Attention

RE:

: The Honourable Thomas Mulcair

Unethical conduct, unprofessionalism, abuse of authority and injustice

My correspondence addresses some areas of concerns, not only with respect to

the judiciary, but associated organizations that operate in conjunction with the
courts too. These concerns were grouped in 5 parts, which I shall briefly
describe, as I am submitting a number of attachments that provide detailed
information with respect to the nature of the injustice I was subjected to.
A - THE CASE FILE / BACKGROUND
PART I THE ASSESSOR AND THE COLLEGE OF ALBERTA PSYCHOLOGISTS

The Psychologist, Nancy Rohatinsky, instead of focusing on the best interest of

the children, as is the primary objective of the assessment, diverted her focus
towards the ex-wife's interest, in that she focused her attention to
unsubstantiated allegations of abuse; rape and misogyny. She used her report
as a vector to relay such allegations to the court, which served only to put the
husband on a collision course with our judicial system, hence killing the
fathers chance in obtaining custody of the children. She clearly acted as a
woman advocate instead of a child advocate, by using her report as a tool for
retribution to do the ex-wife justice, and a backbone to support the ex-wife in
her quest for custody. In doing so, she violated the fathers human rights, as
guaranteed by the constitution and the Canadian Charter of rights as well as
the children's bill of rights.
A simple glance at Ms Rohatinskys report reveals the relatively large space in
her report reserved to an excessive number of unsubstantiated allegations of
domestic and sexual abuse claims made by the ex-wife; compared to that
reserved to the children, and the intensity of disparaging remarks; character
attacks and negativity towards the husband. On the other hand, despite of her
capacity as a Psychologist with a trained eye and numerous tools under her
disposal, she succumbed to the ex-wifes manipulative and conniving grip,
while at the same time ignored intentionally to depict negative traits that
would have certainly hurt the ex-wifes chances in obtaining custody.
The followings are examples of unsubstantiated allegations, personal attacks
and defamatory remarks against the husband as reported by Ms Rohatinskys
in her report: She left an emotionally abusive and oppressive marriage, He
discredited and defamed her with her family, the Algerian community in
Calgary and their children, His motivation is for money and not parenting, to
illustrate her point, she referred to 2 children he abandoned and made no
financial contribution, Reason for marrying her is to have lots of children and
get Child Tax Benefits money rather than earn money, He intended to stay

2
home with the children while expecting her to work, He is preoccupied with
her personal life, attempt getting information from the children, He caused
distress to the children by criticizing her and referring to her by derogatory
names, Unfairly blaming her for the breakdown of the marriage, He lacks
the experience, understanding and commitment, He has anger issues, He
has negative and oppressive opinions about women he shares with the
children and misogynous views in general, He abandoned the children for 4
years. He made applications to address financial issues without making any
attempt to see the children, He was not involved with their school, speech
pathologist and occupation therapist regarding their disabilities, Criticizing
her for her schooling level to improve her future and ability to provide
financially for the children, Being a poor model for the children, Attempt to
buy expensive toys to buy their affection, Has not indicated an interest in
understanding their needs, contact their teachers, volunteer and go on field
trips, I had no clue until our marriage in 2000 that he was not a practicing
Muslim, It has to be his way, no compromise, no discussion and no phone to
my parents, He wanted pregnancy for money but uninvolved in her
pregnancy, He made her sleep in the other room with the baby, He took
parental leave and pressurized her to go to work, She paid him $200.00 per
month so to drive her to work, He never bought diapers nor fed the baby,
The nurse made comments about the weight of the baby, I am the guy, you
are the woman, you have to do whatever I say, She did not know abuse until
when married, In 3 years, only 2 people came to see her, She was sexually
mistreated by him when he expected sex from her without love and affection
and assumed uncomfortable positions, Our second child came by accident
and he took again parental leave, After her return to Calgary, he refused to
take us back, He saw the children only on Saturdays, She became tearful
when describing mistreatment to her and the children, Walid often wets the
bed when he has spent time with father, He uses this for questioning them,
He makes negative remarks about her and women in general, He shares
these views with the children instead of spending good quality time with
them.
Ms Rohatinskys position towards the husband is as follows: He contends that
he has been the victim of ineffective legal representation and a prejudicial
court system, He was put on a black list, Dressed in poorly fitting suits
with no tie, Had difficulties following a line of questioning and needed it
repeated or rephrased, When asked that I would not use personal contacts,
he said that I was only interested in particular information and that I had an
agenda, He appears to be of an average intelligence, Has difficulties
forming relationships and is overly suspicious, Has a tendency to exaggerate
his ability and inflate his own worth, May be psychologically defensive by
responding to testing in a perfectionist manner and not endorsing personality
flaws, He enjoys parenting Hamza but not Walid, He reports a serious
problem in his relationship with both children due to how much he desires to
control them, He lives in a small house with a lot of figurines.
Her position towards the ex-wife is as follows: She is an extremely polite and
respectful, well-groomed and healthy woman, She spoke in a clear voice,

