessary to ensure full development of the province's hydro-electric capacity.

The Gazette publishes the CP article which explains that Dumont argues for the drafting of a Quebec constitution that would set out reasonable compromises to be granted to religious and ethnic groups. He calls reports of recent compromises granted to ethnic or religious groups a greater threat to so-called old stock Quebecers.

Dumont also said "the integration of newcomers to Quebec is something that Premier Jean Charest and Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair would rather ignore out of political correctness but it must be addressed. A Quebec constitution would be one way to achieve that".

Is this Dumont simply recycling an idea previously used that helped the ADQ gain some attention in 2004? Dumont, who has been known to flip-flop on occasion, shocked some in 2004 by proposing "an aggressive nationalist shift to turn the province into an autonomous state within Canada".

To me, this sounds familiar... oh yeah. is this the beta version of Stephen Harper's Nation Motion?

Either way, both Dumont and Harper are more tactical than true to any specific set of consistent values, unless one considers their extreme decentralist tendencies to be because of a common ideology.

New poll suggest Dion is correct: linking taxes and environment popular with Canadians

A new Decima Poll suggests Stephane Dion has the support of Canadians in linking green performance with tax cuts. In the face of other polls recently that suggest the "honeymoon period" following Stephane Dion's victory as Liberal leader is over, this poll adds a dimension of day-to-day performance of the federal leaders.

It shows the Liberal party may be able to earn a renewed popularity with Canadians on the basis of sound sustainable policy. This, coupled with Dion's use of 'town halls' to assist with the perceived integrity of policy design outputs and their implementation, seems to resonate with Canadians.

The Toronto Star writes:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has advocated tax breaks tied to green behaviour, such as the purchase of energy-efficient appliances or the installation of home energy generation systems. The Conservatives have avoided any linkage between tax policy and environmental reform. The hypothetical Liberal promise that was put to poll participants by Decima outperformed the Conservative promise in every part of the country except Alberta. In that province there was a 46 per cent versus 37 per cent preference for the no-strings option. Nationwide, 50 per cent of men and 52 per cent of women preferred the Liberal promise. It was preferred by every age, income and education group and by urban (54 per cent) as well as rural (46 per cent) voters.

The recent series of victories on matters of policy by the Liberal party under Stephane Dion's leadership bodes well for the Liberals ability to earn a victory of war on the ground leading up to an election. Apart from in Alberta, any positives by Stephen Harper's gang recently have been purely tactical and have had little to do with the creation of good policy.

Does this show a tendency for Steven Harper to choose optics over substance? For the CPC is this about giving Canadians cabinet shuffles and caucus acquisitions over ideas? On the policy front there have already been failures for the Conservatives that Canadians won't forget quickly, such as former Environment Minister Rona Ambrose's Green Plan and the 'military' (instead of 'peacekeeping') mission in Afghanistan.

Announcements by Harper's party recently have all been about the promise and eventual delivery of good governance, rather than anything in the present. Nothing has been done to demonstrate to Canadians day to day that the Conservatives have any good ideas. After all, even policy process choices by Stephane Dion, such as Town Hall meetings, seem to be emulated by Harper and his Conservatives.

If Harper continues to specialise only on political tactics and not policy, the appropriate use of ideas will continue to be to the advantage of the Liberals. It seems that good policy and quality leadership will win the hearts and minds of Canadians, at least according to Decima's most recent research.

Casino Billionaire battles insurance company after making a $54 miilion hole in his Picasso.

While some consider it to be tragic, others find it quite funny. Las Vegas casino mogul, Steve Wynn, accidentally ripped a hole in a painting he owns by Pablo Picasso worth an estimated US$139 million. He considers the latest offer from the insurance company to settle his damage claim "ridiculous".

What is tragic is that this great work of art will never be perfect or absolutely the same. This is even though a team of experts with much technology have been working to repair the painting. Apparently, the repaired version is only worth $89 million. Hence, Wynn is fighting to recover the $54 million difference from the insurance company.

