From the Court Documents April 29, 2016 decision

This decision on costs and Spousal Support and Sandy’s words regarding same, will show you exactly what this tug a war for the children is about for her.  Money.  The father has willingly paid his obligation throughout the whole separation.  She just wants more and more and more.  Now I’ll get into the documents.


The trial in this matter took place from March 1 to March 31, 2016.

The court heard fresh evidence on April 7, 2016.

This was the fresh evidence that caused them to make a decision on custody immediately.  Due to the cell phones and the other non-compliance with CFS.

The court pronounced a decision regarding custody and protective relief on findings of contempt charges and the issue of costs were adjourned to a later date for decision.  This is a continuation of that decision.  The court will not repeat the findings of fact and credibility, or the conclusions from the earlier decision, but those findings form part of this decision.

This means that the contempt findings are a part of this decision.  Along with anything financial like spousal support and child support.

Father’s position

The father concedes that the mother is entitled to spousal support but the issues of quantum and duration remain contested.

He admits he has an obligation that he’s been paying, but he doesn’t agree with the amount and the duration that Sandy wants.  You will see why in this post when I get to mother’s position.

The father seeks an order from the court imputing income to the mother somewhere between $25,000.00 and $45,000.00 yearly for the purposes of calculating both child support and spousal support.

She has no children in her home.  She’s capable of working, and she’s capable of making a lot of money as a real estate agent or in many other businesses.  You will see further down in this post or in part 2.  I’m not sure how far I’m typing yet this post.

The father submits that any order of spousal support should terminate after five years given that the parties were only married for eight years.  In the alternative, the father suggests an end date with a review.

Seems fair.  Should she continue getting spousal support indefinitely?  Especially when there’s already been a decision about child custody stating that the father will have custody in the near future?

With respect to costs, counsel for the father has submitted a bill of costs for $70,416.15 to date.  He submits that the mother’s conduct warrants an order for solicitor-client costs.  He also seeks an order against counsel personally.

He’s spent $70,416.15 to date.  Just on the family trial.  That does not include any criminal matters due to the mother’s coaching of M. and crazy antics.

Mother’s Position

The mother seeks an order of spousal support of $5,000.00 per month for indefinite duration.  She asserts that this amount is necessary so that she can continue to live in the manner that she became accustomed to during the marriage.

This is what this is about.  She wanted the kids as her “property” so she could get max child support.  She wants spousal support in the amount of $60,000.00 a year so that she can live in a manner she became accustomed to.  While not working.   Nah.  This is not a 30 year marriage where she was a housewife the whole duration.

With respect to the appropriate disposition on the contempt findings, her counsel suggests that jail is not appropriate because she is a first time “contemptor” or that if the court is considering incarceration, the sentence should be suspended.  Counsel further suggests that the mother should be given time to purge her behaviour.  She asserts that the costs should be assessed at less than Tariff.

The mom should have to pay less, the mom should not be incarcerated.  Even though she wasn’t incarcerated after this order, she has now spent a year in jail and not purged herself of her behaviour.  Her Counsel had lofty ass goals.

Spousal Support

Father’s Income

Basically the father’s income is high.  Sandy the alienator ascertains it’s higher with no documentation to back it up.

Mother’s Income

Basically it’s difficult to ascertain her actual income, but she was running a daycare at one point.  And she provided a spreadsheet that she prepared.  Which should be believed given her past of ahem being honest blatantly lying to anyone that would listen.  She is currently not working, and I will quote from the decision as to why in a bit.

Imputation of Income to mother

In the case at bar the mother was only completely out of the workforce for four years at most of the eight years of marriage.  Both of her children are healthy and attend school full time.  Neither child is currently in her care at least for the immediate future. 

Ahem.  I know that there’s more evidence of her doing real estate, at least in 2009 and 2010.   But she acts like she was a sahm and never working and her husband just “kept her in a life she’d grown accustomed to”.  Groooan.

Since separation the mother has made some efforts towards self-sufficiency as evidenced by the unlicenced daycare.  Further, she had two foster children for a period of time that would have provided her with some income, although she denied this at trial.