3
She demonstrated a generally good understanding of English, She followed
the content and flow of the interview well, Connections between concepts
and associations between ideas were coherent, There was no evidence of
any obsessions, compulsions or phobias, She was oriented to person, time
and place, She appeared to be of normal memory, concentration, judgement,
attention and reality contact, She is a very smart, energetic and sociable girl
who enjoys learning, Her teachers considered her as one of the top 3
students in school, She graduated with a High School Diploma in 1993, She
taught at college for a couple of years, She is a happy and confident mother
who has put considerable effort into creating a peaceful home where the
children can thrive, She has provided adequate childcare when needed.
The childrens position towards the father was summarized in her report as
follows: Hamza wished Mohamed would stop saying bad things about her.
He said he does not want to see him until he stops, He asked Hamza to tell
the Psychologist that he has 3 Dads, Hamza does not want him to call when
late at pick-up, Children appeared less controlled and more able to behave
appropriately.
Ms Rohatinsky referred to stereotyping and misrepresentations, and was
content to simply rely on her unjustified perception in associating domestic
abuse and rape with my ethnic background, in order to inflict serious
repercussions to the slightest chance I might have in being granted custody of
our children, such as: I am the guy, you are the woman and you have to do
what I say, It has to be his way, no compromise, no discussion, abuse,
rape, misogyny, marrying a virgin, having traditional views, marriage
with 4 wives and marrying to have lots of children. This had a significant
effect on Madam Justice Andersons views of the husband and subsequently
her ruling.
As an educated professional, I thought she is smart enough to realize that the
ex-wifes allegation of being asked to do what I say because I am the man and
she is the woman, when I could not even make her cook, wash and iron my
clothes as well as stay with our newborn instead of working are not traits of a
wife abuser. Anyone with a lit bit of common sense can easily envision the
Assessors mindset in establishing a link between my religious background and
machoism.
Moreover, I was wrongfully accused by the Assessor and according to her
report in making our meetings all about the other party, I was constantly
talking about her, seemed always to manage to find a way to bring her into
the conversation and to implicate her in some form or fashion, when in fact
it is the other way round as the above long list of reported false allegations,
personal attacks and negativity against the husband attests. I was not even
given the same opportunity during the assessment to speak freely about her
shortcomings, other than reporting those traits that are well in context and
nothing personal, as they relate to the care and quality of parenting offered in
the form of supporting documentation; Affidavits; follow-up questions and a
proposed parenting plan.

4
The above long list of allegations is evidence that it is the ex-wife who made all
her meetings about attacking my character and reputation and not vice-versa,
as there is nothing in the report to suggest that I did so. Failure to do so only
makes her statement open to interpretation. Moreover, the trial transcripts
clearly indicate that it is the ex-wife who subscribes to such a practice. I refer
you specifically to the cross-examination of the ex-wife by Nicholas Urie, which
depicts the number of times she was successful in deviating from answering
the questions posed to her and putting me under the spot light, by converging
the courts attention onto the husband.
Ms Rohatinsky was clearly in charge of how she wanted the assessment
conducted as reflected through the incident that occurred during our second
meeting. It would have been unthinkable to be allowed to hijack the
assessment and talk freely about the ex-wife in such a negative way without
being interrupted, when even the part that deals with the relationship and the
children was missing from the assessment, which would have been the only
opportunity available for me to truly elaborate on her shortcomings.
The most blatant unprofessional conduct I witnessed from a professional in a
position of authority is Ms Rohatinsly putting words in my mouth that I have
not even spoken such as She has an agenda, Being put on a black list and
Being the victim of a prejudicial court system. I have responded to the
reason for not seeing the children for 3 years as per her request through the
Follow-up questions she E-mailed me, in which I explained the reason for being
victimized by the Legal system. If Ms Rohatinsky cannot differentiate between
the Legal system and Judicial system, then that is a serious problem that
she needs to correct, as many still cannot differentiate between the two.
As a wise and grown man, making those disparaging comments about another
member of the same club of educated professionals prior to the end of the
assessment and before even reading the final report in full, is premature and
contrary to good ethics. It was until I reviewed all materials and identified
fingerprints of unethical conduct that I filed a complaint against the Assessor
accordingly.
By reporting unsubstantiated allegations, namely those of abuse, rape and
misogyny, she intentionally high-jacked the court room, one intended for a
family law case (Divorce) into a criminal case, by acting as a prosecutor
instead of an evaluator, and used her report as an indictment of abuse and
rape, instead of a factual document from which the trial Judge is to make a just
and informed decision.
Only police officers may charge a citizen of an offense if they have evidence or
make an arrest if there is probable cause, and only the court may issue a
conviction after reviewing the evidence. Ms Rohatinsky appeared to have gone
beyond her mandate and acted as a police officer and a Judge in that she
charged and convicted me of being a wife abuser and a rapist without any
evidence in support, other than verbal accusations accompanied by backdoor

