Debtors Prison for Deadbeats: a Nuclear Bomb for women who choose divorce?

Last night I arrived in Toronto from Montreal. I did not plan to write a post, however, on my way to my first appointment this morning, while driving past Queen’s Park, I changed my mind and I took a detour to the Lakeshore and I shot some “views”, including the one attached.

The situation is this: most of us assume that if we play be the rules, we should be able to avoid our being put in jail. After all, if we work hard, act responsibly and honour our commitments, there should be no problems, right?

Sadly, history has shown there are noble causes perhaps where ultimately and in retrospect the State looks foolish or self-interested. When Cassius Clay / Mohamed Ali was put in jail for avoiding military service in the US, this represented a class / race struggle with respect military service that led to change and the objective of racial equality. There are also situations of injustice because of blatant racial biases, such as Nelson Mandela’s life in prison as a result of decisions made by discriminatory governments in South Africa trying to prolong a very unjust status quo. In these cases the State had no regard for equality or human rights and no qualms about locking up certain persons to perpetuate the self-interested agenda of the State or those who represent the State. This is how these decisions are now judged by history.

Well, this week I discovered that Canada’s judiciary may one day be seen in a way similar to how we lament the previous lack of integrity by the US and in South African governments. Because some of the worst family policy in Canada comes out of Ontario (as well as Supreme Court Justices who have the worst “discrimination ratings”) when it comes to the likelihood of women winning and men losing decisions they adjudicate, my hotel in downtown Toronto is the perfect place for me to explain why all men (even those who never foresee them being affected by a divorce) should be on alert.

This week’s Exclusive interview with Dr. Kenneth Dickie from exile in Bahamas

Did anyone else hear the exclusive radio interview with Dr. Ken Dickie on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa hosted by Ottawa lawyer and mediator Ernie Tannis? For those interested in exploring which situations in life could lead to one being wrongly incarcerated, I recommend your requesting a transcript.

In this interview, Dr. Dickie broke his silence about his family law case, following much media hysteria in recent weeks celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision about “deadbeat dads”. This was followed by Olivia Chow’s ignorant comments in the House of Commons this week blaming “deadbeats” for child poverty in Canada. Dr. Dickie finally told his side of the story. More than ever, there is no doubt in my mind term “deadbeat” is a euphemism placed in our terminology to legitimise gender biased public decision making by certain governments and the judiciary.

What’s this all about?

Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon and alleged “deadbeat dad” who lives in the Bahamas. He was officially placed in exile two weeks ago by the Supreme Court's decision 9-0 to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal would not hold Dr. Dickie in contempt for not putting up $250,000 in financial security for the education of his grown children because his claims that he cannot pay had not been heard by the Court. The Supreme Court says that doesn’t matter, so now there is jurisprudence saying that matters of civil contempt when information is still missing by a respondent are now punishable by jail. This is unbelievably bold jurisprudence because matters of criminal contempt would never result in jail under similar circumstances.

Now, Dr. Dickie will be put in jail if the Canadian authorities actually get their hands on him. He has lost his passport, which prevents him from leaving the Bahamas. And, perhaps most importantly, the State has made an example out of him personally so that all Canadian men who might consider getting married and/or having children one day should be on alert that any failure to “pay up“ if one‘s marriage ends up in divorce could mean jail.

Rightly or wrongly, decisions like this should cause a decline in the number of marriages and the number of children who are born. Furthermore, because individuals do not have exclusive control over whether their marriages work or not, it might also be prudent for all married and divorced men to now practice how to prudently and defensively pick up the soap in the shower. Or at the very least to be completely safe, just make sure you never drop that soap again.

Why doesn’t Dr. Dickie not just put up the ‘freaking’ money?

Even if it is ‘way over the top’ to put people in jail for civil matters, why does Dr. Dickie just pay? Could it be true that he cannot? Also, was he always a deadbeat? Did he ever pay for his kids?

Apparently, Dr. Dickie and his ex-wife signed a separation agreement at the time of the divorce in the early 1990s that made him responsible to pay her $1.25 million dollars over 10 years plus a $120,000 educational account for the kids. Both parties had sought independent legal advice at the time.

He contends that he paid his ex wife the agreed $1.25 million and the $120K for the kids education. He also claims that after making all these payments and after the ups and downs of his plastic surgery business in both Canada (which he shut down) and now in the Bahamas, he does not have the money/ equity to secure with a bank a “guarantee” to pay in security another 250K for the future education of children.