The painting in question is Picasso's "Le Reve" (pictured above). It is his favourite painting. He named his Las Vegas show after it. He was planning to sell "la Reve" to billionaire collector Steven Cohen for $139 million, which would have been a record for the sale of a piece of artwork.

The deal was done until Wynn showed the painting to friends who were in town (including writer/director Nora Ephron, who has since written about her having been offended by the painting's penis-shaped face). While showing it to the guests, Wynn accidentally gestured his hand a little too close to the painting, and his right elbow went right through Marie-Therese Walter's left forearm. According to Ephron, Wynn told his guests, "Oh shit. Look what I've done". "Thank God it was me". Ephron said everyone else was left speechless.

To what extent Wynn will be able to leverage his wealth and power to obtain an appropriate settlement? My bet would be that he will get pretty close.

What about Steve Wynn emotionally? Perhaps such a settlement would offset some of the guilt and regret he may feel for damaging such an important work of art.? Or, is it all about the money?

Durham Region's threat to banish students ignores Charter of Rights

This article by CTV reports that "more than 1,000 students in Durham Region could be suspended from school by next week if they can't find immunization records to prove they have received the necessary shots." The article reports that "letters sent home to parents in November said that Durham District School Board students whose vaccinations are not up to date will be forced to stay home. "

The article adds that The Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine does not agree with the hard line approach. Spokesperson Dr. Shehab El Hashemy says many people in his profession are against immunization.

Even if a student has been immunized, there is now a consequence for not reporting that fact to the Durham Health Unit. Often this is simply because of disorganisation or lack of prioritisation. If students have not been vaccinated, but their parents intended them to be, this threat really "lights a fire" under them, doesn't it.

Some may take issue with the enforcement based approach adopted by the Dunham Health Unit to encourage mass compliance with school board level vaccination rules. Are there better ways to bring about voluntary compliance? Perhaps. Can we assume such measures create compliance with rules are in the public interest and not in conflict with the rights of indicidual Canadians? That is the more challenging question.

What these letters to parents do not explain is that this consequence cannot apply to everyone because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Article 15.1 guarantees equal protection under the law and equal protection of our rights. Equal protection includes freedom of religious or philosophical belief under article 2 section A and B.

As such, if one's religion, "belief system" or philosophy does not agree with the concept of mass immunization (like Dr. Shehab El Hashemy) for example, one is "off the hook" and cannot be prevented from attending school. So, in reality, these letters are only really applicable to those students and parents who have been too lazy to get shots or too disorganised to report it to the school board.

For some, compliance will be motivated by the fear of children potentially being sent home from school (or the associated and expected stigma). Those who do not understand their rights might just give in. Those who do understand their rights will have to demonstrate to the school board a religious or philosophical reason for them to grant an exception. Canadian school boards are fully aware of this and tend to face such challenges every year.

It is hard to say what will be the result of this "big threat" collectively. However, I am curious how big or small a mail campaign this would be if letters were only sent out to the disorganised relatives of lazy non-immunised Durham students.

What is the point of this exercise, really?

Child / Parent Access Interference: New York Court removes custody from mother.

I have written multiple posts about a lack of federal policy in Canada on child-parent access issues. There are still no accessible, affordable and timely remedies to incidents of access interference in cases of divorce with children. In Canada, these situations invariably require the involvement of the court initiated by the 'victim' who is required to do a "private prosecution" to find accountability (with their own after-tax funds). If not, child-parent relationships suffer.

Nevertheless, when one can help to finance judicial accountability mechanisms to the finish line, there can be justice. Late last week in New York State, a mother lost custody of her child for not having allowed that child to have meaningful access with the child's father.

Although this type of accountability should be as common as is "access interference" itself, the Supreme Court of New York reversed custody and awarded it to the father. New York attorney Daniel Clement writes: "While the Court's decision does not detail exactly what the mother did, the decision evidences that there is a growing judicial intolerance of one parent interfering with the other parent's visitation rights." The decision is published here.