5
notes, despite of the fact that I was neither charged nor convicted of any
offense against any woman in my life.
The 28 page report issued has fingerprints of bias all over it. The Assessor
described the ex-wife as a flawless individual and gave her a clean bill of
health in every aspect of her life, when the evidence proves otherwise. This
included complementing her on her western lifestyle; dress code; hypothetical
educational achievement; flawless child disciplining style and impeccable
parenting skills, while she portrayed the husband as an extremely negative
individual with an average intelligence; poor parenting skills; poor decorative
and dressing taste and whose education level is insignificant by comparison.
She intentionally referred in her report to stereotyping (unfounded allegations
of abuse, rape and misogyny), cultural and religious beliefs (hell, marriage to 4
wives, virginity) as well as traditional values; a scaremongering tactic intended
to insinuate that such values are not in line with a westernized lifestyle, and
not good enough to be suitable and applicable as a good model for parenting.
She ignored invaluable evidentiary documentation that clearly favours the
husbands position. Evidence that includes a voice recording of child abuse, a
children services report which depicts a number of the ex-wifes flaws, Dr
Cardwells recommendation for the ex-wife to undergo an individual
assessment, Constable Clarkes report which depicts the controlling and
domineering trait over the children; interference of access; alienation against
the father; verbal abuse in front of the police officer and their use as pawns,
the designated Supervisors report which denotes obstruction to access, 8
police reports depicting her consistent contemptuous attitude as well as school
report cards depicting our eldest sons erratic and unsociable behaviour; in
addition to academic underachievement. None of those were incorporated in
her report as they militate against the ex-wife, and would hurt significantly the
ex-wifes chances in obtaining custody of the children.
To Ms Rohatinsky, the truth; facts and the evidence mean nothing to her, and
are of no significance in conducting an assessment, one that is life changing
not only to the children but the father too. She believed without the shadow of
a doubt every single word uttered by the ex-wife, and went the extra mile to
validate the husbands supposedly confrontational nature; abuse against
women and misogyny using maliciously the incident that took place at our
second meeting, as a pretext to distort the explanation of the title of my
university degree to be none other than condescending to her. She also used
fictitious translated backdoor notes provided by the ex-wife to validate the
abusive nature of the husband. On the other hand, what I reported to her,
which is well-documented in a correspondence dated April 25 th, 2012; being
strictly relevant to custody and not personal in any way by comparison to the
ex-wifes allegations, was ignored and returned back to me.
For instance, she did not have even a second thought in considering undated;
translated and unidentified backdoor notes in supporting abuse to the ex-wife,
whereas at the same time, she ignored a recording of child abuse on the basis

6
that it was undated; in Arabic despite of being transcribed in English; and that
the woman screaming and abusing a one year old baby could not be identified.
Although the CFSA report confirms at least the verbal abuse part of such a
recording, Ms Rohatinsky resorted to covering up the ex-wifes bad deeds.
Ironic enough is Ms Rohatinskys loud objection and consternation for speaking
the truth as documented in my Affidavit in response to her report and my
complaint against her, yet she stopped short of furthering her disagreement in
court, in the same way she did when resorting to a lawyers services in filing a
court application to strike down both my Affidavit in response to her report and
the CFSA report, which depict discrepancies; an obvious embarrassment to her
and a black eye to her credibility. I have since been attempting to sue her for
prejudice and defamation, but none of the at least approximately 50 lawyers I
contacted showed any interest.
One of Ms Rohatinskys interests was to fish out and report any flaws that could
be used to the detriment of the husband, whereas she showed no interest in
the ex-wifes flaws; which I reported to her with supporting evidence. For
instance, her interest peaked when I told her that before I go to bed, I always
make sure that the front door is locked; the gas line is shut off and that certain
electrical appliances are disconnected, thinking that she hit the jackpot by
unveiling that I am schizophrenic or diagnosed with some sort of mental
disorder. But as soon as I explained that I take our childrens safety seriously
while under my wings and never overlook safety issues no matter how small
they are, her pursuit of the issue simply faded away, as she moved on to the
next question.
As a consequence of the Assessors bias, lack of insight and interest in what is
in the best interest of the children, soon after the trial ended, I was asked by
the school principal to write a letter of apology to the parents of two
classmates, whom our eldest son injured.
If she did her job correctly, in light of the evidence I provided to her which
indicates a lack of discipline due to the mothers absence in their lives; as
confirmed in the children services report, she could have predicted the
potential for such an occurrence, and that our eldest sons behaviour was a
ticking bomb waiting to explode. Therefore, contemplating a reverse of custody
was the logical thing to do, which is in line of the research showing that fathers
are much effective in setting boundaries and disciplining the children.
Therefore, her recommendation for sole custody to the mother on the basis
that such a custodial arrangement is in the best interest of the children is
unfounded. Without a Psychology degree under my belt, I was able to predict
through simple observation of the childrens behaviour combined with the
information I collected that there would be an escalation from aggressiveness
to hurting others, and that the most recent incident is a stepping stone to
criminality and even worse.
For instance, I am absolutely sure that the Assessor is aware of the
repercussions of under-aged children watching PG rated movies, and would