If it has been 15 years, how old are his kids? A deal is a deal, right?

Dr. Dickie was one month away from having fulfilled that separation agreement when his wife’s legal counsel sought to re-open a ten year agreement on the eve of its completion. After receiving monies from her ex that amount to what many people don’t earn in a lifetime, Mrs. Dickie retained Toronto family divorce lawyer, Mr. Niman, who went after more money to pay for the education of Dr. Dickie’s children. By this point, his kids were all in their late teenage years and early twenties. Some of them had jobs, even though the mainstream media covering the story continues to publish pictures of Mrs. Dickie with young children leading most readers and viewers to believe Dr. Dickie left his family in the lurch.

Dr. Dickie’s lawyer, Rochelle Cantor, explains that Dr. Dickie’s children are now all in their 20s. They have been in and out of school, they all have “trust funds” set up previously by Dr. Dickie to pay for their education. They have all been close to being adults since before Mrs. Dickie sought to reopen the separation agreement - for example, at least one has taken 6 years to pursue 3 year degrees, etc; and another is travelling the world in lieu of attending school using monies from savings and a “trust fund” to fund the experience.

Mr. Niman by reputation is a lawyer who specialises “lifestyle family law“. Some call this the exclusive practice of helping wealthy, sometimes angry divorcees take their ex-husbands for everything they are worth. Because collecting legal fees on a contingency basis is not accepted practice in Canada, Mr. Niman allegedly took on Mrs. Dickie’s case pro-bono. After all, further jurisprudence in family law that would create even more incentives for women to divorce would logically help Mr. Niman’s practice. Would this be an alternative way for Mr. Niman to recover fees in the future for the time put into Mrs. Dickie’s case?

Well apparently, Mrs. Dickie also declared bankruptcy, which, if he were to choose, would have allowed Mr. Niman to write off “paper receivables” from his income tax . So, it seems Mr. Niman not only may pay less tax to Canada and Ontario by representing Mrs. Dickie, he got very valauable jurisprudence (for someone who practices this kind of law) by the Supreme Court of Canada preserving and extending the profitability of his genre of law in the future.

To top it all off, federal monies allocated to the Status of Women funding paid for Mr. Niman to take this case to the Supreme Court. This dangerous jurisprudence was funded by the Legal Education Action Fund (Leaf) which was set up in 1985 following the Charter to push for equal rights for women.

The irony is, this decision makes Canada less equal for men who are “totally exposed” if they choose to marry or to have children. Therefore, federal monies were used to put the interests of women forward at the expense of men who become divorced, which is arguably when advocacy monies become a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The “Nuclear Bomb” for Women and continued profits for the legal industry

According to Rochelle Cantor, one of Mr. Niman’s arguments to the Supreme Court in pleading for them to allow for this jurisprudence via the Dickie vs Dickie case, was that it “gives women a “nuclear weapon in matters of the family”.

Does anyone else have trouble with how this has developed? What is the real point of all of this? Is this really about poor Mrs. Dickie, who is currently working as a nurse in Alberta? Or, is this about those deprived Dickie children who are grown, who have trust funds barely depleted and who are either working or have been in an out of school this entire millennium?

Or, is this about feeding the pockets of the legal industry who have more tools to terrorise further the lives of those men who end up getting divorced, their second families and the children of second families?

After my previously posting this and this about gender bias by our judiciary, I am starting to wonder whether the politicisation of judicial appointments and the controversy surrounding this issue currently raised by the Liberals about the Conservatives does not need to be looked at more holistically. Previous judicial appointments by Liberal governments are failing it seems and are no better than the anticipated results from the current process proposed by the Conservatives to select judges.

If judges individually or collectively make decisions while on the bench implicitly or explicitly because of their own preferences, way of viewing the world, or a subliminal desire to indirectly facilitate more future business to the legal industry at the expense of gender equality, human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the whole system (as well as those currently presiding) requires a complete overhaul.

Bad news, good news Charest: how do Quebec Liberal fortunes translate federally?

Voters in the Province Quebec have very different ways of determining who to vote for at election time. Left-right ideological distinctions between parties come second to how political parties view Quebec's role within Canada.

The provincial Liberals vary greatly as far as who they shadow federally and whether their ideologies more closely resemble federal Liberals or federal Conservatives. Jean Charest, a former federal Progressive Conservative, is the only federalist option for Quebecers. Some say his party has moved way right, which will not stop left leaning federal Liberals (who live and vote in Quebec) from voting for Charest, even if there is an ideological disconnect.

