Judge resorts to ridicule to defuse the rage. We need more judges like this

Faced with warring ex-spouses besieging one another with threats and verbal abuse and dragging their children into it too, Ontario Superior Judge Joseph Quinn resorted to the only tool he had left - a highly unusual verbal roasting.

"Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud," Judge Quinn began a recent judgment that has gone viral in the family-law community. "Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment. The source of difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred."

Judge Quinn's 31-page decision boils over with the frustrations of a family-law judge who is called upon time and again to referee bouts between couples who were once in love. He even takes a shot at family law itself, saying that spousal support is "the roulette of family law - blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional."

And he anticipates criticism of his tone: "The parties repeatedly have shown they are immune to reason. Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last resort."

In a novel twist, Judge Quinn granted the wife, Catherine, sole custody of the feuding couple's 13-year-old daughter. However, he ordered Larry to pay Catherine just a dollar a month in spousal support.

Judge Quinn expressed disgust with the way Catherine has induced her daughter to detest her father. "The harm is irreparable," he said. "Generally, it is unwise to place an immature 13-year-old in charge of her life. Here, however, Catherine and [her current partner]have engineered an alienation that is so complete as to leave the court with no feasible option."

Toronto lawyer Phil Epstein, an expert in family law, describes Judge Quinn as a respected jurist who was justified in ridiculing the couple. "I'm sure there will be some who criticize Justice Quinn for this," he said. "But others will say that sometimes you have to step back and laugh at the foibles of mankind."

Family law judges spent their time dealing with inflamed litigants whose stories are "highly conflicting and replete with inappropriate behaviour and misconduct," Mr. Epstein said. "They use the courtroom as a forum for all the wrongs that have been done to them in their marriage. It is not surprising that some judges try to find a better way to help resolve their problems."

Alternating caustic gibes with amusing observations, Judge Quinn portrayed Catherine - a 36-year-old school caretaker - and Larry, a labourer, as vile, foul-mouthed creatures who had burned through an enormous amount of police and court time waging their futile blitzkrieg.

He said that they cannot attend their son's ball hockey games without erupting into loud conflict, and that Catherine once tried to run over Larry with a van. "This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart," Judge Quinn remarked dryly.

On three occasions, a niece of Catherine's who is engaged to a Hells Angels biker called Larry to warn him that he would be shot dead, Judge Quinn said. "On Oct. 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added," he remarked. "According to Larry, 'Catherine's sister-in-law yelled out her window that I was going to be floating in the canal dead.'"

Judge Quinn said that Larry, 38, possesses "a near-empty parenting tool box," and was fond of venting his anger by sending Catherine insulting text messages and giving her 'the finger' as he drove by her home. "A finger is worth a thousand words and therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words," Judge Quinn added.

Catherine gave her children "advanced animosity-tutoring," and repeatedly denied Larry access to them, Judge Quinn said. He said that on one occasion, Larry and his daughter were thrown out of a McDonald's restaurant because she was yelling that he was 'a deadbeat.'

"This is language she would have learned from Catherine," Judge Quinn noted. "They are the result of persistent, behind-the-scenes brainwashing by Catherine."

He said that Catherine also warned the children several times that if they attempted to telephone their father, they would go to jail. She also once text messaged her daughter while she was on an access visit with Larry to ask: "Is dickhead there?"

Judge Quinn said that he foolishly called a four-month hiatus during the trial in the hope that Larry and Catherine could benefit from mediation. "It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.

Representing yourself in family court

Representing Yourself at Your Family Law Trial – A Guide

Use the PDF version for a print copy.

July 2012

Representing Yourself at Your Family Law Trial in the Ontario Court of Justice

This is intended to help you represent yourself in a family law trial at the Ontario Court of Justice.  Please be aware that this is basic information.  It is not legal advice and it does not cover every situation that may come up in your trial.

Hiring a Lawyer and Legal Aid Ontario:

Family law is very complex.  If you can, it is extremely important that you hire a lawyer to ensure that your rights are protected.  If you can’t hire a lawyer for your entire trial, you should consider consulting a lawyer for specific issues.

You can get referrals to a lawyer from the Law Society Referral Service at the Law Society of Upper Canada at 1.800.268.8326 toll free or 416.947.3330.  The Referral Service will give you the name of a lawyer within or near your community.  The lawyer will give you a free consultation of up to 30 minutes.

You may qualify for legal assistance from theLegal Aid Ontario.  You should know, however, that you must qualify financially in order to receive a certificate to hire a lawyer.  Legal Aid Ontario also provides advice counsel at the family courthouses that may be able to give you some advice before you go to court.  Legal Aid Ontario also provides duty counsel who may assist you on the days that you are scheduled to appear in court for case conferences or motions.  Both advice and duty counsel will give you 20 minutes of free advice regardless of whether or not you are eligible for legal aid.  However, they will not represent you in court at a trial, settlement conference or trial management conference.

