Ending the feudal family law system is the aim of C-560 in Canada

Scott Brison,

We urge you to vote for family equality on May 27th. Vote for Bill C-560.

Live Free,
Connie Brauer
1061 Mines Rd. RR2
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone, 902 791 0958
Email, cbrauer@eastlink.ca

From: ‘Glenn at Cheriton.ca’ glenn@cheriton.ca [CEPC_Members]

Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:43 PM

To: CEPC_Members@yahoogroups.com

Cc: EPOC_NEWS@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [CEPC_Members] Contact your MP before May 27th to end the feudal family law system and vote for Bill C-560

Ending the feudal family law system is the aim of C-560

The foundation of British law is the “Magna Carta” which for the first time, effectively restrained the judgment or discretion of the king.

Parents across Canada have organized to reform family law with latest efforts resulting in a bill in Parliament, C560, expected to get a second reading in May, 2014.

In April, 2013, Supreme Court Judge Thomas Cromwell released a report, commissioned by the Chief Justice, which called for a complete overhaul of family courts, bemoaned the failure of 30 years of “reforms” controlled by the legal profession, and slammed family law for inaccessibility, dismal outcomes and creating disrespect for the legal system. The report called for “consensual decisions” by parents.

Bill C560 aims to implement selected best practices from other jurisdictions to encourage parents to make such “consensual decisions”, to reduce conflict and costly legal battles, and also to ensure that both parents have the option of equal time with their children unless proven unfit.

These reforms are long overdue: A joint Senate-Commons report accepted by Parliament recommended shared parenting and equality of parents in 48 reforms in 1998. Every single recommendation was blocked by legal profession vested interests, who make billions of dollars from the current adversarial system.

When legal profession advocate Nicholas Bala says the system needs more “resources” – he means more money. Thus the choice is clear: either taxpayers pour further dollars into the current dysfunctional system, or we implement a selection of practices which have reduced costs to parents and children in other jurisdictions. Those practices make up Bill C560.       

Advocates of the current sole custody system don’t seem to be able to avoid making two claims: that more money to the existing “stakeholders” will fix the system and promoting unfounded prejudicial stereotypes against fathers. The Supreme Court report dismissed the first claim, so let’s examine one of the unfounded stereotypes:

Claims that large number of abusive fathers are gaining custody are belied by research which consistently shows that children are safer with fathers than with sole maternal custody. Social science also shows that joint custody or equal parenting reduces both conflict and abuse outcomes.

It is time to move beyond simplistic gender stereotypes and do what social science overwhelmingly shows is in children’s best interest: keep both parents unless clear proof of unfitness.

To argue over which is more disadvantaged, the “winners” or the “losers” of child custody cases is pointless: let us agree that a child who goes into family courts with two fit parents and ends up with only one is the real loser. Let us agree that legal and other adversarial professionals who exploit that process to line their pockets are the winners, pious claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Bill C560 is a good initiative to reduce legal incentives to remove a fit parent without substantial evidence. In his book, “Equal Parenting Presumption”, custody expert Edward Kruk shows that at least 40% time sharing (preferably 50%) is the key to making real reforms work and improving outcomes for children and parents. Equal time as the starting point means both parents need not fear arbitrary loss of their kids and in practice most often work out their own parenting plan (which need not be 50/50).

A key point of Bill C560 is to define “best interests of the child” as keeping both parents unless one is proven unfit.

The last reforms parents successfully pushed for (1986) included the “friendly parent rule” which was supposed to presume joint custody by giving preference to the parent who would most encourage parenting by the other parent. Judges generally “read out” this provision of the Divorce Act, inserting the presumption that existence of conflict meant they could exercise judicial discretion and order sole custody. Worse, judges often presume that removing the parent seeking joint custody or equal parenting will stop conflict. It is a feudal system when the decision maker has complete discretion/decision rights without any responsibility for the outcomes. Social science research shows that sole custody generates conflict and disadvantages children, yet judges claim this is in “best interests of the child.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Parents say that outcomes from the adversarial system have not perceptibly changed over the last several decades. Vested interests oppose changes since they make money from adversarial divorce and sole custody.