The Parti Quebecois, led by the controversial Andre Boisclair, is traditionally a left of centre party and is known to have traditionally supported very good social policy consistent with the ideological centre of Quebecers (apart from the language issue). At voting time the PQ attracts support by those who seek sovereignty and some soft-nationalists (who seem to go back and forth between the Liberals and the Parti Quebecois) depending upon political climate in Quebec at the time in relation to Canada and how important ideology is in relation to federalism and Quebec culture at any given time.

The ADQ led by Mario Dumont has sought to find a place in the midst of this federalist -separatist debate. Dumont is arguably the most dangerous of the three, even if he is not looking for Quebec to separate. He is attractive to Quebecers who believe in the 'melting pot' and protecting Quebec traditions, language and culture in a united, albeit, a very decentralised Canada. Dumont is going after the rural vote on promises that he will strengthen and protect traditional Quebec culture and values via a Quebec Constitution. The resolution to ban hejabs in Herouxville, Quebec on behalf of Muslim women is seen as a "shot across the bow" on behalf of the protectionist thinking Dumont is spreading.

A provincial election in Quebec is anticipated to be called this week by Premier Jean Charest. What makes it scary for federal Liberals that Jean Charest have governed since 2003 according to the conservative style "bad news then good news agenda". Even though Premier Charest has been behind in the polls for almost his entire term in office, he seems poised to win a March election because his recent good news strategy has worked, as have political tactics, strategy, a superior organisation and good timing. The PQ, the only party of the others that conceivably could challenge Charest to govern Quebec, does not seem ready for an election and recently lost its lead in the polls to Charest's Liberals.

Charest seems to be just getting stronger now that his "good news agenda" has reached 'full speed'. Today Charest launched his election platform. In it his government takes credit for honouring a promise to improve health care. Charest also promises personal tax cuts if re-elected.

What does this mean for Liberals federally? Are Quebec Liberals more like provincial "Conservatives" because they have that latitude to manoeuvre from the left to the right and back without losing their core support? Do federal Liberals naturally gravitate to the provincial Liberals because of ideology or is it just to protect federalism?

What should federal Liberals be hoping for in Quebec? Do Charest and Harper have a plan to help each other to continue governing?

Following an election victory will Charest be deploying his 'organisation' in Quebec to help Harper's Conservatives win more seats federally. Or, will provincial Liberal organisers help federal Liberals, the federal Conservatives or neither depending upon who is running in which ridings (and what deals can be struck?)

It would be nice to know that any assistance provided by federal Liberals to provincial Liberals will not indirectly be helping Harper. Both seem to be quite good at tactics and strategy.

It is too bad that these ‘smoke and mirrors’ approaches both federally and provincially in Quebec will play such a large role in who gets elected in different jurisdictions in 2007.

In the end I trust 'good ideas' will prevail over tactics, manipulation, and 'matters of timing' in deciding who governs next federally.

Part 2: Dion's Plan: are all Liberals 'tous ensemble' on our running more women?

On Friday I wrote about a backlash against Stephane Dion's plan to run more women in the next federal election by some questionable characters. Joan Bryden's CP story was picked up by some of the print media and it opened the door to some dissent. Questions were raised by some Liberal bloggers who seemed to be having trouble with Stephane Dion's plan, even though any perceived 'in fighting' does not bode well for the next election. Nevertheless, these things can happen and can still be of no consequence if they live for a few days and then go away.

At first, I thought this might have to do with Stephane Dion reserving the right to appoint, where necessary. Then, I thought this might have to do with some ambitious Liberal men who might find themselves being passed up right now for nominations, thus making Stephane Dion's July 2006 promise to run women in 33% of ridings in the next federal election a bitter reality. After that, I started to see some dissent from Liberal men whose time has not yet come where they could run, but who feel threatened that Dion's follow up to his promise might thwart their political ambitions in the future.

What does Michael Ignatieff think? I would like to know because he, like all the leadership candidates, made a policy. Michael's promise described here was to run 25% women candidates and the next election and 35% women in ridings where there is no incumbent or where the incumbent is not seeking re-election. So, Mr. Ignatieff had committed to running slightly fewer women than Dion, but he still set firm quotas nevertheless.

