How long since Canadian Parents Denied Their Parental Rights?


GUARANTEED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law on April 17, 1982.

Male and Female rights were guaranteed by Sect. 15.1 Equality Rights and Sect 28 of the Charter.

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.

Section 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

However, since that time no family has been safe from torture by the Canadian Government and the Divine Right of Judges.

Judges have unlimited power to torture parents and families and ultimately destroy them.

This clock shows how many days of Slavery in Canada for all families.
Countup Clocks, Canada Day Countups at

Warning! Nova Scotia and Canada is not safe for Families!


Canada’s Judicial system is unsafe for Families.

The legal system totally discriminates against one parent and rewards the other parent.

The judges are not happy until they have completely destroyed the non custodial family and the children.

Canada’s legal system has violated the following  against our family.

Criminal Code Violations

Allowed and endorsed:

Canadian Criminal Codes

  1. 22.(1)  Person counseling offence
  2. 126.(1) Disobeying a Statue.-
  3. 127.(1) (a) Disobeying a court order. – Paulette Harris
  4. 131.(1) Perjury-Paulette Harris
  5. 137  Fabricating evidence. –Paulette Harris
  6. 138 (b)  offences relating to affidavits. -Paulette Harris
  7. 139.(1) (a) Obstructing justice. -Paulette Harris
  8. 140.(1)c Public Mischief- Paulette Harris
  9. 265.1(a)  Assault- Paulette Harris
  10. 269.1 Torture -Every official or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of an official, who inflicts torture on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years  Torture means any
  11. act or omission by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.
  12. (iii) Intimidating or coercing the person or a third person and
  13. For any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
  14. 298.(1) Defamatory Libel- Paulette Harris
  15. 302.(1) Extortion by Libel -Paulette Harris
  16. 322. (1)(a) Theft-  Paulette Harris
  17. 346.(1) Extortion-  Paulette Harris
  18. 380.1(a) Fraud- Paulette Harris
  19. 426. (1) Secret Commissions – Hidden agenda
  20. 463 (b) Accessories to a crime
  21. 465.(1)(c)Conspiracy- Paulette Harris
  22. Divorce ACT- Right to vary 17.(1)
  23. (4) Where either or both former spouses to whom a child support order relates do not agree with the amount of the order as recalculated pursuant to this section, either former spouse may, within thirty days after both former spouses are notified of the recalculation in the manner provided for in the agreement authorizing the recalculation, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order under subsection 17(1).
  24. Violation of  GUARANTEED  Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
    1. Sections, 7, 8, 12, 15.1, 24.1, 28, 31,32 & 52
  25. Violation United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    1. Articles: 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12, 16.1, 17.1,17.2,25,26.3,28,29,30
  26. Violation of all Parental Rights- Paulette Harris
  27. Parental Alienation and loss of affection- Paulette Harris

These crimes were committed by Paulette Harris against Victor Harris, the Dad, over a long period of time and still continuing today.

These crimes were fully endorsed and ordered by court order by the judges. Numerous judges have continued fraudulent child support and extortion, torture and discrimination for no legal reason.

These crimes are still continuing relentlessly.

Connie Brauer

Wife of Victor Harris,

assault victim and victim of judicial abuse.

Originally posted on Occupy the Courts, The Civil Rights Movement For Equal Rights to our Children!:


If anyone has experienced a problem with a child protection worker anywhere in Canada, your experience with the worker can now be publicly registered to inform other Canadians of your experience.   The registration website is at  Currently registration forms are on line for child protection workers but registration forms for lawyers, judges and other family court related professionals will be put on line as they are developed.  The identity of those who submit names is kept confidential although you must open an account and request that your account be verified by someone from Canada Court Watch.  Verification will avoid child protection workers signing up and giving themselves recommendations to skew the results.  Search tools for the site will be activated as all bugs in the programming are worked out.

Vern Beck,

Canada Court Watch

Canadian Registry for Public Accountability


View original

We want our children for Christmas. Where are they? Are they Dead or alive?