7
certainly not want her own children to watch movies that fall into this category,
and yet she turned the blind eye when I reported to her that the ex-wife was
doing just that, allowing our children to watch Deep Blue Sea; Titanic and
Jaws, to name a few. As a Psychologist, she has a number of tools to
determine whether what I reported to her is true or not. Anyone with no
Psychology degree would have simply asked our eldest child to give a synopsis
of these movies, and this by itself is enough to establish the truth, but the
Assessor had no intention to put the ex-wife in an unfavourable situation in
terms of custody.
It took Constable Clarke with no training in Psychology a mere few minutes to
unveil that the children are living in constant fear under the wings of a
controlling and domineering mother; being intimidated; conditioned; alienated
against their father and used as pawns, Dr Cardwells suspicion during a
scheduled consultation that she could be at the origin of Hamzas behaviour
and discipline difficulties by suggesting individual therapy to her for possible
emotional and psychological instability whereas after 9 months of assessment,
Ms Rohatinsky was not able to depict even a single flaw no matter how small it
is or any other concern worth reporting. You be the Judge.
Ms Rohatinsky should have at least referred to both Dr Cardwell and Constable
Clarke as collateral contacts, used their reports as a guide in her assessment
and included them in her report, either by explaining their irrelevance to the
assessment or use them as supporting evidence in her recommendation.
Ms Rohatinsky has overstepped the mandate granted to her by the court to
limit her assessment solely to what is in the best interest of the children, and
violated the standards and the code of ethics of the profession by failing to
conduct an objective; fair; impartial and unbiased assessment and to avoid
overlapping irrelevant and tangential issues that could be construed as bias
and prejudicial. She also relied on a gender oriented, vindictive and
stereotypical approach.
Ms Rohatinsky used standards derived from unsubstantiated allegations; false
accusations; lies and incomplete testing in coming up with such
recommendations, instead of using standards derived from the truth;
documented evidence; her peers testimonies and pertinent criteria as those
relied upon in the Case Authorities cited.
Once you read the Bi-lateral Assessment report and my Affidavit in response
filed at Family Justice Services, you would agree with me that this is the text
book definition of bias, except of course the governing body of the profession;
the College of Alberta Psychologists.
A complaint for bias against the Assessor, Ms Rohatinsky, was filed with the
governing body but was dismissed, which was appealed and dismissed again,
despite of the evidence pointing to the Assessor's guilt.
PART II THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL

8
Firstly, I would like to reiterate that I had no reason to believe that our judicial
system is in need of a serious reform and that the judiciary bears a selfinflicted wound (unethical conduct, bias and injustice) that requires attention,
as I had a good success rate in obtaining court orders in my favour from a
number of fair Judges while self-represented and in the absence of opposing
counsels recurring obstruction of justice.
It was up and until a biased report came into the equation, drafted by an
Assessor who has an issue with my values; cultural and religious background
as referred to in her report, wherein I am painted with a stereotyping brush and
portrayed in a most negative and sinister way, to the point it made me
unworthy to be an integral part in my own childrens lives. The trial Judge
looked upon the report as the bible (a factual document), instead of a
document written by a witness (hearsay), that should be scrutinized as she did
scrutinize my testimony.
It is Madam Justice Andersons total support of the Assessor and full backing of
her report that are at the heart of the irregularities committed during the trial
and questionable ethical conduct and injustice, which are at the origin of her
decision.
It is perplexing for Madam Justice Anderson not to allow the husbands
evidence in the form of at least 57 exhibits, which not only militates against
the ex-wife and would have supported sole custody to the father; departure
from S. (7) of the Matrimonial Property Act in light of the s.8 factors and that
the marriage and separation dates instead of the engagement and trial dates
should have been respectively considered for distribution purposes; which goes
to the heart of the issues on the agenda, but also put a dent into the many
aspects of the evaluation process, and the integrity and competence of Ms
Rohatinsky as an Assessor.
In regards to the assessment report, she did not hesitate to complement the
Assessor for doing a good job in writing such a report, which she referred to as
a thorough report, and even affirmed convincingly that the Assessor was not
biased. She stated that she put less weight on the Bi-lateral assessment report,
which contradicts her acknowledgment that it is a 28 page thorough report and
that the Assessors recommendations are well thought of as well as her
reference to it as the only evidence in front of her in making her decision, while
she rejected my evidence.
It is perplexing for the trial Judge to come up with such a conclusion despite of
her being new to family law, when it is not that difficult for any reasonable and
neutral individual without her title, but with mere wisdom and conventional
thinking to realize that such a report is tainted with fingerprints of bias all over
it. The landmarks of bias are easily detectable from the extreme negativity
towards the husband vs. extreme positivity to the ex-wife, reliance on hearsay
vs. exclusion of documented facts, stereotyping, retribution as well as
reference to cultural and religious backgrounds. No evidence whatsoever was
presented during the trial in support of such a report.