More denials that were easily proven to be untrue.

The mother is not currently working or seeking employment.  At trial her position was that she is not even going to think about looking for a job while the litigation is ongoing.  She makes no apology for this.  She made a vague reference to retraining in her testimony but had no actual plan in place.  It did not appear to be a genuine suggestion.

She doesn’t need retraining since all her training is in businesses that can make a great deal of money.  She knew what she was saying was not looking good for her so she resorted to more lies.  Which is what she does best.

The court finds as fact that she does not require retraining given her work experience and existing earning capability.  The mother is an intelligent, capable woman with marketable skills.  She has career options.

The mother has business experience including having owned her own businesses both before and during the marriage.  From the time she was young, she was actively involved in the family business in The Pas.  Prior to meeting and marrying the father she apparently owned and operated a gym in The Pas.  After the marriage and after the birth of M. she owned “Montana’s”, a bridal shop in Winnipeg.  She sold the bridal shop and continued to look for other business opportunities.  In 2012, the evidence is that she went into business with her father and opened Ticky’s Restaurant in Winnipeg.

Can I just take a minute and note how abusive her husband was, letting her become financially successful and all?

The mother disputes that she opened the business with her father and minimizes her role in the restaurant.  Her evidence on this issue is contradicted by the father.  The leasing documents in her name also contradict the mother’s evidence.

The court accepts the testimony of the father, R.S., the grandfather and the restaurant documentation, the totality of which leads to the conclusion that the mother was involved in all aspects of the restaurant from the beginning.  However, it is impossible to ascertain any earnings she may have received from her role in the restaurant.  It appears that the work she performed at the restaurant was on an “informal” basis and no earnings were declared by her from the restaurant.

Of course not.  She’s shown she can’t follow the rules typically, this doesn’t surprise me.


In addition to owning and managing businesses, the mother has been a real estate agent since prior to the marriage.  She maintained her real estate license for a large part of the marriage.  As recently as 2012 there is documentation confirming that she still had her real estate license.  Significantly, since the separation she has chosen to not maintain her license.

She doesn’t want anything to stop her from getting money from the father.  Not even being self-sufficient.

The court heard that in 2007 she earned over $42,000 in annual income from real estate.  She earned this income, according to her, while working from the home and caring for her children.  Given that she does not have any children in her care, she is capable of earning a reasonable living in real estate again if she chose.  Her counsel points out that Cliff King of ReMax said he would not rehire her as she left their firm owing him money.  However, there are many other real estate firms in Winnipeg at which she could work.

Maybe not now since she’s been in jail, but I’m sure someone would give her a shot.  Or she could open up her own.  It could be one of her many businesses.

It is almost three years since the parties separated.  The mother is a qualified businesswoman and real estate agent.  Unlike so many other spouses, she does not need to retrain to become employable. 

The “abusive” husband made it so that his wife could always be well employed.  He left the home.  He left the children in the home.  The only thing he did was petition the courts so that he didn’t have to go through Sandy to see his children.  If you can’t see over the course of these court decisions how unlikely it was that Sandy was the abused party in this matter, you are likely in the same boat as she is and I feel sorry for anyone who crosses your path as well.

In balancing these competing factors in its analysis, the court notes that after the birth of J. the mother appeared to stay home as primary caregiver to the two children until 2012 when the restaurant started.  While involved in the restaurant, she remained as primary caregiver with the father looking after the children in the evenings when she was at the restaurant.

So.  They worked offshift.  Even though she stayed with him because she didn’t want the kids to ever be alone with him.  Hmmmmmm.  She worked off shift like she did the majority of their marriage.

A new significant factor is that the mother no longer has primary care of the children.  In the future she may attain increased time with her children, but there is nothing stopping her from working full time.

The court finds that the mother should by now be contributing to her own support and to the support of her children.  The court is prepared to impute income to her on a go forward basis.  Her gross income in real estate in 2007 was $42096.64 and $34586 in 2008.  She has been on notice of the request to impute income for months.  Still the court recognizes that she cannot transition overnight.