Unfortunately, I am starting to see a pattern on the part of former Michael Ignatieff supporters from Stephane Dion's home province. For example, after multiple subtle shots at Dion's current challenge to run women in 33% of federal ridings, Antonio at Fuddle Duddle makes public on Liblogs this conservative blog by 'blogging tories' Chuckercanuk complaining about this same issue (for a CPC audience).

Does this overt promotion of dissent elsewhere stop with Antonio or does this also represent the attitudes of other former Ignatieff organisers? What about their elected mentors? Do Mr. Rodriquez and M. Coderre quietly support this type of seeming dissent by Antonio because of their own private ambitions? Are they in 'love' still with and would prefer as leader Mr. Ignatieff? Does a failed Dion attempt to govern make Michael the 'heir apparent' and is this what these mega organisers would prefer for next time?

Before going too much further down the road towards an election (which will mean allot of hard work), I would like to know who I can count on and who I cannot. Where does the dissent start and where does it end?

So, in the spirit of leadership, I think it is essential that Michael Ignatieff make a statement in support of M. Dion's plan for women in the next election to show we are really 'tous ensemble'.

Thanks Antonio. The last thing we really need is another albatross within the Liberal party because your nose is 'out of joint' still. We are either 'tous ensemble' or not. To mitigate the damage the onus is now on your 'idol'. There have been rivalries in the Liberal party for too long and it is very important that we promptly 'nip this one in the bud'

Many thanks Dr. Dickie… for setting the rest of us back even further

There was plenty of media coverage yesterday about Dr. Kenneth Dickie, the plastic surgeon who moved to the Bahamas with his new wife in part to escape child and spousal support obligations. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (like they often do on child support issues like here because of this) that Mr. Dickie be held accountable and it looks like he is f-cked if he ever returns to Canada.

Thanks for the bad publicity, buddy… there are many of us who are working hard to fix a broken family law system that caused you to bolt. Now, the myth of the “deadbeat dad” is alive and well it is also “top-of mind“. Special interests who lobby hard for the need to have more and more enforcement of child support unnecessarily will use people like you to further their arguments.

On the other hand, from a policy perspective, there is an argument to be made that your departure from Canada, from the lives of you kids, job and friends could be viewed also as evidence that family policy is broken. After all, one measure of a successful policy is the extent to which those who are served and affected by policy comply with it voluntarily.

Dr. Dickie, either you are the ass that those who strategically use the euphemism “deadbeat” want to portray you as, or you discovered what many men themselves affected by family policy have already discovered : that the formula used to calculate child support according to the tables is based on flawed principles that not only make it unaffordable, make it so that it also benefits higher income mothers at the expense of lower income and who really need it. Why? The women’s groups who inputed into the process to create the tables focussed on mostly on themselves and the needs of higher income earning mothers, like lawyers.

Some say this issue is all about the money and to preserve the flow of monies from men to women, often inappropriately.

How are the tables out of whack and what are the signs that this arguably corrupt policy design process created an incentive (or no other choice) for Dr. Dickie to flee the jurisdiction and become a fugative on the run? What would Tie Domi think now that he has felt the intrusiveness of this system?

Here are the top five:

1. Where child support was previously tax deductible for fathers and income for mothers, in 1995, a Supreme Court decision changed this. Rather than making child support tax deductible for fathers and income for children (the intended recipients) which would make it tax free under $8600, the government did a tax grab and shifted the tax burden to fathers squeezing many even further.

2. Where child support is supposed to be for children of divorce to maintain their lifestyles in a way similar to how they would evolve in an intact family, the income of the mother is not taken into account by the child support tables - so the burden of paying for children lies solely on the father even if the mother’s income is higher (except in Quebec where the difference in incomes between mothers and fathers dictates the table calculation which is arguably the correct interpretation of the policy). Furthermore, these monies are paid to the mother who often use it to litigate against the child support paying father to selfishly keep him away from the children.

3. Child support according to the tables does not consider that in divorce families have to increase the number of homes supported by the same incomes from one home to two. Therefore, non-residential parents expenses go up because of the cost of housing, transportation infrastructure, and spending money for activities on weekends when the children will typically visit that is not considered when the table amounts were set.

4. Child support obligations can get in the way of non-residential parents being able to enforce access to their children, since a lack of federal policy makes it so that there is no non-litigious way to enforce access to children where a primary caregiver arbitrarily “denies it“. The cost of bringing a motion or a trial can become inaccessible for many who are already stretched to the limit by artificially high federal child support table figures.