There are precedents in Canada. In January 2005 a similarly striking adjudicated response happened in an Ontario Court. Justice Lorna Snowie fined a mother $10,000 and another $15,000 sentenced her to 30 days in jail and reversed custody for not encouraging her 16-year-old daughter to participate in family counselling aimed at helping her reconnect with her father after many years of access denial.

From a policy perspective, what needs to happen is this: institutions need to also be created to enforce meaningful access between children and both of their parents similar to those already set up to enforce the payment of child support.

...more institutionalised conservatism: Rona, Alberta's Tory government and the Nation Motion

Did anyone else find it convenient that Alberta is now "banging its chest" about it being a nation one day after Rona Ambrose was shuffled to manage to Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio?

The Calgary Herald reports Friday that "Alberta is "the bad boy" of Confederation and that Alberta's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Guy Boutillier, said "that and will fight for its own rights as a nation, including a provincial immigration program and equitable treatment in Canada".

Minister Boutillier also said "Alberta and other provinces and territories are owed the same rights associated with the Quebec nation, a distinction recently approved by the House of Commons. Each province is a nation within a nation".

Should we be surprised now that more than a month has passed since the passing of CPC's Nation resolution that Alberta is calling for the same rights as was awarded Quebec? Was this a part of Harper's plan at the time: to force a massive decentralisation whether he opens up the constitution or not? Is Rona Ambrose a part of this plan? Is this really about pandering to Alberta and to the separatist movement outside of Quebec? Or, is this really about institutionalising conservatism?

Time will tell...but it might be prudent for those Canadians who believe in a strong federation to prepare against the dilution of Canada and the hypothesis that the institutionalisation of conservatism is a part of Harper's master plan.

Who earn more: Professional referees or Canadian jurists?

If one were mapping out a career as a "third party neutral" and one were motivated by status, income and leisure, what would one aspire to be? Sports is one option as a referee or umpire. Another could be mediation. Yet another could be if one were appointed to the judiciary.

Leaving aside mediation as well as leisure question which is har to measure (apart from the fact that NFL football referees work less - 16 games give or take), how would the incomes of judges in Canada compare to those of professional referees?

The salary of a federally appointed judge is $216,600 CDN (other than a chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada). A Chief Justice of a Supreme Court earns $278,400 per annum. Other Justices of the Supreme Court make $257,800.

NFL referees currently earn between $42,295 and $120,998 US per season. Major League baseball umpires earn anywhere from $100,000 to $280,000 during a 162 game season, plus they get a generous expense account. NHL officials make between $115,000 to $220,000 US per season, based on experience. Professional referees also have to do extensive travel.

If the ego of a professional referee were to get out of check, the league would find some accountability; perhaps they would not work the full playoffs. There seems to be an internal way that works, because variations in how to call games seems to be tightly controlled centrally. Professional referees need to work hard to make the "big leagues" by demonstrating an ability to be fair and neutral, as well as an ability to manage games effectively. Merit demonstrated by strong performances year after year will keep them at the top, even though others certainly aspire to replace them.

For aspiring judges there is no real way to be appointed apart from "who you know". Judicial immunity and the weight of the law makes it less important for judges than for refs to be anything but authoritative. Refs seem to need to primarily encourage voluntary compliance under the threat and enforcement of punative measures that correspond with an agreed upon set of rules.

With judges, there is also no direct accountability because judicial appointments are for life (or 75 years of age typically). Does judicial review provide any real accountability? The Governor General along with the House of Commons and the Senate could remove a judge in deriliction of duty, but this has never been attempted in Canada Is it then even an accountability option? Perhaps it is now because the technical mechanism to find justice for judges has now been mentioned here.