Sandy can’t even transition in over a year, but hell.  Protesting in public and posting bullshit and lies 24/7 on her Punished for Protecting Canada Facebook Group is much more fun than actually being employed in your 40’s.

The court is prepared to give the mother another month to find work.  As of June 1, 2016, it is reasonable to impute yearly income to her in the amount of $30,000 on a go forward basis for purposes of calculating spousal support and child support.  By then, almost three years have passed since their separation.   That is more than enough time for her to have resumed employment.  This amount is less than what she earned working real estate in 2007 and 2008, even while parenting M. Although the mother is capable of earning more than this reduced amount, the court recognizes that it will take some time for the mother to increase her income.

Yet the courts were super unfair to her and LIIIIIEEED.  Because yanno.  Taking her part time income from 2007 and 2008 and making it even less than those, when she has no children in her care is so unfair.

Since I’m hoping to make this all public tomorrow at some point, and I would love to get into some of the events since then.  If you follow Sandy’s group, make sure you keep an eye out, since I’m sure tomorrow will be a very manic and busy day.

The Legislation

Pursuant to s. 15.2(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp.), the court may make an order requiring a spouse to secure or pay such lump sum or periodic sums as the court thinks reasonable for the support of the other spouse.

In making a determination with respect to the issue of spousal support, the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including:

  1. a) the length of time the spouses cohabitated;
  2. b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and
  3. c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

The SSAG guideline range based on the income of the father and the imputed income of the mother should be calculated for now using the without child support formula, as neither parent is currently paying child support.  If calculated including his private practice income, the range is $1,498 to $1,997 (SSAG calculation attached as Appendix “1”).  The court considered a number of factors including the length of the marriage, the recent bankruptcies of both of the parties, the mother’s need and the fact that she has been receiving more than this guideline range for the past two years.  On the totality of all the facts in this case the court sets spousal support at $1,600.00 per month.  At some point it is anticipated that the children will be returned to the father’s care.  When that happens, the payor with custody formula should be used.  The range using that formula is between $1,084 and $1,444 (SSAG calculation attached at “Appendix 2”.  The monthly spousal support amount will be reduced to $1,200 in the month following the return of the children.  In the same month, the mother will begin paying child support based on a Table amount of no less than $30,000 or her actual income if it is greater than the imputed amount, plus her proportionate share of any s. 7 expenses per month.

This is what shows that the ruling is fair.  This judge has patiently looked at all of Sandy’s evidence.  She agrees spousal support is required.  Even though sandy got over 800.00 a month more than the appropriate range in the last 2 years, the judge set spousal support at pretty much exactly in the middle range of the guidelines.  She’s giving Sandy everything she’s entitled to, while being firm about the best interests of the children.  Which is more than Sandy says.

The mother filed a financial statement that was inflated.  Originally she declared expenses of $9708 per month.  After elimination of some of the unrealistic and inappropriate expenses, she claims monthly expenses of approximately $4,700 just for herself (without her legal fees).

Expenses of $4,700 per month for just her.  Yeah, no.  I could see if the kids lived with her.

The mother submits that she should receive $5,000 per month “to allow the mother to enjoy the lifestyle that she was accustomed to at the time of the marriage.”

Given the parties’ financial situation, neither party can live the same lifestyle that they did during their marriage.  Moreover the mother’s submission seems to ignore the SSAG completely and attributes no earnings to the mother.

The mother always earned money.  Less than the father but she always earned a liveable wage.  But she wants him to pay her $60,000.00 a year so she can live a lifestyle she’s accustomed to. Or fly to Ottawa to yell at Trudeau.  I’m not sure which at the moment.


In determining duration, the length of the marriage is relevant.  The mother’s submission incorrectly refers to a marriage of nine years when it was actually an eight year marriage.

Anyone that wants to live the easy life forever?  Just marry someone that makes a good living, stay with them for 8 years and then demand a payday of $60,000 a year in SPOUSAL SUPPORT when it doesn’t work out.  For life.  Because that’s reasonable.

Counsel for the father asks that the court set an end date for spousal support and suggests that an appropriate length of time would be five years for their eight year marriage.  The range in SSAG for an eight year marriage is between four and eight years.  The mother seeks an indefinite order.

