2/3 of Canadians want elected judges: judiciary/lawyers call it a bad idea.

I read earlier today the results of a Strategic Counsel poll suggesting that 2/3 of Canadians favour elected judges. It did not surprise me that both Canada's legal industry and the judiciary immediately came out with reasons as to why this is a very bad idea.

The Globe and Mail reports that Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry said in an interview that he couldn't see how impartiality could be maintained in a system of elected judges: “it could really destroy the very best traditions of an independent judiciary. I think it would be a tragic initiative for the administration of justice.”

I also read Devin's blog today from the roll ... should I be surprised (since we agree to disagree on this subject) that he would support Chief Justice McMurtry's angle by posting the blog title: "Keep Justice Blind"?

.

Even the Conservative Party has stopped calling for elected judges now that they are in power, in spite of its previous concerns about the power of judges in Canada. Former federal justice minister Vic Toews said last year: “That's just not our tradition…I actually think our system is pretty good. It just needs to be fixed.” This is very convenient for a party led by a man whose private objective is no less than reforming the ideology of Canadians via massive decentralisation and institutionalised conservatism.

I find it alarming that those with the most to lose from judicial reform frame this sign of discontent by Canadians with our (arguably) unaccountable system of judicial appointments in such a narrow/fear based manner. Would anyone expect lawyers and judges to say anything against the "love in" between lawyers and judges? Among other things, our current system acts as if judicial appointees are like Plato’s Guardians and beyond self-interest. Our judges are appointed by the political party in power, they are appointed for life and they are not accountable to anyone. The only way to remove a judge from the bench is with the agreement of the Governor General, Parliament and the Senate and this has never been attempted. Does this not sound like a blank cheque?

Furthermore, this unprecedented power gives Supreme Court Justices in particular in essence a "veto" as strong or stronger than the notwithstanding clause on matters of Canadian public policy via strategic jurisprudence. When the by-product of specific jurisprudence can provides a marked boost to revenues collectable by the legal industry, there is reason for concern. After all, our judges all began their careers as lawyers and have been known to make controversial decisions that benefit their “brethren“ sometimes more obviously than others.

As a means of demonstrating just how “on the mark” are the instincts of many Canadians on this topic - who know there is a problem with a lack of accountability but do not know exactly what is the solution - I republish gender the discrimination ratings of 22 Ontario Court of Appeal Justices over 10 years (1996-2006). More than 800 cases were reviewed to determine the results. The methodology of the study is explained here and here:

.

D = % Female Wins - % Male Wins, Discrimination count, Category (or extent gender was a factor in judicial decisions on matters pertaining to the family)

.

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)

.
The data show that Justice McMurtry himself was rated as favouring female litigants close to one-third of the time more often than male litigants on matters pertaining to the family.
.
That is neither here nor there. What is of most concern here? The two worst offenders according to the study,- Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron - now sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. Because of the current structure, does this not mean that Justice Abella and Justice Charron are two of the most powerful Canadians when it comes to shaping our public policy? ... stronger than Parliament both collectively and individually?
.
It seems Canadians are perhaps "right on the mark" when it comes to our being uncomfortable - sniffing out - matters that lack sufficient accountability, such as this. After all, would any of us really buy the argument that any of our Justices have "philosopher-king" like attributes that makes accountability unnecessary? Or, would anyone dare say the adversary system, rules and procedure keeps judicial decision making perfectly in check?

.

Canadians know there are problems with the current system of judicial appointments. If a poll is worded so that Canadians understand "elected" to be perfectly congruent with "accountable", the framing of this proposed solution by Justice McMurtry, Devin and Vic Toews as having similar baggage to that of the American system sounds like spin to me. There are many ways to make our judiciary more accountable without any drastic risks. It just takes political will and courage to stand up to those who benefit from the status quo.

A shocking truth: one blogger gets CRIES FOR HELP from people around the world...

Are others being terrorised?

I wrote my last blog about Dr. Kenneth Dickie last weekend. Since writing the Dr. Dickie series, I have been contacted by others living inside and outside of Canada who are also targets of bad family policy in Canada. One man in exile in Europe contacted me ... he no longer has a Canadian passport or a drivers licence. He described himself as being "hunted and cornered" by the FRO (Family Responsibility Office). What's next? Dawg the Bounty Hunter hunts down "deadbeats" for a live TV audience?

Historically, non-payment of financial support for children to ex-spouses is in part because of an inability to pay. Also, there are those who are unwilling to pay to retaliate for illegal denial of child /parent access by custodial parents. Do proponents of excessive support enforcement consider these types of situations too?

Illegal access denial without penalty is possible because of a lack of non-litigious or institutional remedies to matters of child-parent access issues. Rightly or wrongly, custody is still awarded to mothers because of their gender (rather than because of their character). Can anyone who interprets the Charter see this as being anything other than gender discriminatory?... but I digress. Because of a lack of policy on access or deterrents to the denial of access, some custodial parents self-interestedly limit access (to punish the other parent) even if psychological research shows that such behaviour negatively affects children emotionally.

Nevertheless, Canadians who divorce and do not (or cannot) honour their financial responsibilities lose their drivers licences, their passports and their children, because of legislation that wrongly assumes further enforcement will motivate people to "pay up". Only after that, those who don't pay what they are due could spend 120 days in jail. After that, Ontarians and/or Albertans who still don't pay will end up with their picture on the internet and labelled a "deadbeat".