After considering job security, benefits, and other factors, the life of a Canadian judge looks pretty good. When compared directly, how does the guaranteed and much longer career of a judge look in comparison with the career of a professional referee ?

Myriam Bedard: "“I’m only thinking of her well-being”: Maude's best interest or advocacy spin?

Myriam Bedard is back in Canada and, for about one hour, she has been out on bail. This article from the Toronto Star explains that "She was given bail with conditions, including supervised visits with her daughter, not being allowed to leave Quebec and surrendering her passport."

The article also reports that she claims to be making decisions for Maude's sake as opposed to her own preferences: “I’m only thinking of her well-being.” Now, how should the law reconcile priorities that interfere with one another? Is it in Maude's best interest to be with her mother (even in another jurisdiction) and even if that interferes with Maude's ability to have meaningful access and a relationship with her father?

This case is a microcosm of what family courts must consider everyday. If the starting point is that Maude is best served by being with her mother, Myriam's relationship with Maude will take precedence over Maude's relationship with her dad, even if this represents a sacrifice and something Maude may regret as an adult. Some would instead argue that the most important factor is a matter of child rights, i.e. Maude's right to have meaningful relationships with both her parents (assuming both parents are involved and interested).

The State will tend support the former option. If Maude were less than 12 (usually between 8 and 10), the "special relationship" hierarchies (that are arguably gender discriminatory and inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) would make it so that Maude's relationship with her mom would be a priority. Now that Maude is 12 , she would be asked about her preferences. These will typically reflect what she is used to. The problem here is that many children who are asked to make loyalty choices at a young age will regret those choices as an adult. Maude may later lament what she missed for the State not having enforced her rights to have meaningful access with both of her parents. Unfortunately, there is often a psychological toll on the child associated with such choices.

Where this article is flawed is that it does not clarify whether Maude's father, Pierre, has been denied access to Maude previously or if he is a disinterested father, which Ms. Bedard's lawyer, Me John Pepper, has claimed: The article explains:

"Bedard’s father, Pierre, was in court and has had little contact with his daughter in recent years." The next line in the Star is quite ambiguous:

“I haven’t talked to her in four years,” he said."

Has he not talked to Maude or his Myriam in four years?

I have written the Star to seek clarification on this ambiguous point.

Part 3: Judicial Review: Is there a relationship between bias and Supreme Court appointments?

In my post on New Year’s Day I chose to share with the Liblogs and Progressive Blogger communities confidential data just released that in essence shows a judicial bias at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The post generated allot of hits, some exceptional enthusiasm, some comments, some skepticism, and some indifference.

I especially appreciated those wanting to know more details, such as Canadian Tar Heel, Anonymous Gayle and Devin. Gayle and Devin concluded with the information I had provided that the study was “flawed”. We had it out a little bit in the comments section of the post. In the end I disagree with what I consider to have been pre-mature conclusions. Nevertheless, we can agree to disagree, which is perfectly fair. Healthy skepticism keeps the world moving. It would be good to know if after this post we still disagree.

As for the very skeptical and borderline belligerent, “decoin”, there is a case at the Court of Appeal today that is using this report as evidence.

I may have been short-sighted in identifying as an example only Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella’s discrimination rating. Another former Ontario Court of Appeal Justice with almost as bad a discrimination rating was appointed by then Justice Minister, Irwin Cottler, to the Supreme Court of Canada on the same day in 2004 as Justice Abella.

If you refer back to the results that I posted on January 1, Justice Charron was not far behind Justice Abella on the gender report's discrimination rating. Justice Charron favoured women over men 62.6% of the time, which is considered “heavy discrimination also. Her results in brief are as follows:

For Charron JA D = 70.0 - 7.4 = 62.6 % (heavy)

Wikipedia has this to say about Justice Charron:

Charron (born March 2, 1951 in Sturgeon Falls, Ontario) is a Canadian jurist. She as appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in October, 2004, and is the first native-born Franco-Ontarian Supreme Court judge. (This distinction has sometimes been ttributed to Louise Arbour, but Arbour was born and raised Québécoise.)