Indefinite.  She’s really against any guidelines or being fair in any way isn’t she.

An end date is an attractive proposal as it would allow both parties to plan their future affairs with greater certainty.  It also would be in keeping with the principle of proportionality as it attempts to eliminate the need for future litigation.

However on these facts, there remains too much uncertainty to set a definitive termination date.

If she was so unfairly treated, why is the judge not going for the more attractive proposal?  Why is that Sandy?  Because you actually weren’t unfairly treated and were lying through your teeth?

The children are in the care of Child and Family Services (CFS).  It is not known for how long.  It is not known if either parent will be asked to pay child support to CFS while they are in care.

When the children are returned to the father, the mother will pay child support to the father.  It is not clear what role this mother will play in her children’s lives on a go forward basis.  It remains uncertain how rapidly or if the mother’s income will increase from the imputed income of $30,000

She’s already said she will not look for a job during ongoing litigation.  She plans to keep this litigation ongoing forever.  It will never go up past $30,000 if the mother has a choice.

Little J. pronounced a consent order on March 3, 2014 for $1,292.31 in child support and $2,800 per month spousal support.  The mother requests retroactive child support now asserting that the child support should have been more because the father’s actual income is greater than $150,000. 

Look how greedy.  She no longer has the kids in her care but expects him to pay her retroactively for when she did and made his life a living hell.  She’s right on this point.  Child support would have been $2,238.40 based on his income.  So he paid less by 946.09.  For about 18 months.  That’s an amount of $17,029.62.  However, your spousal support was paid over the highest guideline by 800.00 for over 2 years.  800* 24 = $19,200.  He’s not asking for a repayment retroactively of spousal support.   Plus you apparently don’t get that you CONSENTED to the order.

This request ignores the fact that there was no determination of income by the court on that date.  For the purposes of that order, the parties agreed to set the father’s income at $150,000 and the mother’s income at $0.00; having negotiated a consent order.  The spousal support that the father paid pursuant to this order was higher than the amount now determined to be appropriate by this court.  Further, the court is unaware of the set-offs, negotiations and agreements that led to the parties settling on these amounts.  Significantly, no evidence was led at trial by the mother with respect to this issue.  The court was made aware of the request for the first time in the mother’s submission.  Given that it was a consent order, no adjustment will be ordered.  (t may be however that if the court were inclined to retroactively adjust the amounts the mother might owe the father.)

That math I just did.  Yup.  She’d owe him 2,200.00.  I also note that you CONSENTED to $4,000.00 a month.  And now you are demanding $5,000 a month to “keep a life you are accustomed to?”  You didn’t even ask for that much when you had the kids.

This was not a long term traditional marriage.  There remains significant uncertainty regarding the future.  In this case the fixed date with possibility of review seems to best recognize the uncertainty of the current situation and still address the principle of proportionality.  Having regard to the facts previously analyzed, the fixed date of five years since separation suggested by the father strikes a fair balance.  Either party may review at that time without the need for material change.

That would be late 2018.  But I’m sure since she’s only employed as a child advocate on facebook that he’ll probably be forced to pay longer.

Contempt Disposition

I tend to avoid retyping other case law that the judge researched to make her decision. So this area may be a slight bit patchy but it’s there.

The available penalties for a finding of contempt are set out at rule 60.10(5) as follows:

(a) be imprisoned for such period and on such terms as are just;

(b) be imprisoned upon failure to comply with a term of the order;

(c) pay a fine;

(d) do or refrain from doing an act;

(e) pay such costs as are just; and

(f) comply with any other order that the judge considers necessary.

She knew the penalties before she did her contemptuous actions.  She doesn’t care.

Contempt can encompass a broad range of behaviours from minor breaches to activity that is actually criminal in nature.  The mother’s contemptuous behaviour was at the serious end of the spectrum.  She hired someone to follow the father – a significant breach of the existing court order that prohibited that behaviour.  Likewise, remaining in the home

where the children were living was a breach with serious ramifications.  From a best interests of the children perspective, it prevented the establishing of a neutral transition environment to help the children move into their father’s care.  Her continued presence in the home undoubtedly increased the emotional distress that the children experienced during the transition attempts.