5. While monies spent on litigation to collect child support are tax deductible while monies spent on litigation to enforce access are not. Family Responsibility Offices (FRO) are already there to enforce child support, with the power to remove driver’s licences, garnish bank accounts, incarcerate fathers and now, in Ontario, post the pictures of “deadbeats” on the internet. These same deadbeats (assuming like the State seems to do they are in the highest tax bracket) are paying 1 dollar to the lawyer and 1 dollar to the tax department to enforce access with their children via the courts. There is no institutional support for fathers enforcing access, notwithstanding that the FROs provide free enforcement to those who collect child support, 90% of whom are women.

There are many other indicators of failed and even gender biased policy, but this is not my point. My only other substantive comment is that the only way this case got to the Supreme Court was via advocacy funding from the Status of Women who give money to the Women’s Legal Action Fund (Leaf) to support litigation on issues such as this.

What about the 37.7% of fathers who don’t see their children because enforcing access for many men (with all these child support obligations a need to rely solely on slow, expensive and arguably biased family courts) is simply unaffordable? Proponents of change say there is just not enough money to do everything and financial support paid to mothers trumps relationship support for child/father relationships every time.

Also, with zero funding support from “Leaf” type organizations, is the administration of family policy also gender discriminatory on the basis of who gets funding and who doesn’t? Does the government have a role to play to help men in enforcing the frivolous denial of access by women who do it because the system is broken and they can without consequence? Or, does the State have an obligation to create institutional support to enforce child access much like other institutions previously set up to help enforce child support?

Yes, I am really pissed at Dr. Dickie, but for different reasons than those persons who like to use the words like “deadbeats”. At the same time, I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees that corresponding rules that affect child support (a policy for women because of how custody is awarded) and access (a policy for men because of how custody is awarded) are out of balance.

Is Dr. Dickie is a complete “ass” who deserved to be divorced, shamed, ostracised by society, aliented from his children and also locked up because he is cheap and doesn’t give a "rat’s ass" about his children? Or, were the financial obligations too much? Is it this that forced a man who was once respected and admired to go away in a form of "exile"? Is a system set up by and for wealthy (lawyer) women with access to billions of dollars in advocacy funds to lobby governments too out of balance for persons like Dr. Dickie to live comfortably in Canada?

Readers, you decide ...but please remember, it could also happen to you.

Dion’s plan: Tory media and self-interested Liberals show their stripes

A self-interested backlash?

As someone who has written about gender discrimination against men frequently, I was surprised by the uproar in the media and on the blogs today about Stephane Dion’s plan to field more women candidates in the next federal election. After all, M. Dion announced in July that as leader he would run 33% women candidates in the next election. He also expressed a willingness to use the power of appointment if necessary to ensure that women can run in winnable ridings.

What is the big deal now? Much of it was driven by conservative elements in Canadian media. However, there has also been criticism by some Liberals. Are complaints about gender discrimination against men on the issue of political nominations about self-interest by ambitious male Liberals? Is this backlash because some men feel they have been left out this time in spite of merit, or that their “time has passed” now that quotas have been set?

Much of the time I am out there alone on the issue of gender equitability (on certain issues pertaining to the family). I have frequently argued that men are not treated fairly by family courts. When I released to the blogging community on New Year's Day a new report showing gender discrimination against men on the part of all 22 Ontario Court of Appeal judges, where were these people who were today taking issue with Dion? Is this proof that many some people are apathetic to blatantly unfair practices that they do not foresee ever affecting them?

Is it right what Dion is doing?

About Dion’s approach, I agree with the objective of gender equitability for both men and women. The House of Commons should be no different. Stephane is focussing on reaching his 33% objective for now preferably by nomination (but also by appointment where necessary). How much progress has been made in the percentage of women sitting in the House in the 25 years that have passed since the adoption of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Should the pursuit of parity in Parliament be sought more aggressively in order to elicit results more quickly? Are we behind schedule?

You’ve come a long way baby, or have you?

Proponents like me who are seeking change to Canada’s child custody and access system would argue that reverse-discrimination against men exists in the way custody is awarded. I am also the first to admit that on issues affecting women (other than family policy) such as pay equity and top job opportunities in politics or elsewhere, women are still not at par with men.

I am aware though that that progress for women has been made over the last 100 years. When my 95 year old grandmother was born, women still could not vote and were not even considered "persons". Even if there has been much progress, the lack of parity in Parliament is telling. I am not surprised there are still gender problems. Along with a lack of parity comes the question as to whether our political leaders have an obligation to intervene when necessary to encourage a Parliament made up of members representing the demographics of Canada. All Liberal leadership Candidates brought forward a plan to help more women sit in the House next time. I was very impressed with Ken Dryden’s Action Plan for Women in Public Life.