Before Your Trial:  Disability Accommodation and Interpreters

Disability Accommodation

All Ontario courthouses have accessibility coordinators for people with disabilities.  If you have any questions about a courthouse’s accessibility features or if you or one of your witnesses needs accessible court services, contact the Accessibility Coordinator at the Courthouse.  You should speak to the Accessibility Coordinator as soon as possible and as far ahead as possible before your case begins.  You can obtain more information about courthouse accessibility on the Ministry of the Attorney General’s website athttp://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/commitment_to_accessibility.asp

Interpreters

If you or one of your witnesses requires an interpreter for a scheduled court date, immediately inform the judge as far ahead as possible and advise the court office where your case is scheduled to be heard.  The Ministry of the Attorney General provides interpreters for those people who qualify for a fee waiver, are French-speaking or need visual language interpretation or if the Court orders an interpreter.  You can find more information about interpreters on the Ministry of the Attorney General’s website athttp://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/interpreters/request.asp

The Family Law Rules

It is important that you are aware of theFamily Law Rules and follow these rules during the trial.  Rule 23 of the Family Law Rules is the rule for evidence and trial of a family law matter but there are other Family Law Rules that you need to be aware of when you represent yourself.  You should read the rules carefully.

Throughout this Guide, you will be given information about the Family Law Rules and the Family Law Rules forms.  You can see the rule and the forms on the Ministry of the Attorney General’s website.  Go tohttp://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_990114_e.htmfor the Family Law Rules and http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/english/family  for the Family Law Rules forms.

Family Law Legislation

It is very important that you are aware of the relevant family law legislation that governs your case.  The Family Law Act, theChildren’s Law Reform Act and the Child Support Guidelines are the main pieces of family law legislation.  You may find the legislation at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/navigation?file=home

Before Your Trial: Things to Consider

Offers to Settle

Offers to settle are very important in family law cases.  You or the other party may make an offer to settle to the other side at any time in the proceeding.  An offer to settle can be about specific claims or all of the claims in the case.  In order to be eligible to receive full recovery of your Court expenses, however, an offer to settle must be made at least seven (7) days before the start of the trial.

The offer to settle must be signed by you and your lawyer (if you have one).  If the offer to settle is not signed, it may be considered invalid.

The offer to settle may include a time limit.  This means that you may state that the offer is no longer valid after a certain date and time.  If you are including a time limit, make sure that it is part of your offer.  If the offer to settle does not include a time limit, it remains valid until the judge gives a decision about the claim(s) in the offer.

The offer to settle must be kept confidential from the judge hearing the trial (or motion) until the judge has dealt with all the issues in dispute, except for costs.

To accept an offer, a party must serve an acceptance of the offer on the other party.  The offer must be accepted before the judge begins to give a decision about the claim(s) in the offer.

There may be costs consequences if a party does not accept an offer to settle and the party who made the offer obtains an order from the judge that is as favourable or more favourable than the offer.  In order for this to happen, the offer must be signed, it must be made at least seven days before the trial, it must not expire or have been withdrawn before the trial begins and it must not have been accepted.

For more information about offers to settle go to rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

Costs

Costs are also an important part of a family law case.  A judge will decide if you and/or the other party should pay the legal costs of going to court.  Under the Family Law Rules, the successful party is usually entitled to costs.  The judge will consider a number of things when deciding if the successful party should receive costs, including whether or not the person has acted reasonably during the trial.  In determining costs, the judge will also consider whether or not a party had made or accepted a reasonable offer to settle the case.

If a party does not appear at court or is not prepared at court, the judge may order costs against that party.

The amount of costs may range from a small amount of the costs to full recovery of the costs of the court process, including the trial.

Before Your Trial:  Trial Management Conference

Before you start a trial, you will have seen a judge a number of times.  One of your appearances will be the trial management conference.   The Trial Management Conference is intended to get everyone ready for the trial.

The purposes of a trial management conference can be found in rule 17 of the Family Law Rules.  There will be specific things that the judge will talk about with you and the other party.  These things include who the witnesses will be at your trial, what evidence will be presented at the trial, how much time will be needed for the trial and, possibly, setting the trial date.  Therefore, bring a list of your witnesses, what you expect your witnesses to say at the trial and a list of the documents that you will rely on at the trial to the Trial Management Conference.  You must also estimate the amount of time that you will need to cross-examine the other party’s witnesses.

You will need to fill out a form called a Trial Management Conference form (Form 17E)and file it and serve it on the other party beforethe Trial Management Conference.  If you are the Applicant, you must serve the form on the other party and file it with proof of service at the Court at least seven (7) days (including weekend days) before the Conference.  If you are the Respondent, you must file and serve the form at least four (4) days (not including weekend days) before the Conference.  Bring a copy of the form with you to the Trial Management Conference.

You should be aware that your trial will be limited to what you have asked for in your original documents.  For example, if the outstanding issues in your original documents are custody and access, you may not add support as an issue at trial.