She doesn’t care about the best interests of her children.  She cares about money.  She cares about the fact that she feels the kids are her property.  And that she feels the father needs to pay with everything he loves.

The mother shows no contrition and no inclination to change her contemptuous behaviour.  At trial her conduct continued to border on contemptuous.  This conduct included yelling at the father’s counsel, refusing to answer questions and inappropriate commentary directed at the court following rulings on objections.  She frequently misled the court in her testimony.  One day, she delayed the opening of court when she was angry with her counsel and refused to come into the courtroom.  She has not attended the last two court appearances.  Her lawyer explained her client’s absence on the last occasion by stating that the mother was refusing to come to court because she thought the court might send her to jail, given the court’s findings on contempt.

So she basically turned this 30 day trial into a 3 ring circus, and acted worse than a toddler.  Props Sandy.  The judge was more than fair to you after how you’ve behaved in and out of her courtroom.

Since her children have been in the care of CFS, the mother has also ignored the Agency Rules.  She has been served a letter pursuant to s.52 of The Child and Family Services Act, C.C.S.M. c. C80, warning her of the possibility of summary conviction proceedings as a result of an incident where the children ran away from the foster home in January, 2016.

Further, the court recently learned that she has had secretive contact with the children on a daily basis since the children have been in care.  All of this suggests that a jail sentence may be in order.  The court’s concern is that sending the mother to jail may only further alienate the children from the father.  If incarcerated, the mother will certainly get the

message to the children that the incarceration is their father’s fault.  This will only hurt their reunification with their father.  Were it not for this concern, a jail sentence would be imposed on the mother immediately.  That is not to say that this court would hesitate to send the mother to jail in the future if her conduct does not change.

Family court isn’t about the Child’s best interests according to Sandy, but look.  She didn’t go to jail originally because the judge was looking out for the child’s best interests.

A financial consequence alone for the mother’s contemptuous behaviour will not be sufficient to garner compliance from the mother; but it would meet the second goal of compensating the father.  He has been bankrupted by the separation and these proceedings.  The children will undoubtedly require ongoing therapy when they are returned to their father’s care.  The money would be of some assistance in this regard.

Still thinking of the children.  Bad judge.  You were supposed to ignore Sandy’s abuse and bad behaviour and give her everything she wanted.

The mother needs to change.  If she does not change she will go to jail.  Accordingly, I order costs to the father based on the contempt of $5,000 payable forthwith.  In addition, I sentence SLG to a period of incarceration of 45 days.  I am suspending this sentence on condition that for a period of three years running from the date of these reasons she shall not breach an order of this court, made in this proceeding.

She was very thoughtful in her decisions.  Too bad Sandy can’t see past her right fighting to see what she is doing.


The bill of costs in the father’s submission shows costs plus disbursements in the amount of $70,416.15 to date.  The father submits that on the facts at hand it is appropriate for the court to order costs above Tariff.  The court accepts the submission of the father that it is appropriate to raise costs above Tariff.

It is.  She derailed the proceedings like crazy.  More becomes known in this section.

The facts here are similar to Budzan, supra (It’s a case she quoted immediately before this paragraph) The court conducted 14 case conferences before the trial commenced wherein considerable effort to settle or at least control the litigation was expended.  Despite this effort, the mother continued to advance an unreasonable position with no prospect of success.

This was an overwhelming case in favour of primary care to the father.  The children were under apprehension from the mother based on CFS’s position that her conduct was emotionally and psychologically abusive to them.  By then, both Family Conciliation and a Queen’s Bench Justice had written to CFS notifying them of their concerns about the mother’s conduct.  In addition, a strong assessment from a highly qualified assessor recommended a reversal of primary care to the father. 

People with a duty to report reported SANDY as being emotionally and psychologically abusive.  If I had read this court decision as Sandy Giesbrecht I would have been incredibly embarrassed about my behaviour.