Charron received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Carleton University in 1972, her Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Ottawa in 1975, and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1977. She practiced civil litigation, and then joined the Crown Attorney's office in 1980, and then became a law professor at the University of Ottawa. She was appointed to the district Court of Ontario in 1988, and to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1995. She is eligible to sit on the bench until 2026 when she reaches age 75.

I am sensitive that interested bloggers may like more information on how to define a win, the difference between pure wins and partial wins, and the number of men versus women who made these appeals. The following is an extraction from another report called “Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal I”, which used “quick law” to consider the cases that were before Justice Abella and Justice Charron over time.

"For Justice Abella the total cases can be summarized as follows:

Appellant, Number, Win All, Lose All, Win/Lose Some
Male, 28, 2, 23, 3
Female,13, 10, 2, 1

It can be concluded a man had a 82.1 % chance of losing on all issues, but a woman had a 84.6 % chance of winning on at least some issues when appearing before a panel with Justice Abella on it

For Justice Charron the total cases can be summarized as follows:

Appellant, Number, Win All, Lose All, Win/Lose Some
Male, 27, 3, 22, 2
Female, 10, 7, 2, 1

It can be concluded a man had a 81.5 % chance of losing on all issues, but a woman had a 80.0 % chance of winning on at least some issues when appearing before a panel with Justice Charron on it"

Please let me know if more information is required to show the legitimacy of this research at this time. Otherwise, I would like to know whether there is an interest, or just apathy in looking further as to whether our judiciary is upholding its Charter obligations with respect to gender neutrality or not.

Is Canadian Olympic champion still in a US jail because she blew the whistle?

This CBC article reports that Myriam Bedard's US lawyer claims that his client is languishing in jail because she is a "whistle blower":

Kevin McCants, Bédard's American lawyer, said Bédard and her second husband, Nima Mazhari, believe Canadian authorities have left Bédard to languish in jail as a way to punish her for the role she played in the federal sponsorship scandal.

Is this paranoid, advocacy or is this worth considering?

Part 2: Judicial Review - Data from 10 year study proves a judicial bias

I have written some posts in the past relating to current events that arguably demonstrate a gender bias in Canada’s Superior Courts. If there were any doubt still, last week I got the hard evidence.

I received these data from a reliable source who shall remain anonymous for now. These data represent a brand new ten year study called “Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal III”. The study is being presented via a motion this week at the Court of Appeal. The motion requests that the court declare itself a “non-independent and impartial body“.

Do I have an obligation to share this evidence even if names of certain esteemed jurists are mentioned? Some say “yes“, while others warn about this exercise being too specific. I conclude that since all information is in the public domain, there is nothing wrong with presenting it to the public a more organised version of this same information. Plus, let's start off the year and the 60th post at Views from the Water's Edge with the universal themes of "fairness" and "accountability". For those behind creating the methodology, preparing the data and organising this research, thank you for your efforts.

The methodology seems logical and the results are no less than SHOCKING. These data show some level of discrimination on the part of ALL TWENTY TWO judges tracked between 1996 and 2006. Perhaps more shocking is that there is “heavy/high” discrimination by more than 75% of these judges. Not one judge favoured men over women over time, the closest being Justice Laskin who ruled in favour of women 8.6% more often than for men.

Now, before I say anything more, I would like to remind all readers of the pertinent sections of our dearest Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Equality Rights Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

The methodology of the study is described below:

This study analyzes the decisions of 22 judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal. It is an extension of the 2 previous studies, Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal I and II. This study traces differences in decisions based on the sex of the appellant, as can be determined by judge, issue, and year. Over 800 decisions on the public records of judges of the court are included. All the available family law entries from the Canlii database for Ontario Court of Appeal were used. Specific cases are listed by judge in Appendix A, and by year in Appendix B, from 1996 to 2006.