If you need an interpreter or accommodation for a disability at trial, make sure that you let the judge know about this at the Trial Management Conference.

Also, if you want to use a medical or other professional report at the trial, you must confirm with the judge at the trial management conference that the report may be used at the trial.

Before Your Trial: Getting Ready for Trial

Your Witnesses

During the Trial Management Conference, you will discuss your witnesses and their evidence with the trial management judge.  At this Conference, you must bring your list of witnesses, what you expect your witnesses to say, and the list of documents that your witnesses will bring with them to trial.

When you are preparing for trial and you want a family member or a friend to be a witness, you should ask the family member or friend to come with you.  If you want to ensure that your family members, friends or other witnessescome to the trial as witnesses, you will have to fill out Form 23: Summons to a Witness.  This form must be served on the witness and filed with the court.  If you are using Form 23, you must pay your witness for every day that the witness is required in court.  You will find the witness fee in rule 23 of the Family Law Rules.  The witness fee must be served on the witness along with Form 23: Summons to a Witness.

You should only call witnesses who have information that will help the judge decide your case and is relevant to the orders that you want the judge to make at the trial.    You may also call witnesses who have information that goes against the other party’s case.

It is important that your witness tells the truth.  With some exceptions, the witness can only tell the court about evidence that they know themselves, not what other people have told them.

You should meet with your witnesses before the trial.  You should tell them that they must tell the truth regardless of how the evidence may affect you.

Tell your witnesses to bring documents that support your case with them.  If you use Form 23: Summons to a Witness, you should list the documents that you want the witnesses to bring with them.  Bring the original and at least four copies of the documents to court.  The original document is the one that should be filed with the court.

Financial Statements

If support or income is an issue at trial, before your trial, you must update your financial statements.  Look at rule 13 of the Family Law Rules for the rule about updating your financial statements.

You must file and serve your last three tax returns, your last three notices of assessment and your last three pay stubs from your employer.

If income is an issue, you may be required to bring relevant and necessary documents which support your income.  If you are self-employed, you must file and serve your most recent statement of business affairs.

If you are not working, you should file and serve a detailed list of your job search or provide information about why you are not working.  The list of your job search should include the date that you submitted your applications, the name of the employers and the address and phone numbers of the employers and the date that they responded, if they did respond.

If you are the applicant, you must serve and file your updated financial statement at leastseven (7) days before the trial.  If you are the respondent, you must serve and file your updated financial statement at least four (4) days before trial.

Documents

Documents that you want to use as evidence must be the original document, genuine, necessary and relevant to your case.  They also must be true.  The documents may include bank account records, report cards, real estate documents, etc.  The judge will make a decision about whether you will be able to use the documents at your trial.

It is important that you or one of your witnesses identify the documents that you will use at trial when you or your witnesses testify.  For example, one of your witnesses might identify a letter that they received.  Once the documents are identified as genuine by your witness, they must then be relevant and necessary to your case.

Do not forget that you must disclose all documents that you want to use at trial to the other party before the trial.  If you do not disclose them, you will not be able to use them at the trial unless the judge tells you that you can use them.  Rule 19 is the rule about document disclosure in the Family Law Rules.

Medical Reports

In some cases, you may want to have a medical report as part of your evidence at the trial.  There are specific rules regarding this.  If you want a medical report as evidence in the trial, you must get your doctor to write and sign a report.  You must then serve a copy of the report on the other party at least ten (10) days before the trial. You must also get permission from the judge to file the report with the court at the trial management conference.

You can serve the other party with a “Request to Admit” (Form 22 of the Family Law Rules) along with the doctor’s report when you give a copy of the medical report to the other party.  If you do this, and the other party does not serve a Response (Form 22A) within 20 days, the facts in the Request to Admit are deemed to be true, and you may be able to  avoid calling the doctor as a witness to tell the court that the report is real and written the by doctor.

For other professional reports, you should refer to the Ontario Evidence Act for the law regarding these types of documents.  You can find the Ontario Evidence Act at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/navigation?file=home

Trial Record

Up until your trial, you and the other party will have used a continuing record for the documents.  You may not use the continuing record for the trial.  Instead, you must prepare a trial record.  You will find details about how to prepare a trial record in rule 23 of the Family Law Rules.

Please note that if you are the applicant, the trial record must be served on the other party and filed in the courthouse at least thirty (30) days before the start of the trial.  If you are the respondent, you may add any documents that are not already in the trial record to the trial record and serve these additional documents on the applicant and file them with the court at least seven (7) days before the start of trial.

What Should I Do If I Can’t Attend Court On A Scheduled Date?