Media Release.
Is he Dead or Alive??
Connie Brauer and Victor Harris of Falmouth, NS want to find their children for Christmas. Victor Harris has been
deprived of all information of his own children’s (who are adults now) whereabouts for most of their lives
and especially since 2005. The court orders and the Divorce Act allow for maximum contact but it is systematically ignored.
Divorce Act.
Maximum contact
16.(10) In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of
the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests
of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom
custody is sought to facilitate such contact.
On Dec. 10, 2005, his youngest son William Harris, reached the age of majority and the exorbitant
child support should have stopped.
The judges, however, jumped into high gear and ordered the Dad and Mother to pay for William’s own
private apartment while he had a part time job. This lasted for a short while and then he went missing.
We have not seen or heard anything from him since 2005.
The police won’t look for him. The judges won’t question the mother, Paulette Raymond and she will
not answer any questions about them. Multiple Interrogatories, a legal document, have been ignored.
Mr. Harris paid child support for a missing adult man for 6 years. All money went to Paulette Raymond.
Not the son.
In 2007, Mr. Harris applied for termination of child support, again! Chief Justice Joseph Kennedy ordered the Dad to
pay $10K surety within 30 days, before he or anyone else
would hear the case. That means pay child support for the rest of our lives, until we die. We are retired seniours living
on a fixed income. We don’t have $10K. This amount is three or four times more than a charged murderer needs to pay
to be released on bail. This is extortion!
Paulette Raymond finally stopped it on her own, after we filed an Appeal in Supreme Court of Canada in 2011.
No judge and no court terminated
child support for a missing adult man, despite numerous applications and Appeals.
MP’s get a grip! This wicked witch hunt for paying parents must stop! Do your job. Sound the alarms.
Get off your ass and do something.
This carnage must stop. It is highly illegal, abusive, discriminatory and totally unconstitutional.
This issue needs to rock the House of Commons! If you don’t, we will!

Divorce and tax rules still maintain an uneasy balance | The Chronicle Herald

Divorce and tax rules still maintain an uneasy balance | The Chronicle Herald.

Divorce and tax rules still maintain an uneasy balance

December 16, 2011 – 6:17pm By ROGER HAINEAULT | FISCAL ENDEAVOURS

Sometimes the tax rules lag behind the reality of the situation. Once again, a glaring example of this was imparted to one of our clients this past week.

You might have heard that sometimes marriage leads to divorce. And often there are children involved. Back in the day, the most common situation when there was family breakdown, involved dad leaving the household while mom stayed in the matrimonial home caring for the kiddies. And he usually made some payment that represented a combination of alimony and child support.

The most basic principle of tax policy is that of balance. If one party is taking a tax deduction for some payment, the other party must be including that same payment into their tax calculation. Seems logical, right?

Someone drives for a living and deducts the cost of the gasoline he or she puts in their tank while the oil company includes that payment for that same gasoline in its sales revenues as taxable income.

Anyway, back to our stereotyped example. Dad would pay mom some agreed-upon amount every month and at the end of the year he took a tax deduction for it while she had to include it on her tax return.

The caveat was that the dad could not make any dependant claim for a child in which he was providing support for — in effect negating the opportunity to take a double deduction.

Then in 1995 the Supreme Court held in Thibaudeau v. Canada that including support as taxable income was not a violation of equality rights. The notion of the case was that Suzanne Thibaudeau found it unfair that her higher-income ex-spouse was entitled to deduct his payment to her (and incidentally enjoy a larger tax savings because of a greater marginal tax rate) while she had to support herself and the children at a lower income point and not even enjoy the full payment benefits since it was taxable and resulted in less net dollars to spend caring for the household.

In 1996, the federal government brought in a budget with a number of changes in this area that ultimately resulted in the system we enjoy today. Now support payments are neither deductible nor taxable.

But there is an unfair element.

Today, shared custody is the gold standard. Often we see the separated parents running households in the same neighbourhood with the children shuttling back and forth on a weekly basis, to minimize disruption to their lives. The Child Support Guidelines provide the parties with a mechanism to determine the support payment.

Take, for instance, Bill and Mary. Bill earns more than Mary and the guideline states that Bill should pay Mary $900 and Mary should pay Bill $700 a month. Their two children are in a shared custody arrangement where they live 50 per cent of the time in each household.

If one takes a moment to think about it, the cost of upbringing these children over the course of the year is for the most part split — half the food is consumed in each home and so on. The guideline dictates that Bill pay to Mary $200 a month — the differential.

Mary claims one of the children for the Amount for Eligible Dependant — a significant tax credit. The other child should be eligible to be claimed using the same rule by Bill, since effectively this is the most equitable position, and it’s not the same child being claimed twice.

But the rules do not allow for any personal dependant credits to be claimed for a child in which you make a support payment. Made sense when you were taking a tax deduction for that payment, but not today.

So Bill incurs an additional tax bill of almost $2,400, which realistically means a couple of hundred bucks a month less for the kiddies.

Roger Haineault is with Tax Filers here in HRM. His column appears Saturday.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.