I once read we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 50 times over... for those who get off on that, wouldn't once enough? How much support enforcement do we really need?...Does Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government truly believe the posting pictures of "deadbeats" on the internet is really good family policy? Or, is this simply "good politics" in an election year? Is this, as George Bush once said, to "smoke them out of their holes"?

Excessive support enforcement helps keep children away from their fathers

As a by-product, even those who always intended to pay their first families (what some say is excessive and miscalculated yet legislated child and spousal support) will invariably lose all contact with their children. Then again, "access" (which serves mostly men because of the gender preference in custody decisions by Canadian judges) does not matter. Many parents also end up in exile and may lose everything, including their homeland. Some, like Dr. Ken Dickie, end up in jail simply, because they cannot pay.

"Debtor's prison" was eliminated a long time ago in all matters other than the family. So, is this OK because only "divorced dads" are at risk of such incarseration? Is this also a form of state-orchestrated child-parent alienation for mothers who may want to have that card to play just in case? One father in exile suggested in an e-mail to me that politicians have created a "monster (in the FRO) and now they don't know what to do with it"? Are Minister Madeleine Meilleur and Premier Dalton McGuinty responsible out of ignorance, opportunism or pandering to special interests? Will they pay politically for making short-sighted and bad policy decisions (for political reasons) in an election year in Ontario?

Is Canada's judiciary more loyal to legal industry or to fairness and equality?

On New Year' Day I wrote about "discrimination ratings" by Ontario Court of Appeal judges. I highlighted Supreme Court Justice, Rosalie Abella, as an example of a (former) Ontario Court of Appeal judge with one of the worst discrimination ratings.

I previously knew of Justice Abella because of the anecdotes made flippantly by lawyers who I know in Ontario. Some consider Justice Abella to be responsible for much "rain-making" for the legal industry in family law - either the "hero" or the "zero" - depending upon one's perspective. Jurisprudence under her watch made it so that separation agreements in divorce could be could be reopened - because of either "missing financial disclosure" or "inadequate independent legal advice".

Cynics might consider that jurisprudence of this type ensures that the legal industry is fully in control in of the break-up of families in Canada whether that is appropriate or not. Consider this: Canadians must consult a lawyers while separating or divorcing in order to avoid being completely financially vulnerable. This jurisprudence is precisely for why Kenneth Dickie and others have been ostracized by Canada and are in exile.

Are these persons victims of a money grab and a takeover by a legal industry (along with their judicial accomplices) which produces more lawyers than there is legal work? What ever happened to transparent money grabs - like "ambulance chasing"? When children are involved, is it really in their interest for matters of the family to be sorted adversarially?

Are major law firms are "flippant" about family law inequities? Que bono?

This article in its entirety provides an overview of “advocacy dominance” and “superior representation” by certain Canadian law firms in matters of the family. The article was posted on the website of one such firm as a testimony to their ability to provide fair representation in family matters. Healthy sceptics might consider this to be more about assurances (from those who profit from bad family policy) that it is possible, post-agreement, to go after one’s ex-spouse for everything they can. This is via litigation on family matters, even if matters were previously resolved via a supposed “binding contract” in the form of a separation agreement. Would business people agree to such terms?

As such, I leave you with an excerpt from that article below, which also shows another case where Mr. Harold Niman represented a female client pro-bono. Why?

"If my client assured me that she was familiar with her husband’s assets, then it’s possible, perhaps, to do a settlement without full disclosure," says Sadvari at McCarthys tentatively. The risk, however, isn’t really the wife’s - if she later feels she got too little, the fact that the settlement was made without full financial disclosure leaves the husband vulnerable. The courts have shown themselves perfectly willing to reconsider agreements more than a decade after settlement - tow it, Bailey v. Plaxton. Married in 1965, divorced in 1985, Beverly Bailey - represented pro bono by Harold Niman of Niman Zemans Gelgoot - and Alan Plaxton - represented by Stephen Grant of McCarthy Tétrault - were back in the courts in March 2000, to revisit spousal support 10 years after payments, in accordance with their divorce agreement, ceased."

This seems too similar to the financial arrangement Harold Niman allegedly had with Mrs. Dickie to be a coincidence. Is Harold Niman also representing these clients for a larger purpose? You tell me…

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Gender Discrimination in Ontario Family Courts: #1 public policy failure in Canada today

It is really too bad that in a progressive society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms - the envy of the world - that grave injustices frequently occur to parents and children.

Believe it or not, gender discrimination currently exists in Canada's family courts. Many people laugh it off rather than deal with the hypocrisy. Others are simply not surprised.

Ontario is particularly bad. The rules that govern the judges and the institutions that get funding at the expense of forgotten priorities make it so that parents are treated differently because of their gender, and children suffer.

A few weeks ago I wrote how this bias in Ontario could affect Tie Domi and his children in a very negative way. Today, I am saddened by the Toronto Star's article Wednesday suggesting that two children would still be alive if it weren't for such a recklessly patriarchal system.

Canada's family policy and laws have failed and are brutally out of balance. Family policy is Canada's BIGGEST international embarrassment undermining the sheer credibility of our dearest Charter.

Perhaps Dalton could do his part to help reform the laws that negatively affect more than 50% of Ontario's population even though powerful lobbies still demand the status quo.

Family law is a joint jurisdiction: justice is administered by the provinces. At a later date I will focus on the federal responsibilities. For now, this blog is long enough because this article that reports this tragedy is all important and why those who long for a just society must speak up.