Once the court sets a trial date, you are expected to go ahead with your trial.  Asking the court to change a scheduled date is called an adjournment.  Adjournments will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.  If you need to change the date of your trial, you need to fill out a form called a 14B Motion form, serve it on all the parties and file it at the courthouse.  If the other party agrees with an adjournment, you can say this on the form.  You should be aware that the judge may not agree to the adjournment even if the other party agrees to it.  If the other party has not agreed to the adjournment, you or your lawyer must go to court on the date that was originally scheduled and explain why you need an adjournment.  It is important that you know that a judge may order costs against you or the trial may proceed without you, if you fail to appear in court on the scheduled day and time.

If there is an emergency that prevents you from attending court, contact the courthouse as soon as possible so that the court staff can tell the judge that there is an emergency and that you are asking for an adjournment.

What Should i bring with me to my trial?:

You need to bring the trial record and any documents that you added to the trial record with you to trial, including your updated financial statements.  Look at rule 13 of the Family Law Rules for the rule about updating your financial statements.

Bring enough copies of every document with you to trial so that every person and the judge has a copy of them.  The original should have been filed with the court.  If the original was not filed with the court, bring it with you.

Bring several pens and lots of paper with you.

Bring your witnesses with you.

Your Trial:

• Always be respectful and polite to everyone in the courtroom, including the other party.
• When you address the judge, use either “your Honour” or “Justice” before the judge’s last name.  For example, you can say, ”Justice Smith” or “Your Honour”.
• You must stand when a judge enters or leaves the courtroom.  When you are speaking to the judge, you should also stand.
• When you are speaking to a witness, you should use either “Mr.”, “Ms.” or “Doctor” and not use their first names.  For example, you can say, “Mr. Smith” but not “Joe”.
• Court is usually open from 10:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.  The court usually takes a break for lunch at 1:00 p.m.  There will also be a break in the morning and in the afternoon.  These hours may change.  The judge will determine if your case starts earlier or later or ends earlier or later.  Please make sure that you and your witnesses are on time for your trial.
• Make sure that you return to court on time after the breaks.
• You should take notes during court so that you may respond to any issues raised by the other party when it is your turn to speak to the judge.
• When you want to speak during the trial, talk to the judge.  Do not talk to the other party.  Do not interrupt when the judge or the other party is speaking.  Only one person is allowed to speak at a time.  If you disagree with something that the other party tells the judge, write it down.  Do not speak to the other party and tell them that you don’t agree.  The judge will give you time to disagree but only when it is your turn to speak.
• If you object to the other party’s questionsto witnesses, besides writing down your objection, you should stand up.  This tells the judge that you have something to say.
• However, don’t stand up if you disagree with the other party’s or the other party’s witnesses’ answers to questions or if you think that the other party or their witnesses are lying.  Just write it down.
• If you can’t hear a witness, the other party, a lawyer or the judge, you should let the judge know.
• The judge cannot give you any legal advice because the judge must be fair and impartial when hearing the trial.  You should consult a lawyer or duty counsel at your local courthouse.  If you have any questions about court procedure during your trial, however, you may ask the judge.
• You may not record your trial unless you first obtain permission from the judge.
• There should be no surprises about the evidence at the trial!

In the courtroom, a judge sits on a dais.  It is a platform that sits at the front of the courtroom.  Also, there will be a court clerk and a court reporter in the courtroom.  Please be aware that a family law case is open to the public.  You may see people walking in and out of the courtroom.   Also, please be aware that everything is recorded in the courtroom.

There are two tables in front of the judge for the applicant and the respondent.  These are called counsel tables.  Usually, the parties sit there with their lawyers.  If you do not have a lawyer and you want to bring someone to sit with you at these tables, make sure that you ask the judge for permission to do this.  However, if that person is going to be a witness, the judge won’t allow that person to sit with you.  You should try to choose someone who is not going to be a witness.

Be on Time!

It is very important that you and your witnesses show up on time for your trial.  Show up at the court room at least fifteen minutes ahead of time.  If you do not show up on time, the trial could go ahead without you.

Proving Your Case

You must prove your claims in your application (the form that you used to start the case) or your answer (the form that you used to provide a response to the application).  The judges use a test called the “balance of probabilities” to see if you have proven your claims.  This means that your claim must be more probable (more than 50%) than the other party’s claims.

Excluding Witnesses

Excluding witnesses during a trial occurs when one or both parties ask the judge to order that all of the witnesses stay outside the courtroom until they are called to come into the courtroom and give their evidence.  The request to exclude witnesses happens at the beginning of the trial and is done to ensure that a witness does not change his or her testimony after hearing another witness.  If a judge decides to order that the witnesses be excluded from the courtroom, ensure that you do not speak to the witnesses about any of the evidence that has been presented at trial before they testify.  You do not have to leave the courtroom when other witnesses testify even if you intend to testify yourself.

Your Opening Statement

Most judges will require both parties to give an opening statement at the beginning of the trial.  The purpose of an opening statement is to give the judge a roadmap of the issues and the evidence that you will be presenting to the court.  It is not the time to give evidence.  You should only give the judge a summary of what you will be doing and the orders that you want the judge to make.