Bill C-560 brings long overdue non-adversarial reforms to a broken system. It should be supported by all members of Parliament as such reforms are supported by over 80% of the Canadian public.

Parents and supporters of these reforms should can call their federal MP and ask he or she to vote in favour of C-560. You can call in to radio or contact other media and make the point that your MP ran on the shared parenting policy in the last election and that your vote in the next election depends on how they vote May 27th for second reading.

Glenn Cheriton, President, Canadian Equal Parenting Council

p.s.  Here are some links to help you support equal parenting reforms:




Posted by: “Glenn at Cheriton.ca” <Glenn@Cheriton.ca>


Another Law Society panel disintegrates- stunning victory for Kopyto, a paralegal

Another Law Society panel disintegrates – stunning victory for Kopyto « Harry Kopyto

In a stunning and unexpected victory, the Law Society (LSUC) Panel scheduled to deal with Kopyto’s good character hearing collapsed on January 10, 2010. Throughout the hearing which lasted from 9:30 in the morning until almost 6:00 p.m., Kopyto argued forcefully that two of the three Panel members against him were under an apprehension of bias.  The main target of his challenge was the Chair of the Panel, Judith Potter, who had a lengthy history of campaigning on behalf of Ontario Bar Association members who constituted the single person firms and other small legal firms that were faced with competition from paralegals directly until they swallowed their competitors.  Ms. Potter campaigned to be elected a Bencher (Director) of the LSUC by calling for paralegals to be prohibited from practice in areas serviced by these small firms.


At the same time when she declared herself biased, Chair Judith Potter also gave the entire Panel’s opinion that another Panel member, Cathy Corsetti, the Chair of the Paralegal Standing Committee which administers the law Harry Kopyto is attacking, was not perceived to be biased.  Potter’s decision was presented as the unanimous opinion of the entire Panel including herself.  However, having concluded that she herself was biased, Potter should no longer have participated in making such a decision.  Her decision to give Corsetti the green light at the same time as finding herself perceived to be biased tainted the entire decision to keep Corsetti on the Panel. It is an astonishing breach of the law.  The full consequences of her action have yet to be assessed.

For the rest of the story, click here.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Stats Can, we need more divorce and family law info!

Dear StatsCan,

We need more information about divorces and family law.

Non custodial parents are victimized, abused and tortured  by the government and denied our parental rights and we need to know how many of us are suffering.

We strongly urge you to do an indepth, long form interview of divorced parents to get the required information.

We need it now and we need it up to date.

We need more info such as the following:

  1. Who get’s custody? Men or woman?
  2. What percentage?
  3. Who pays child support? Men or women?
  4. How much child support do they pay? percentage of income.
  5. How many times must a non custodial parent go to court over the lifespan of the child support? 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 or more?
  6. How much extra ordinary expenses are charged over the lifespan of the child support?  Under $500, Over $500 -$1,000, $1,000-$5,000, $5,000 -$10,000, more?
  7. Who get’s a lawyer? Men or women.
  8. Who pays for the lawyer? Men or women.
  9. Who is forced to pay the others legal bills? Men or women.
  10. Do non custodial females pay child support?
  11. How long do non custodial parents pay child support?   To what age of the children? 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 or more?
  12. Do non custodial parents pay court ordered University fees? Men or women?
  13. Do  custodial parents pay court ordered University fees? Men or women?
  14. Do men have access to affordable lawyers?
  15. Do women have access to affordable lawyers?
  16. How much do they pay lawyers?  $0, $1,000-$5,000, $5,000 – $10,000, $10,000 -$20,000, $20,000 -$30,000, other? Men and women?
  17. Do men get access to their children?
  18. Do women get access to their children?
  19. Do parents have equal shared custody as ordered by the courts?
  20. Do parents have equal shared custody as spousal agreements?
  21. Do you think the family law system is unfair? Custodial parent or  non custodial parent?
  22. Have parents requested a meeting with the Justice Dept over enequities in family law? Male or female?
  23. Did they receive a meeting  with the Justice Dept? Yes or No.
  24. How much government money is put into women’s issues? Family law.
  25. How much government money is put into men’s issues? Family law.
  26. How many children are apprehended by Childrens’ Aid Societies, without parental consent?
  27. How many childdren are adopted out by Childrens’ Aid Societies, without parental consent?
  28. How many children are adopted?
  29. How many children are fostered  out by Childrens’ Aid Societies without parental consent?
  30. How many children are fostered out?
  31. What legal funding has been provided parents?  $0, $500, $1,000, $5,000, other?
  32. What support systems have been provided to assert your Constitutional and parental rights?
And any other question you can think of.
cc Dept of Justice, Canada and NS
cc Non Custodial Parents
Live Free,
Connie Brauer
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS
B0P 1L0
Home: 902.798.5267
Why are we paying child support for a missing 24 year old man,
missing for 5 years????