Counsel for the mother submits that it was the father who forced the issues to trial and that the mother sought to delay the trial until after Dr. Stambrook’s report.  It is true that the mother sought to further delay the father’s motion for custody.  As it was, his motion for increased time with the children had been pending for two years.  It was the court that ordered the trial must proceed after an unsuccessful adjournment request brought by the mother. 

The mother ignores the fact that there was another option rather than compelling a trial that had no hope of success.  She could have ended the conflict, started to follow the recommendations of the experts and started to make the best interests of the children her primary concern.  Instead, over four weeks litigation ensued.

She had options.  She forced the courts hand.  But wait.  It gets even better.

As previously described, the mother’s conduct throughout the trial was vexatious.  The trial process was frequently derailed for unexpected witnesses, irrelevant submissions and argument, and the mother’s inappropriate conduct.  Despite intensive and thorough case conferencing intended to clarify and streamline the already protracted proceedings, the mother’s unreasonable conduct lengthened the trial by several days.  In her submission, counsel for the father submitted a list of actions taken by both the mother and her counsel that were either inappropriate or protracted the proceedings.  The court finds this list to be factually accurate.

She has no ability to protect herself by exhibiting normal adult behaviour. She has become unhinged and scary.

Lastly it is crucial to note that in 2014 the father made an offer of settlement for shared care and control.  The offer remained on the table for approximately a year and a half, until the mother’s conduct was so detrimental to her children that the offer had to be removed from the table.

Now she talks about how shared parenting is a must and to avoid family court.  He basically offered shared parenting until the children were apprehended.  What the fuck was she thinking.

Oh yeah, the desire to rip him away from anything he ever cared about, and suck him dry financially.

For her part the mother asks for a reduction of Tariff in the assessment of costs against her based primarily on her limited means.

It is true that the mother’s finances are limited.  However, she had no hesitation in depleting the father’s finances by compelling futile litigation while he continued to be the primary financial support to both her and the children.

Again this shows her goal was to suck him dry financially.   Such an embarrassing display for someone who now expects equal rights.

On a consideration of all of the above-noted factors, the court is led to the inevitable conclusion that an order of costs above Tariff should be imposed.

Tariff is about 25% of actual court costs.  In case anyone thinks that this is too harsh.  The father is requesting that instead of Tariff, she has to pay the bill of costs submitted by his attorney.

The father request solicitor-client costs.  This court recognizes that solicitor-client costs are reserved for the most egregious of cases.  The mother’s conduct falls within that description.  The court has given consideration to an order of costs at double the Tariff amount.  The only factor mitigating against either of those orders is the court’s consideration of the mother’s financial means.  When the mother’s financial means are considered, solicitor-client costs or double costs, while probably deserved, would leave her impecunious.  Still, there needs to be an increase from Tariff to recognize the outrageousness of her behaviour.  To not order some increase would be an injustice to the father.  This same concession regarding the mother’s means will not be demonstrated by the court if the mother comes back with more litigation with the same lack of merit and malicious conduct.

She really should have read every word of these decisions.  The judge is warning her so eloquently.  She’s basically saying I would throw the book at you, you deserve it, but I won’t because I don’t want to leave you destitute.  But don’t waste everyone’s time and act a fool again.

Accordingly, having regard for all these factors, the court is increasing the costs from Tariff of $70,416.15 by $25,000 (and rounded down for ease of calculation) to $95,000 payable forthwith.  The court recognizes that this increase is not likely to compensate the father for his actual legal costs over the past two and one half years (including time lost from work) and all the other costs such as legal  fees that dealt with the criminal investigation.

Remember.  The father had to defend himself against her horrid allegations.  The father is lucky he was in a place that he’d gotten established in for years, that gave him the leeway he needed regarding employment.

The father asks the court to also consider an order of costs against the mother’s counsel personally, arguing that her counsel’s behaviour also protracted and delayed the proceedings.  Counsel’s conduct did lengthen the proceeding.  Again, this is a remedy reserved for the most unusual cases.

Sandy had already fired on lawyer.  Then she snagged Gisele Champagne.  She knows her stuff, but she has a reputation.  She takes on the most scandalous clients and represents exactly what they want.  She doesn’t try to talk them down at all.  For someone like Sandy Giesbrecht, that’s even more detrimental to their mental health and their level of functioning.