The applicant (the party that started the case) gives her or his opening statement first.  If you decide to give an opening statement, you should make it as short as possible.  You should outline the orders that you want the judge to make, your most important issues, how you intend to support your claims, the witnesses who you will be calling, and the documents that you will be presenting to the court.

If you are the respondent, you may give your opening statement after the applicant’s opening statement or after the applicant has completed their case.

Do not be argumentative or dramatic during your opening statement.  You want to be seen as reasonable and calm during your trial.

Do not interrupt the other party when they give an opening statement to the judge.  You will be given a chance to present your case when it is your turn.

It is very important to remember that your opening statement is not evidence!

Your Evidence

After your opening statement (if you choose to make one), the judge will start to hear evidence.  Your evidence may come from you, your witnesses or your documents.

If you are the applicant, you will go first.  You can call your witnesses or testify yourself.  You must also produce your documents at this time for the witnesses to identify or that you may identify.  These documents, which can include such things as affidavits (sworn statements), financial statements, letters, photographs, receipts, or reports, are called “exhibits”.

If you are the respondent, you will go after the applicant finishes giving their evidence to the judge.  You can call your witnesses or testify yourself.  You may also produce your documents at this time for the witnesses to identify or that you may identify.  These documents, which can include such things as affidavits (sworn statements), financial statements, letters, photographs, receipts or reports, are called “exhibits”.

Every witness will be asked to swear an oath or affirm that he or she will tell the truth.  Lying under oath is called “perjury” and is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.

Let your witness tell their own story.

You can decide the order of your own witnesses.

If you decide to testify on your own behalf, usually you will be the first witness when it is your turn to give evidence.  If you don’t testify on your own behalf, the other party may still call you as a witness for their case.   If you testify on your own behalf, you may be questioned by the other party (questioning by the other party is called cross-examination).

The other party may cross-examine each of your witnesses.  You may cross-examine each of the other party’s witnesses.

After the other party has cross-examined your witnesses, you may re-examine the witness to clarify matters raised by cross-examination.  However, you may not raise new issues that were not raised during the cross-examination.

Once you or your witnesses testify, you can usually sit down.

Expert Witnesses

There is a difference between expert witnesses such as doctors and therapists or counsellors and other kinds of witnesses such as friends and family.  Expert witnesses can give an opinion based on their expertise.  For example, they can give an opinion about a medical diagnosis.  Your friends and family cannot give an expert opinion.

Questioning Witnesses

There are very specific rules involved in questioning witnesses.  First, the applicant will question their own witnesses (examination in chief), the respondent then cross-examines the same witness, and then the applicant can re-examine the witness.  When it is the respondent’s turn, the questioning of witnesses will happen in the same order.  When each of you finishes questioning the witness, the judge may ask questions of the witness, as well.

If you question a witness that you have called, this is called examination in chief.  You maynot ask “leading questions” in examinations in chief.  Leading questions are questions that have the answer in the question – for example, a leading question could be, “The car was red, wasn’t it?”.  If you ask questions that start with who, what, where, when, why, how, or please describe, it will help you to avoid asking leading questions.

When you question the other party’s witnesses, it is called cross-examination.  You do not have to cross-examine a witness.  However, if you decide to do this, you may ask leading questions.  You should remember that the purpose of cross-examining a witness is to test the truthfulness of the witnesses’ answers and bring out evidence that is favourable to you.

During the cross-examination, you should ask questions about the witnesses’ ability and opportunity to observe the things that he or she is telling the court.  As well, you can question the witness about their ability to give an accurate re-telling of what he or she has seen and heard and whether the witness has any reason to be biased or prejudiced or has an interest in the outcome of the case.

If a witness has made a sworn statement before the trial (called an affidavit) and is saying something different at the trial, you should cross-examine the witness about theirprior statement.  Also, if the witness has said something good about you in the prior statement, you should ask the witness about that, too.  To do this, you should ask the witness if they remember making the statement and swearing that the statement was true.  Then, you should read the prior statement.  Ask the witness if the statement is true.  If the witness says the statement is not true, this will show the judge that the witness is not believable.

After a witness is cross-examined, the party that called the witness may re-examine their witness.  Re-examining a witness means asking the witness additional questions to explain answers that the witness gave during the cross-examination.  This is not the time to introduce new issues that did not come up during the cross-examination or to bring up issues that you forgot.  You may only ask the witness questions to clarify what they said during the cross-examination.

You should remember that questions are not evidence; rather, it is the witnesses’ answers to the questions that are evidence.

Usually, witnesses can only testify about what they have personally seen, heard or did.  There are some exceptions to this such as when a witness is an expert.

Always allow a witness to finish answering your question before you ask the witness another question.

Never argue with a witness.

Objections:

During the questioning of witnesses, you have the right to object to the questions that the other party asks a witness or you can object to the introduction of documents that a witness has identified.  If you object to a question or to the introduction of a document, stand up.  The judge will ask you why you are objecting.  The judge will listen to both you and the other party about the objection and will decide whether your objection is valid.

