JUSTICE CANADA: AN ABUSIVE SYSTEM

Alimony or spousal support for more than one year and child support for non-paternal children is a unconstitutional servitude against men.

The editors of civilrightsblog.org interviewed the defendant in the following highlighted case, reviewed his documents, and decided to post the unsettling description of his unfortunate experience in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada.

Socialism or Communism … but Certainly not Democracy!

The couple was married in the fall of 1987.

In 1991 the defendant filed for legal separation and Master William McCallum was assigned to hear the case.

The defendant, living in another province while undergoing cancer treatment at the time of the filing and then eventually in another country at the time of the hearing, did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel.

During the hearing, Master McCallum deemed that the two children of the plaintiff from a previous relationship -- now known as  JOANNE GRACE HILTON aka JOANNE GRACE KEDDY of Prince George, British Columbia, Canada -- were “children of the marriage” of the defendant, apparently so child support could be ordered.

In addition to the “children of the marriage” ruling, after reviewing the defendant’s duly filed income statements, McCallum decided to accept Hilton's verbal statement of the defendant’s income – which was based on ONE year in which sale of the defendant’s business drastically skewed revenues -- and ordered $1,500 a month to be paid in child support and alimony. At the time, the plaintiff had an income of only $13,000 a year.

The natural father, Maurice Webb, was living in Ontario at the time and was not ordered to pay any additional support. Mr. Webb’s obligation was a total of $100 per month for two children.

It has not yet been discovered in any documents how Master McCallum decided the basis for child support or how the alimony was calculated.

Based on the defendant’s 1991 filing, the couple was legally divorced in 1992. The plaintiff, however, filed for divorce in 1997 in British Columbia, Canada. Under International Law, this is considered Double Jeopardy and therefore illegal.

According to the defendant, Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) of British Columbia, in an attempt to collect the outstanding child support and alimony, knowingly falsified and certified documents in an attempt to collect child support. FMEP did not check the validity of the plaintiff’s claim, but relied on the plaintiff to supply “change of status” notice. The plaintiff knowingly failed to do this and then this was allowed and justified by FMEP. No charges of supplying false documents are or were filed against the plaintiff. Neither are contempt of court charges for perjury filed against FMEP in British Columbia.

The names of the individuals falsifying records and perjuring themselves at FMEP of British Columbia are CATHI BASHI, Enforcement Manager, and DIANE COURSER, a commissioner for taking affidavits for the British Columbia FMEP. 

In 2005, the defendant filed an appeal in this matter in British Columbia, Canada. Historically, this type of case is almost always reviewed by the filing of affidavits. However, upon supposedly reviewing the case, Justice Owen-Flood decided the case would be handled best by trial. Thus, a case built on affidavits and uncorroborated verbal statements by the plaintiff would now have to go to trial at considerable cost to all concerned. Causing additional unnecessary financial burden – especially after the plaintiff perjured herself -- is a harsh justice, especially to a defendant disabled with cancer.

Here is additional irony: the government of British Columbia is mandated that trials be reduced because of the already considerable burden on its courts. Further, Master McCallum is part of the task force supposedly dedicated to reduce unnecessary hearings and trials, making obvious the ridiculous public whitewashing that the government of British Columbia purports to support for its constituents. Despite documents and words to the contrary, the government continued to create its own nightmare by increasing court time and cost to the defendant because British Columbia courts had allowed fabricated allegations and false documents by the plaintiff. 

Editor’s Comments: Let the Male Spouse Beware!

·         In Canada, when a man marries a woman with children from a previous relationship, that man will be responsible for the children if that marriage ends in a divorce. The paternal father and the stepfather will pay forever … there are no statutes of limitations. Courts in Canada have never overturned a child support order, even if the man is not the natural father.

·         If you do not take care of a child in your home, you will be charged with neglect. If you take care of a child and you divorce, you will be charged with child support. This is double jeopardy and illegal, apparently except in Canada!

·         Where the spouse against whom a child support order is sought "stands in the place of a parent for a child", that spouse may be liable for child support forever.

·         A court in Canada can appoint any number of stepfathers to pay child support forever. This gives a woman a fixed pension for life from as many as three, four, or even five court-named parents.

·         If a man disagrees with the Master’s or Judge's order -- heaven forbid that he would – jail time is a possibility and all assets and pensions, whether old age, disability, or Canadian Pension Plan, can be seized and turned over to the female.

·         So you are not a child’s natural father and you believe this wouldn’t or couldn't happen to you? Believe it … this could! But, you say, Canada has paternity tests … DNA will prove your case! Yes, DNA can do so, but the courts can have a nonpaternal father declared an additional father. The Canada Divorce Act states a stepparent "may" have the children deemed "children of the marriage". In action, British Columbia, Canada changes the word from “may” to “will” even though it is not written that way in the law books … just a judge’s opinion. In essence, this sounds politically fine but in reality it gives the provinces free reign to charge nonparents with a child support burden. And, because child support is such a political and sociological “sacred cow”, no one will contest this idiocy proclaimed law, nationally or internationally. Even the Hague is silent on this matter and refers matters back to the country of origin. But, you note, Canada has signed into the Hague agreement. But what is the value of the agreement in principle when, in action, you perpetrate fraud on the world?

·         Does Canada's Charter of Rights allow that a defendant’s rights are violated with this type of child support obligation? Yes! But the government of Canada states that it will not intervene in these matters because it wrote the law in the first place. Canada leaves it up to the provinces to interpret and administer this law. The Federal government of Canada creates the law but does not review if the act is abused!

The Sad Conclusion

It's time Canadians take a stand and tell the Justice system to wake up and recognize the reality of the unjust nightmare it has created. But Canadians, unlike other citizens in other countries, can be likened to sheep being led to the slaughterhouse. Nobody speaks up if it is not happening to him or her!

When given the facts, support orders should be calculated based on actual income and not a Judge’s or Master’s whim or opinion. Even though Canada claims that it uses a family member’s income reports for calculating child support and maintenance, this is not the case in reality and any official statement by Canada to the contrary is an outright lie.

To pass the obligations of a natural parent to a non-parent -- for whatever reason -- is not justice and is not in the public interest. It is a crime … and a crime perpetrated by the government of Canada! To have a life destroyed by a country with a democratic face and expect other countries to enforce abusive, ridiculous child and family support orders is not democracy … it is anything but.

How many lives have been – and will be destroyed by this type of legal injustice by a country that claims it is democratic?

International Irresponsibility

The Hague Conference on Private International Law, which at one time was a bastion of protection for human and civil rights abuses, will not review child support and family maintenance abuses by countries. Is this because they know that abuses exist and they don’t want to find countries in contempt of civil rights? The only thing the Hague is interested in is how countries can enforce each other’s maintenance obligations. In this case, does this constitute the end justifying the means? You decide … visit The Hague.

The Hague would serve the international community better by standardizing what constitutes the legal definition of a child for the purpose of child support and not allow misguided bureaucrats and judges in Canada to define a child “a child of the marriage.” Further, The Hague should demand that family maintenance and child support be paid based on fact, and not opinion. The term “children of the marriage” was coined by Canadian bureaucrats to give validity to a judge’s order regarding children that are not paternal children.

To contribute to or comment about the content of this site, contact the editor at editor@civilrightsblog.org.