9
She allowed a biased report, which is gender-oriented; acrimonious and
vindictive in nature take centre stage in decision making, despite of the lack of
evidence in support, and used as an indictment of abuse and rape to punish
the husband, without being ever convicted of such an offence as my record
attests. The ex-wife was unable to provide even a single proof to authenticate
abuse, although she did make a number of attempts prior to the trial, but to no
avail. Even her attempt during the trial to paint me as a wife abuser is of no
evidentiary value, as she failed deliberately to support her claim with the
corresponding police report in question; dated January 22 nd, 2006, which
contradicts her testimony. Consequently, the ex-wife was perceived as the true
victim in this relationship.
After reading such a report, anyone who knows both parents was in incredulity
with the nature of the extreme negativity against the husband by comparison
to the extreme positivity towards the ex-wife, except the trial Judge. The latter
went along with the husbands alleged flaws and portrayal as a wife abuser; a
rapist and a misogynist, as this made her decision much easier, knowing that
no husband gets a bonus for belonging to such a club. Such an extreme
disparity of the report should have raised a red flag,
Giving the Assessor the green light to act as a prosecutor and use her report as
an indictment of abuse and rape at a family law trial, which does not have
competent jurisdiction, is a clear indication of the full support thrown behind
the Assessor and her report, and not doing so would have simply hurt
significantly a friend of the court's credibility.
Madam Justice Anderson seemed to have been side-tracked from the purpose
of this trial, which is none other than custody of the children, and not about
putting the husband on trial for unfounded allegations of abuse and rape. For
this, another competent jurisdiction would have been more appropriate.
The trial Judge used my imposed absence from the childrens lives as reported
by the Assessor; despite of my continuous and active involvement with the
case file, as the number of lawyers retained attests (4 lawyers in 3 years),
and the filing in frustration of 2 complaints against my lawyer Marc Crarer and
James Robertson the opposing counsel for doing noting and obstruction of any
progress of the case file respectively.
She also took for granted Ms Rohatinskys untrue statement that I lack the
required parenting skills, despite of my background as a Trainer; an Educator
and an Instructor, having helped so many to advance in their professional
careers. Paradoxically and conveniently, the trial Judge did not even bother to
question the Assessors motivation, as she should have realized that the
children can only benefit from my transferrable skills, as my involvement in
their education through as regular written tests to the children attest.
While I was actively engaged with the children in teaching them a variety of
skills, the mother on the hand, has been relying exclusively on In-home

10
support; shady daycare givers and male companions in offering their
babysitting services, due to her intensive evening schooling.
Ms. Rohatinskys description of the father as a litigious individual, the opposing
counsels request during the trial for a ban from bringing further court
applications without specifying the reasons behind his request, and Madam
Justice Andersons reliance on the false assumption that the file was case
managed as a result of the supposedly abusive nature of the high number of
court applications brought by the husband; when in fact it was a mean to put
the case file on hibernation mood following James Robertson persistence, were
all used as grounds for ordering such a ban; a clear manifestation of abuse of
authority.
As opposed to the trial Judge, other Judges did not deem my pre-trial
applications to be so by either adjourning them; or giving them due process
and ruling in favour of the husband numerous times. At one time, one Judge
even told James Robertson; after insisting on banning me from bringing further
applications, that he did not see any reason for doing so, as the court system is
there to hear the public legitimate concerns.
In doing so, a fundamental right of access to our judicial system as a Canadian
citizen was trampled over, in contravention of section 26. (7) of the Judicature
Act, considering that I have never been declared a vexatious litigant in a court
of law. This is yet another addition to the build-up of a trend in obstructions I
have been faced with all along during the 6 years preceding the trial as
reported to the court and in my complaint.
In regards to the opposing counsel, she allowed him to hijack the objective of
the trial, the court proceedings and to focus the projection lights on his clients
supposedly victimization, which was recounted in a dramatic fashion; despite
of the fragrant inconsistencies in the ex-wifes testimony and the vilification of
the husband, as the trial transcripts attest. The trial Judge should have
intervened to steer the trial to its intended purpose, which is none other than
the best interests of the children, as very little was said about them during the
trial.
She was very accommodating to the opposing party while apprehensive to the
other side, a situation that worked very well, allowing him to exploit it to the
advantage of his client. This double standard approach hindered my lawyer
from exposing the ex-wife for who she really is. For instance, she allowed the
opposing counsel to enter any evidence he chose while refusing the same to
my lawyer; despite of its pertinence to the case file, sustained all objections
registered by the opposing counsel to any attempt from my lawyer to enter
any evidence that militates against his client, steering the spot light towards
his clients purportedly victimization, being agreeable to his interference with
the Assessors availability for cross-examination by limiting her presence
during the trial and shortening the duration of the trial.
In regards to the ex-wife, circumstances such as the custodial parents
unavailability to provide care outside of school hours, exclusive focus on her