If you testify:

Since you are representing yourself at trial, the judge may ask you questions during the examination in chief.  You should think about what you want to say.  You should write it out before you come to the courthouse but you should not expect to read your notes when you are a witness.  If you made notes at the time that something occurred, you must ask the judge for permission to look at those notes.  You will need to tell the judge why you need to look at these notes.

If you decide to testify yourself, you must only say what you personally saw, heard or did.

Your Closing Statement

After all of the witnesses have been called to testify, the judge will require that both parties make closing statements.  During closing statements, you are allowed to address the judge and tell the judge what you believe the judge’s decision should be, based on the evidence – your witnesses and your documents.  At this time, you may also point out the problems with the other party’s evidence.

The applicant makes his or her closing statement first.  Then, the respondent makes his or her closing statements.

Your closing statement cannot include issues that have not been introduced by the evidence.

The Judge’s Decision

After the parties make their closing submissions, the judge will either make a decision or he or she will “reserve” their decision.  In most cases, the judge will release their written decision in six months.  When the judge releases their decision, he or she will explain what the decision is and why he or she has chosen to make their decision.

Family Law Trial Flowchart

Opening Statement

• Applicant gives opening address
• Respondent can give the opening address here or wait until they start presenting their case.

Applicant’s Witnesses

1. Direct examination
2. Cross-examination
3. Re-examination (clarify evidence that arose on cross-examination)

Respondent’s Case

Respondent’s Opening Statement

This is only if the respondent has not already given an opening statement

Respondent’s Witnesses

1. Direct examination
2. Cross-examination
3. Re-examination (clarify evidence that arose on cross-examination)

Applicant’s Reply (Optional)

 To address evidence that arose during respondent’s case

Applicant’s Witness (Optional)

1. Direct examination
2. Cross-examination
3. Re-examination

Closing Statement

1. Applicant gives closing address
2. Respondent gives closing address
3. Applicant (only to respond to Respondent)

This post is also available in: French

Copy of the principles of judicial office: how many Ontario family court judges actually follow these principles?

Principles of Judicial Office

Respect for the Judiciary is acquired through the pursuit of excellence in administering justice.

Preamble

A strong and independent judiciary is indispensable to the proper administration of justice in our society. Judges must be free to perform their judicial duties without fear of reprisal or influence from any person, group, institution or level of government. In turn, society has a right to expect those appointed as judges to be honourable and worthy of its trust and confidence.

The judges of the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) recognize their duty to establish, maintain, encourage and uphold high standards of personal conduct and professionalism so as to preserve the independence and integrity of their judicial office and to preserve the faith and trust that society places in the men and women who have agreed to accept the responsibilities of judicial office.

The following principles of judicial office are established by the judges of the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) and set out standards of excellence and integrity to which all judges subscribe. These principles are not exhaustive. They are designed to be advisory in nature and are not directly related to any specific disciplinary process. Intended to assist judges in addressing ethical and professional dilemmas, they may also serve in assisting the public to understand the reasonable expectations which the public may have of judges in the performance of judicial duties and in the conduct of judges’ personal lives.

1. The Judge in Court

1.1 Judges must be impartial and objective in the discharge of their judicial duties.

Commentaries:
Judges should not be influenced by partisan interests, public pressure or fear of criticism. Judges should maintain their objectivity and shall not, by words or conduct, manifest favour,bias or prejudice towards any party or interest.

1.2. Judges have a duty to follow the law.

Commentaries:
Judges have a duty to apply the relevant law to the facts and circumstances of the cases before the court and render justice within the framework of the law.

1.3. Judges will endeavour to maintain order and decorum in court.

Commentaries:
Judges must strive to be patient, dignified and courteous in performing the duties of judicial office and shall carry out their role with integrity, appropriate firmness and honour.

2. The Judge and the Court

2.1. Judges should approach their judicial duties in a spirit of collegiality, cooperation and mutual assistance.

2.2. Judges should conduct court business with due diligence and dispose of all matters before them promptly and efficiently having regard, at all times, to the interests of justice and the rights of the parties before the court.

2.3. Reasons for judgment should be delivered in a timely manner.

2.4. Judges have a duty to maintain their professional competence in the law.

Commentaries:
Judges should attend and participate in continuing legal and general education programs.

2.5. The primary responsibility of judges is the discharge of their judicial duties.

Commentaries:
Subject to applicable legislation, judges may participate in law related activities such as teaching, participating in educational conferences, writing and working on committees for the advancement of judicial interests and concerns, provided such activities do not interfere with the judges’ primary duty to the court.

3. The Judge in the Community

3.1. Judges should maintain their personal conduct at a level which will ensure the public’s trust and confidence.

3.2. Judges must avoid any conflict of interest, or the appearance of any conflict of interest, in the performance of their judicial duties.