Am I a hypocrite, or are you?

With all that being said, I am a hypocrite if I complain that there is gender discrimination in how child custody is awarded if I don't recognise that 20% of women in parliament is too low. This is simply "residue" that is left over from a time when patriarchal principles dominated who could work and be fairly paid and what roles parents played in their children's lives. Arguably this is also evidence that the State has not done enough to create appropriate conditions for true equitability on either front.

Part of the problem is that issues of the family have been allowed to remain discriminatory against men and second families because of who profits currently from the status quo. Ironically, predominantly male decision makers (lobbied largely by special interests and by the legal industry) use gender discrimination against men on issues of divorce and the family as a "token issue" that tends to offset the many areas where women still come up short. Who benefits most from this, it seems, "trade off" of mutually discriminatory practices affecting different elements of both genders in parallel and in different ways.

The best part of Dion’s plan

The best part of Dion’s plan is that it could solve two problems at once. It should serve to increase the number of women representing federal ridings in the House of Commons. The plan may also help to evaluate and set the agenda for changes to the Divorce Act that would alleviate aspects considered by some to be gender discriminatory against men.

After all, Dion as prime minister commits to subjecting “all government policies and programs moving forward undergo a thorough gender analysis to evaluate their impact on men and women in Canada”.

This proposed process should identify and remedy family policy in Canada that currently discriminates against men. This will be as much a victory for those who yearn for a fair and just society as will be gender parity in Parliament.

(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!

"Court Orders" versus "Common Sense": how can we reconcile our child custody policies?

It has been a strange December with respect to battles over the custody of children involving both Canadian and American jurisdictions. First, Myriam Bedard has been in the news for weeks for having abducted her 12 year old daughter, Maude, her arrest in the United States on an international warrant, and her continued detention in a Maryland jail.

Now, a 49 year old American woman has been arrested in Ottawa for not returning her 17 month old twins to the couple in North Carolina who had adopted the twins at birth. The mother, Allison Lee Quets, had visitation rights as a custody battle following the adoption this year from December 22 to December 24th. Ms. Quets and the twins were discovered in Ottawa after Custom officials confirmed the place and time that she had crossed into Canada from the United States.

Ms. Quets now claims that she agreed to give up the twins under questionable circumstances. She says she had panicked and made the wrong choice because of her insecurities about adequately being able to take care of the babies, but changed her mind 12 hours after their birth. The parents adopting the children refused and a custody battle has emerged. Unlike many jurisdictions, the laws in North Carolina do not provide a grace period for mothers who plan to give up their children at birth to change their mind.

Orders of the court are the supreme measure of what is right and what is wrong in cases such as this. It is the same if the children involved were instead someone's property. However, because we are talking about children and not just property, should we consider whether the State also has an obligation to use some "common sense"?

In Canada and in the United States, family policy affects in some way close to 50% of the population. Most involved agree, family policy is cumbersome, inequitable and inaccessible, and also one of the most profitable areas of law for lawyers. This is in spite of the fact that decisions made in by an "inadequate system" directly affect the lives and futures of our society's children and their families.

Some argue that the current system is gender discriminatory: patriarchal principles that have been abandoned otherwise or are considered to be inappropriate in other aspects of life remain at the heart of policies surrounding custody, child support and child access.

From a policy perspective, a primary sign of a failed policy is when those who are served and affected by policy choose not to comply with it voluntarily. So, whether it is Ms. Quets who risks everything to be with her children, or a non-profit father's group who shuts down a bridge in Montreal (to protest fathers collectively not having appropriate access to their children), those who set the agenda should take note.

Since the 1990s changes to our family policies have been in the queue. Federal reports in 1998 and 2002 called for such change. What if those recommendations had been implemented? Is possible we could have avoided these situations? These are clear signs of failed family policy.

Of course, there are other priorities from year to year. And, special interests continue to profit from how the system is set up now. However, there comes a time when those setting the agenda need to consider what policies within their jurisdiction and responsibility are most acutely out of balance, and act on them for the sake of our striving to have a "just society".

I trust that by the end of 2007 we will be able to count on Canada being a more equitable and fair society because those setting the agenda will choose to do what is right for children, women and men from all types of families.