Kopyto faces Law Society on Tues Sept 28th & Thurs Sept 30th 2010 for the right to practice as Para Legal.

Harry Kopyto

Kopyto faces Law Society on Tues Sept 28th & Thurs Sept 30th 2010

September 22, 2010

When Kopyto shows up at his Law Society (LSUC) hearing in the Museum Room at Osgoode Hall at 9:30 a.m. on September 28, 2010, he will be facing a three-person Panel.  This Panel has, by its abuse of fair and consistent process disqualified itself from dealing with the motion that he has brought in his “good character” hearing to be allowed to work as a paralegal.  What have they done?

  • The Panel Chair Carl Fleck telephoned the LSUC prosecutors behind Kopyto’s back.  Judges are not supposed to speak with parties that appear before them out of court.  What kind of judge contacts one side secretly during a hearing before him?
  • The Panel ordered Kopyto by e-mail to file a massive amount of documents on all his constitutional challenges and motions on only six days notice and without an opportunity for Kopyto to ask for a longer time period.  There is only one word for such conduct: abuse.
  • The Panel ordered Kopyto to pay costs for daring to challenge the participation of Paul Dray on the Panel.  It breached fundamental principles of natural justice by not even allowing him to make submissions on the costs issue.  Has the Panel never heard of fairness and due process?
  • Kopyto is seeking the correspondence of one of the Panel members Paul Dray with the Competition Bureau. He believes that this correspondence is relevant to his constitutional challenge to the Law Society’s taking over paralegals, thereby eliminating competition.  Kopyto’s challenge to Dray’s remaining on the Panel because of his conflict of interest was denied.  In doing so, the Panel Chair Carl Fleck made a statement on behalf of all three Panel members when the rules require Paul Dray to give his own reasons in a separate decision for refusing to resign.  The optics would not have looked good so Carl Fleck ignored the rules.  Is there no shame?

   For the rest of the story, Click Here.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Law firm’s less adversarial approach to divorce saves time, money, stress

Making breakups less painful
Law firm’s less adversarial approach to divorce saves time, money, stress
Mon. Jan 25 – 4:53 AM

The song says that breaking up is hard to do.

But a New Glasgow law firm has taken a unique approach that aims to make the divorce process less expensive, time-consuming and emotionally draining.

“The cost of the old way of doing things is way too high,” said Leisa MacIntosh, a family mediation lawyer with MacIntosh, MacDonnell and MacDonald, also known as Mac, Mac & Mac.

The firm has opened the Family Centre for Conflict Resolution to offer more streamlined, less expensive, faster and less adversarial options for ending a marriage.

“Separation and divorce are more than a legal event,” Ms. MacIntosh said in a telephone interview. “There are human, social and psychological effects.”

As a family lawyer, she saw first-hand the toll that conflict takes on young people when their parents separate and the bitterness that divorces create.

“No one wins. It hurts the family, it costs too much and it takes too long.”

Believed to be the first of its kind in the province, the centre assesses the needs of the families seeking legal counsel and then assembles a team of experts to create a settlement that suits both parties.

Read More Here