Part one of the study is called “Discrimination by Judge”.

“Discrimination indexes are used to compare the differences between judges. Discrimination indexes are defined as ; D = % female wins - % male wins. A negative value would indicate discrimination against females, and a positive value, discrimination against males. Specific values for 17 of the justices were computed in the earlier studies Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal I and II and the data is included in Appendixes 1 to 17. The values for the remaining 5 judges were derived from Appendixes 18 to 22 using the same techniques. Procedural issues, penalties, equalization, costs, and issues generally designated as other are not included in this analysis. Discrimination categories have been assigned as : 0 to 15 % is slightly discriminatory, 15 to 30 % is moderately discriminatory, 30 to 60 % is highly discriminatory, 60 to 85 % is heavily discriminatory, and 85 to 100 % is fully discriminatory.”

The key results are as follows:

D = % Female Wins - % Male Wins, Discrimination count, Category

For Abella JA D = 76.5 - 6.4 = 70.1 % (heavy)
For Feldman JA D = 72.7 - 13.3 = 59.4 % (heavy/high)
For Charron JA D = 70.0 - 7.4 = 62.6 % (heavy)
For Simmons JA D = 80.0 - 23.8 = 56.2 % (high)
For Lang JA D = 50.0 - 0 = 50.0 % (high)
For Wheiler JA D = 77.8 - 26.1 = 51.7 % (high)
For McMurtry CJO D = 69.9 - 40.0 = 29.1 % (moderate/high)
For O’Connor DCJO D= 80.0 - 30.0 = 50.0 % (high)
For Goudge JA D = 77.8 - 39.1 = 38.7% (high)
For Borins JA D = 70.0 - 27.3 = 42.7 % (high)
For Rosenburg JA D = 71.4 - 33.3 = 38.1 % (high)
For Armstrong JA D = 66.7 - 26.3 = 40.4 % (high)
For Moldaver JA D = 52.6 - 6.7 = 45.9 % (high)
For Macpherson JA D = 62.5 - 14.3 = 48.2 % (high)
For Gillese JA D = 85.7 - 50.0 = 35.7 % (high)
For Juriasz JA D = 60.0 - 0.0 = 60.0 % (high/heavy)
For Blair JA D = 50.0 - 9.1 = 41.9 % (high)
For Cronk JA D = 66.7 - 42.1 = 24.6 % (moderate)
For Sharpe JA D = 33.3 - 11.7 = 21.3 % (moderate)
For Catzman JA D = 63.6 - 43.7 = 19.9 % (moderate)
For Labrosse JA D = 61.5 - 45.0 = 16.5 % (moderate)
For Laskin JA D = 55.5 - 47.0 = 8.5 % (slight)

There you have it. And, these data were made available to you first. Oh yeah, did anyone else notice that one of the worst offenders of gender discrimination in this study is Rosalie Abella at 70.1%? Justice Abella is no longer a judge at the Ontario Court of Appeal because former Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed her to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004.

For those who don’t know, Wikepedia explains the following about Justice Abella: “Abella was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany, and moved to Canada with her family in 1950. She graduated from the University of Toronto Law School in 1970, and practised civil and family law litigation until 1976, when she was appointed to the Ontario Family Court, becoming the youngest and first pregnant judge in Canadian history. She was then appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992.”

What are my personal recollections of Justice Rosalie Abella’s contributions as a jurist?… I recall her having turned family law "upside down" by recognising the need to have “independent legal advice” for a separation agreement to be binding. Arguably, this was the catalyst for a huge “make work project” for the legal industry in family law. More recently, her fingerprints were all over a couple troublesome 2006 Supreme Court decisions, one of which was retroactive child support.

There is much that can be written about Justice Abella, which will have to wait until another time. However, in the meantime I can’t help but wonder whether persons will need to account for failing grades when it comes to gender bias in our judiciary?

Happy New Year from Edgewater Views!

To everyone, may 2007 be the best year ever!