It is clear that counsel followed her client’s instructions, whether they were appropriate or in contravention of the rules of evidence or the law.  She was largely unable to control her client’s behaviour.

Often counsel premised her questions or the calling of unexpected witnesses with the proviso that she “was instructed by her client to do so.”  This comment does not totally absolve counsel of the responsibility to follow the rules of law and evidence.  There remains a duty on counsel as an officer of the court.  However, the court cannot ignore how difficult a client the mother was to deal with for counsel.  As misguided as her counsel’s conduct sometimes was, it was clear that she was being continually pushed and coerced by her client.  Her counsel demonstrated a great deal of patience under very trying circumstances.  The effort that she put forward for her client was noteworthy in the circumstances. 

Ultimately it is the mother who bears full responsibility for both the unnecessary length of trial and her own inappropriate conduct.  The court declines to order costs against counsel personally.

The costs will be the sole responsibility of the mother.

I feel like the counsel should have shared some costs, but that the judge is trying to ensure the mother will remain unrepresented.  Because to have someone as uncompliant as Sandy become a self rep would be even more detrimental to everyone involved.

Set Off

The father’s spousal support obligation has been determined to be $1,600 per month.  There is no doubt that the father will comply with this order.  He has been meeting his monthly financial obligations since separation and the court has no doubt that he will continue to do so.

Conversely, given the mother’s behaviour over the past three years the court concludes that she will not voluntarily pay the costs ordered against her in this decision.  She continues to demonstrate no intention to follow the rules.

The dilemma is how does the court achieve a just and proportionate result?  In this case the court is compelled to consider a set-off of costs payable by the mother against spousal support payable by the father. 

It cannot be over-emphasized that in nay spousal support determination, conduct is irrelevant.  But in reaching a fair and proportionate decision, the mother’s lack of compliance with prior orders is relevant to the issue of a set-off.

Little J. has already ordered a set-off of spousal support against the mother’s umpaid costs in the course of case conferencing this matter.  The mother should have known that the possibility of a set-off of spousal support against costs existed as a potential outcome for this trial.  The father should not now have to incur the costs of additional litigation to collect these costs.  The past three years have demonstrated the stress that litigation has placed on the two children.  More litigation is not in the best interests of the children.

More wrongful judge talk.  Thinking more about the best interests of the children than their emotionally abusive mother.  Bad judge.

Based on the mother’s ongoing conduct, the court concludes that the order for costs resulting from this litigation will simply be ignored by the mother if a set-off is not ordered.  The father will never collect his costs without a set-off payment by the mother. 

To allow the mother to succeed in not paying the costs while the father pays her $1,600 every month in the court’s view is unjust and would erode public confidence in the administration of justice.

True.  Fathers Rights have gotten so much better, and this would derail that progress a bit.

On the issue of set-off of spousal support against costs, the comments of the following courts are instructive. (more case law that I don’t feel like typing)

If the parties choose, after receiving this decision, they could by agreement decide on a complete set-off, i.e. one debt offsets the other completely.   This would mean that no spousal support would be payable by the father from this point on and no costs would be payable by the mother for this litigation.  The problem with this alternative is that in an after tax calculation, the father is actually giving up a portion of the costs for which he is entitled.

For that reason, the court did not order a complete set-off of both lump sums.  The obvious benefit to this alternative though is that it would provide closure to both parties on these two issues.  It would eliminate the need for a review of spousal support in the future and the accompanying emotional distress and legal fees.  It provides a certainty to the parties that the possibility of a pending review does not.  If they both chose to proceed in this fashion, those terms may be included in the order.

Lastly, there will be an order of financial disclosure.  The court orders that financial disclosure is to occur yearly between the parties by May 30th, commencing in 2017.  This is to include both long form income tax returns and notices of assessment.  Further, the mother is to provide documentation within 14 days of obtaining employment of both her employer and her salary. 

There hasn’t been any financial disclosure from Sandy because she’s not working.  Still.  Because ongoing litigation.

Next post will be the events of June, 2016.  The unfortunate events.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s