11
extensive schooling while ignoring those of the children; considering that they
need extra care by comparison to the average child, reliance on third party
care givers, violation of court orders, denial of access and unwillingness to
facilitate contact between the children and their father, alienation against the
father, her controlling and domineering attitude and excessive unsubstantiated
allegations of abuse; to name a few, are all grounds which prompted other
Judges to reverse custody as case authorities attest, except Madam Justice
Anderson.
I found it sardonic that the trial Judge dismissed theft in a marriage as of no
significance, when the reason number one of divorce is financial in nature. The
simple fact that moral guidelines do not condone theft, by extrapolation it does
not entitle spouses to embezzle and transfer offshore matrimonial funds
secretly and without consent for investment purposes either. Madam Justice
Anderson being a spouse and a Judge knows too well the significance and the
consequences of such an act in a relationship. Her stand behind the ex-wife in
endorsing theft openly in a courtroom, while the MPA deals specifically with
embezzlement of matrimonial funds through the prescription of the s.8 factors
by recommending the spouse victim of fraud to be compensated, is
questionable to say the least.
Madam Justice Anderson should have relied on the following fundamental
principle Facts are only what matters as facts leave no room for doubt, by
allowing the admission of evidence (Facts) instead of relying exclusively on a
biased bi-lateral assessment, perjurious testimony and hearsay (Doubt).
In regards to the matrimonial property distribution, although the MPA does not
include into the distribution debts incurred after the separation, Madam Justice
Anderson chose to conveniently put into the equation unsubstantiated debts to
legitimize the ex-wifes share from distribution, as a compensation for financial
choices she made on her own free will regarding her legal fees and student
loans, when she had an option to seek an out of court settlement instead of
everlasting litigation, and employment considering that she holds 2 Certificates
and a Diploma instead of relying on the government through her never-ending
schooling.
On the other hand, the husbands well documented debts of approximately
$65,000.00 at the time were downplayed, as reflected in her decision to
impute income to the husband and in choosing the separation date in lieu of
the trial date, despite of the ex-wifes financial non-contribution, and over half
of my debts were used to pay the mortgage; bills; renovation; maintenance
and preservation of the property.
In regards to imputing income, Madam Justice Anderson ignored that imputing
income is contemplated only in situations where underemployment is proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not the case here. She had no evidence
that I intentionally avoided or undermined child support obligations, other than
using a career change that took place on March 2005; well before I knew that
she has put her exit strategy from the relationship in motion.

12
The followings are examples which indicate that Madam Justice Anderson had
no issue turning a situation going against the ex-wife into one in favour of the
ex-wife:
She was displeased with the involvement of Child Protection Services which I
have turned to, only after being denied access to our judicial system as my
application dated November 17th, 2011 was never heard, and after the case
file was parked in Case Management since February 18 th, 2011; resulting in a
ban to file any application for the following 2 years. Among the numerous
concerns addressed in my application, she only hand-picked poor feeding
habits and inappropriate clothing of the children, not only to dilute the effect
this may have on her decision, but instead of using this against the mother
to support lack of care and neglect, she used it against the husband to
support lack of financial contribution.
Although it is an undeniable fact that the boys have been watching movies
inappropriate for their age such as Jaws; deep blue sea; Jurassic Park
and Titanic, are allowed to ride their bicycles without helmets and to
Jaywalk, the trial Judge failed to attribute this to the mothers neglect;
inappropriate parenting and loose parental guidance, hence associating
these to a mere belief instead, so to dilute the effect this may have on her
decision, putting hence the husbands credibility on the line.
Although I had enough evidence that militates against the ex-wife; including
her use of marriage and procreation solely for financial gain to warrant
reversing custody, Madam Justice Anderson chose to turn a blind eye, and
rather correlate my pursuit to increase my access time with a desire to lower
my child support payments without any supporting evidence.
The money trail and some acts that are financially motivated clearly show
that the ex-wife is money conscious, a gold digger and to her, procreation is
merely another source of cash flow, as is marriage and divorce.
Using the fathers testimony that telephone access was interfered with at
least 60 times; as documented by an Affidavit; a Supplemental Affidavit and
supported by 8 police reports as well as a telephone log, not as an indication
to the ex-wifes violation of a court order and her thwarting of the fathers
access rights and; which is ground for reversing custody, but as ground for
revoking telephone access altogether and blaming the father for being the
instigator; when by comparison no evidence was provided by the ex-wife to
suggest so.
Although she concurred with Ms. Rohatinsky on the troubling nature of
Constable Clarkes report, she did not go far enough in pinpointing the
troubling elements invoked in the police report, and instead of hammering
the ex-wife in light of Constable Clarkes findings, she chose to tune down
the seriousness of these by drawing me into the picture as a contributing
factor to the conflict.

13
Although the evidence points to the ex-wifes opportunism in using marriage
solely as a financial institution; and procreation as a secure source of cash
flow, Madam Justice Anderson failed to relate the ex-wifes pursuit in
furthering her financial aspirations by opting for work at the expense of
raising a 3 month old baby; putting hence monetary gain ahead of child
care. Instead, she went along with the version provided to her by the ex-wife
and backed by Ms Rohatinsky, of forcing her to go to work so that I can
benefit financially from employment benefits under the parental leave
program. On the other hand, I would not have fared any better had I
prevented her from working and requested her to raise our newborn child, a
scenario that is even worse than being accused of using a wife as a financial
slave, which would have categorized me nonetheless as a firm believer that
a wife belongs in the house to raise babies. Unfortunately, this double-edged
sword situation is what husbands of my background are confronted with.
Although Ms. Rohatinsky stated falsely that the ex-wife had obtained a high
school Diploma; taught for 2 years at College; was ranked among the top 3
students in her class and has a Certificate and a Diploma; so no to put her in
an unfavourable position educationally in terms of her chances for custody,
on the other hand, Madam Justice Anderson chose to use the ex-wifes lack
of a post-secondary education as well as her sporadic low paying part-time
jobs; to justify not only an imputed income to the husband; but also an equal
distribution of property as well as awarding her court and real estate costs.
The following controversial interventions by Madam Justice Anderson were
made as a result of perceptions of the husband; as portrayed in the
assessment report, while keeping in mind the ex-wifes custody prospects
intact:
Her use of a trade-in by not admitting the Child Tax Benefit cheques in
return, and as a balancing act for refusing Constable Clarkes report as
evidence. Such a manoeuvre does not put both parties on equal footing,
and can only be considered as giving the mother a much needed helping
hand in that by comparison, those cheques have insignificant evidentiary
value and are not detrimental to the husbands case as much as Constable
Clarkes report is to the ex-wifes case.
Child abuse was not much of a concern to Madam Justice Anderson as much
as abuse and allegations of speaking ill about the ex-wife; which was one of
her two prime concerns besides the ex-wifes purportedly dire financial
situation. She did not hesitate to interject during the proceedings to remind
me that I was still under oath, and to even hijack Mr Uries examination by
interrupting him to initiate a cross-examination geared to speaking ill about
the ex-wife. In parallel, at no time did she cross-examine the ex-wife, at least
during her blatantly fragrant inconsistencies in recounting the incident of
January 22nd, 2006.
She registered her disbelief for reporting the ex-wifes fraudulent use of my
bank card to the police. She also downplayed the embezzlement of
matrimonial funds, and instead of considering such an act as financial abuse,