Commentaries:
Judges must not participate in any partisan political activity. Judges must not contribute financially to any political party.

3.3. Judges must not abuse the power of their judicial office or use it inappropriately.

3.4. Judges are encouraged to be involved in community activities provided such involvement is not incompatible with their judicial office.

A judge wanting to fix Ontario's broken family courts

Chief Justice Warren Winkler at Family Law Summit

Ontario Court of Appeal Chief Justice Warren Winkler has just completed a impassioned speech at the 5th Annual Family Law Summit at Toronto.

Continuing his call for reform to Ontario's family law system, and underlining his postion that the entire system is broken and needs restructuring from the ground up, Mr. Justice Winkler emphasized the need for change now.

Here are Justice Winkler's key, quoteworthy points (reproduced, in part from our live-tweets):

• The Family law system in Ontario needs reform now. He intended his September 2010 comments as a lightning rod for change to the whole system. He observes that much dialogue has resulted.
• Trend in Family Law: The well-to-do are opting out of the system and choosing private mediation/arbitration; Others going self-rep (up to 70% in Toronto)
• Asks if we are trending toward a two-tiered system? Notes Canadians don't like two-tiered systems.
• Family law system needs affordability, timing, efficiency.
• He proposes "presumptive judicial mediation" as cornerstone of new system..
• Justice Winkler's proposal: Triage Judge to handle cases that can't or shouldn't be mediated. The Triage judge will send an immediate message: It "won't be pleasant" for those acting badly
• Access to justice is a double-edged sword - it can also be used by one party to harass the other. The family justice system should not be permitted to be used to perpetrate wrongful conduct by either party. We must "take the system out of play"
• Under his proposed new system, every court attendance must be meaningful. Must eliminate wasteful court appearances.
• Need system of "one family, one judge"
• Goals of new family law system - Must be cheap, simple, understandable and affordable
• We have "studied" Unified Family Court far too long. Need UFC's across the Province now.
• He is committed to getting this change done now, and asks family law bar to help make it happen.

The abuse men and children face at the hands of family court judges

Canadian Children deserve better than growing up learning to assume that men are violent abusers

Canadian Politicians need to start thinking about what they can do for Canada and not what Canada can do for them.

Canadian Children deserve better than growing up learning to assume that men are violent abusers and a danger to children, the extreme feminist agenda, a doctrine that controls most family court judges, police and that group called child protection workers.

There is no promotion of marriage, only a promotion of marriage destruction, a promotion of the removal of fathers that is destroying Canada with a resulting negative birth rate.

There needs to be a radical reform of family law, child protection law, and a brighter light on equality rights for men and children.

Children don't have legal rights to a mother and a father. Children have no legal right to know WHO their mother and father are.

The only solution, is for DNA testing at birth with parental confirmation by DNA testing. Every man in Canada should be able to have his DNA checked to see if he has become an unwitting father.

Canadian Justice is a sick joke that has more in common with that of 1939 Germany than a real rule of law.

The first start is a total reform of Family Law in Canada based on equality rights, an assumption of equal parenting, and tough penalties for false allegations that feminists encourage.

Then there is the area's of education and social work where men have been made outcasts. In many of those areas, the only men you find are those who are follow the promotion of hatred of men dictated by feminist doctrine.

You fight fire not by blowing the smoke away, but by fire prevention in the first place. In Canadian society children and men have next to no legal rights which requires recognition and radical change.

Across Canada, men have a reverse onus applied to them, an assumption that everything is wrong with them or anything they say because it conflicts with the dogma spouted forth by feminists that indoctrinates the judiciary, police and the most evil of all, the Child Protection Workers of Ontario who have next to no oversight.

Canadian men have similar rights to that of jews being placed in cattle carts on a non stop journey to the concentration camp.

Women are increasingly well educated as to the lack of men's legal rights and know that if he calls 911 because she assaults him, he will be arrested automatically, and a year later, if he is lucky, be found not guilty. In the intervening year, his children have a better probability of being alienated from him.

Men now are afraid of being fathers, they are afraid of women who hold all the power and can have one little finger dial 911 to unleash a war of police, family court, child protection, criminal prosecution, all to ensure his total destruction in the name of feminist doctrine that has more in common with that by the 3'rd Reich than to that mythical charter of rights and freedoms that the Supreme court seem to think needs to apply its gender lens.

Source: OttawaMensCentre.com
awaMensCentr ... attachment


The upside of these events, aside from their informative and much needed content, is the public displays by the extreme left wing acolytes of wymen's (gender) studies programs. It shows the precariousness of their positions, very ridiculous behaviour, and more importantly the paranoia involved.

Those of us who have been dealing with these feminist, nutbar, zealots for many years could sometimes not get others to believe how nutty and fringe they really are. These forums bring them out of the woodwork and on display for all to see via youtube. And they are not all female.