14
she lamented about her financial situation, when mine is the worst of the
two. She used a double standard approach in that she failed to equally
interrupt the ex-wife when it was her turn to testify about accusing me of
withdrawing $2,000.00 from her bank account while on a visit to Algeria.
She was not accommodating for an adjournment to allow the police officer to
be subpoenaed and even stated that she will render her decision
expeditiously, in light of the ex-wifes supposedly dire financial situation, so
to reward her from distribution of matrimonial property, despite of the exwifes lack of contribution to the relationship. Apparently, the ex-wifes
fictitious financial difficulties were more of a concern and in need of a quick
fix, whereas allowing time for Constable Clarke to be subpoenaed to testify
about his report and shed some light about what took place on August 13 th,
2011 in his own words; which is directly related to the childrens welfare, did
not qualify as being in the best interest of the children to be worth
considering.
Madam Justice Anderson reminded the opposing counsel if he were going to
enter the sworn statement of assets he was referring to during his
examination; a sign of how important putting my assets for distribution were
to her, whereas the same privilege was not granted to my lawyer as he was
not allowed to present a single piece of evidence to support his arguments
during court proceedings; even financial documents. The opposing party was
allowed to enter a total of 14 Exhibits.
The exchange between the trial Judge and the opposing counsel appears to
indicate that both of them were agreeable on having the Assessors time
limited to a half a day. From the trial Judges response that she had already
read the report, hinting perhaps that her decision was already made and
taking much of the Assessors time would have been unnecessary.
Madam Justice Andersons intervention by not allowing all 3 pieces of
evidence my lawyer attempted to enter; namely a recording of child abuse;
a police report and pictures of child neglect ; declaring them to be irrelevant
to child custody, is a calculated move intended not only to avoid affecting
the ex-wifes chances to obtaining custody, but also not to weaken the bilateral assessment report as an evidentiary tool to be relied upon exclusively
in making a decision, and also to weaken the prospect of a successful appeal
due to lack of evidence.
For instance, diminishing the seriousness of the recording of child abuse and
eventually dismissing it altogether can only be construed as an attempt to
cover-up the mothers brutality towards the children, maintain Ms
Rohatinskys claim of the mothers clean bill of health regarding the care of
the children and parenting skills as well as to avoid hurting the ex-wifes
chances of obtaining custody of the children.
Three crucial pieces of evidence in determining custody among others, namely
Constable Clarkes report; a recording of child abuse and pictures of the
children in filthy clothes with holes, which my lawyer attempted to enter as

15
evidence but to no avail, would have prompted any unbiased Judge with the
best interests of a child in mind to order a reverse of custody.
The trial Judge deemed Constable Clarkes report immaterial to the custody
issue, and yet it clearly goes to the heart of the custody issue and
corroborates the reason for the father seeking custody of the children, which
is other than financial.
The police report depicts the ex-wifes intentional interference with the
fathers access, alienation of the children against their father, her
domineering and controlling attitude, intimidation and fear of the children,
brainwashing as well as using them as pawns for custody purposes which is
undeniably qualified as child abuse.
In refusing to allow the recording as evidence, she gave poor reasons for
doing so, such as being 7 years old, made in Arabic language, and for voice
identification reasons. It is worth nothing that at no time did the trial Judge
conclusively preclude the voice not being that of the ex-wife. What is
perplexing is that she gave a variety of reasons simply not to allow it as a
potentially relevant evidence to be considered during the proceedings.
The age was clearly not the reason as she also ignored Constable Clarkes
report depicting child abuse too, which was only 20 months old. Though, she
did not specify how old evidence should be to be considered recent enough
to be admissible in a court of law, and ignored the axiom that states Once
an abuser is always an abuser. The language of the recording should not
have been an issue, as the tape was accompanied with full transcripts in
English, even though abuse has a universal language and does not require a
specific language to deduct from a recording, where a woman screaming at
a crying one year old baby can only be characterized as child abuse and
nothing else. With respect to the identification issue, she could have at least
allowed the recording due process; considering its evidentiary importance,
and subjected to examination and cross-examination to at least narrow down
the numerous reasons she gave, and get to the bottom of the circumstances
of such a recording, which is troubling to say the least. Ignoring crucial
evidence that determines the faith of the children is no small matter and
should not have been an option.
The pictures were not allowed too subsequent to the opposing counsels
argument that they are not dated, so not to implicate the ex-wife with
neglect and lack of care. Madam Justice Anderson should not have yielded
easily to the opposing counsels request on the basis of such a poor excuse,
as the date is irrelevant and that the pictures are not photo shopped. What is
more relevant is that they were taken while under the mothers care, a care
that was not appropriately administered as the pictures depict the face of
neglect. An examination and cross-examination with the pictures in hand
would have certainly been helpful in finding out the age of the children,
regardless of the date the pictures were taken.