The surge in men's rights initiatives and the feminist backlash

Barbara Kay: Calling all male bashers

Facebook | Twitter | Email | Instapaper


Wednesday, Jun. 5, 2013


On-campus support groups for men are being attacked for 'defending rape' by the usual feminist suspects. AP Photo/Michael D. McElwain

In alarmed response to emerging “men’s rights awareness” groups (MRA) on a number of Canadian campuses, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), a union body representing some 500,000 students, seeks to amend its “Sexual Assault and Violence Against Women on Campus” policy.

The CFS rejects any need of formal fellowship around specifically male issues, alleging MRA groups’ real purpose is to promote “misogynist, hateful views” and to “justify sexual assault.” Simon Fraser University’s recently inaugurated $30,000-funded men’s centre, for example, was demonized as a place to “celebrate hegemonic masculinity.”

What nonsense! The actual benign nature of MRA groups, where both sexes are welcome to discuss male-centred concerns, can be seen in a publicity campaign video of a relatively new organization, which has become a lightning rod for anti-male activism, the Canadian Association for Equality (C.A.F.E.).

The video, titled “Support the Men’s Centre Campus Campaign”, was posted to YouTube on C.A.F.E. channel, EqualityCanadaTV. In it, various young actors, male and female, calmly address the viewer, explaining “their” reasons for appreciating campus men’s centres: genetics-inspired fears of early prostate cancer; help for gays dealing with bullying; worry over disproportionate male unemployment; troubling high school dropout rates amongst boys; the impact of fatherlessness following unfair custody decisions.

If passed, the CFS amendment would endorse official opposition to events “whose purpose is to frighten, intimidate, and/or target women students on campus:” as interpreted by CFS, that means any event addressing any male concerns.

Now it’s personal!

Beginning in January 2012, C.A.F.E. has organized several events at the University of Toronto, featuring diverse speakers, such as York University sociology prof and online journal New Male Studies editor Rob Kenedy, famous sociologue Lionel Tiger, prostate cancer survivor Aaron Bacher — and me!

The first few events took place without incident. True, my Feb., 2012, talk on family court bias against dads was attended by antipathetic feminists tweeting furiously throughout (#feministbashingparty), and the Q&A was, shall we say, animated. But it did not descend into the ugliness that accompanied the three following events, when the adversarial River Bile overflowed its (left) bank.

Angry protesters tried to shut down the event by barricading entrances and exits in contravention of safety codes

Warren Farrell, a Financial Times Top Thought Leader and former Board member of the National Organization for Women, gave a talk at the University of Toronto last November, his innocuous topic the declining success of boys. Yet he was greeted with an inflamed mob representing the whole leftist spectrum: the Socialist Worker Canada with support from CUPE, the University of Toronto Students Unions and the Ryerson School of Social Work.

You can get the flavour of the virulence in a Nov., 2012, YouTube video titled “university of toronto feminist protest 4/4/2013″, where a woman protester, apparently not the least bit “frightened” or “intimidated,” berates those attending the event. It’s known as the “Shut the f–k up” video. You’ll see why.

Angry protesters tried to shut down the event by barricading entrances and exits in contravention of safety codes. Video footage has a spokeswoman asserting event organizers “defend rape, they defend incest, they defend violence against children,” obscene canards all.

C.A.F.E. has been scrupulous in presenting objective, non-inflammatory polemicists of impeccable civility

Setting themselves up as arbiters of acceptable discourse, protesters lied to incoming people, insisting the event had been cancelled. Attendees, men and women alike, who told protesters they merely sought fodder for an informed opinion, were harassed with equal venom.

The evening was a disgrace to the principle of free speech all reasonable Canadians uphold. Since then, two more C.A.F.E. events have required police intervention to handle similar shenanigans, including the ringing of fire alarms and shouting over speakers of the utmost respectability. One was Janice Fiamengo, a thoughtful, soft-spoken English Literature professor at the University of Ottawa, the others were McGill University academics and writing partners, Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson.

Fiamengo spoke from an evidence-based perspective about the inherent man-blaming premises of Women’s Studies, a domain she knows intimately. Young and Nathanson gave a dignified, highbrow talk, “From Misogyny and Misandry to Intersexual Dialogue.” (Their exhaustively researched series of books — Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry and the upcoming Transcending Misandry, invaluable sources for me — are nonpareils of responsible scholarship and lucidity.)

In other words, C.A.F.E. has been scrupulous in presenting objective, non-inflammatory polemicists of impeccable civility (even I behaved myself), all unequivocally committed to gender equality. None hold radical or more than mildly controversial views. By contrast, those protesting their appearance have been immature yahoos, displaying truculence, duplicity, ignorance and boorishness.

If they’d listened instead of protesting, those angry activists might have come to appreciate men’s viable concerns. But acknowledging men’s humanity is ideologically untenable for extremists. It’s sleazier, but easier to keep screaming, “Shut the f–k up!”

National Post