16
For further details about the wrongdoing of the trial Judge, I refer you to the
complaint filed against Madam Justice Anderson with the Canadian Judicial
Council.
After being informed that I filed an appeal of her decision, she immediately
subpoenaed the trial transcripts for a review, and made a startling change
from sole custody to the mother to joint custody, without summoning both
parties to explain the reasons for her sudden change of heart. Such an action
was not enough to persuade me to retract my application for an appeal, as it
was too little too late. The ease with which she modified an order, is a clear
indication that her decision was arbitrary and not based on facts.
It is no secret that Madam Justice Andersons lack of experience in family law,
as she appeared to be unfamiliar with some of the terminology; namely the
Child Tax Benefit program; which prompted Mr Urie to explain it to her by
stating at the same time that he knows she is not a family law Judge, may have
had an effect on the procedural appropriateness in conducting the trial, and
partially responsible in decision making. A courtroom where a life changing
decision is to be made with respect to a childs future should have never been
allowed to be used as a training ground for a trial Judge new to family law.
Madam Justice Andersons stance towards the husband was carried out beyond
the trial, as the imposed ban to access the judicial system was not only used to
keep me on leash, but to strike down any attempt to obtain leave to file
applications in regular chambers for potential future concerns, such as the
attempt made on June 28th, 2013 in regards to contempt of court, which was
struck down despite of the overwhelming evidence presented to her, including
the school Principals testimony in support through an E-mail that was read in
court.
Usually, Judges are reluctant in awarding court costs when custody of the
children is involved, which is exactly what Madam Justice Anderson did in the
case that was heard prior to ours on November 22 nd, 2013. This doublestandard approach is unjust to the husband, and proves once more that
extreme punishment measures were taken against me for being wrongly
accused of being a wife abuser; a rapist; a misogynist, and for being the one
who supposedly imposed on her to be a permanent addition to women shelters
and low income housing, instead of the matrimonial home.
Not only I was prevented from being an integral part in our childrens lives, was
evicted from the property; from which the ex-wife was recompensed, but was
also ordered to pay for her real estate costs in the amount of $2,300.00, on top
of $9,300.00 in court costs.
The husbands evidence, the biased nature of the custody assessment report,
the mother being a child abuser; her perjurious; contemptuous; manipulating
and conniving attitude would have been grounds for not granting her custody
of our children, had the trial been presided over by an unbiased trial and
therefore, costs should have never been awarded to her under a just and
equitable ruling.

17
A complaint was filed with the governing body but was dismissed, which was
appealed and dismissed again, despite of the evidence pointing to the trial
Judge's guilt.
PART III MY LAWYERS, MR URIE AND THE ALBERTA LAW SOCIETY

Between March 1997 and February 2010, there have been 4 lawyers assigned
to the case, but no progress has been made as a result of a combination of
legal misrepresentation through a lack of interest from my lawyers in dealing
effectively with the issues of the file, and obstruction from the opposing party.
The file has been on life support for 3 years up and until I took charge of the
file by necessity once my lawyer, Gordon Frazer, decided to no longer
represent me when asked specifically to file a court application for
reinstatement of access, after the file had been sitting on his desk for 8
months. I jump-started the file by filing a Domestic Special application which
was heard on July 19th, 2010, wherein access to the children was reinstated
with an enforcement clause, the conduct of a bi-lateral assessment was
granted upon my request and the wheel of justice started rolling towards a full
hearing of the matter at a trial. I was able to achieve in one single application
what 4 lawyers failed to accomplish in 3 years.
Nazim Ambreen was retained in 2010. After 8 months, she did absolutely
nothing other than reading my correspondences and Affidavits, for which she
charged me $4,000.00 I had to pay from my own pocket.
My lawyer, Nicholas Urie, who was retained to represent me at the trial , and
remunerated using money that I do not have, not only was ill-prepared and
failed to present at least 57 exhibits pertinent to the case file; which sealed the
outcome of the trial and the faith of the children, but he even sided with the
opposing party in concurring that the children should remain with their mother
and that the matrimonial property should be divided equally, against my clear
instruction for sole custody to the father and unequal distribution, as supported
by the evidence provided to him.
He also succumbed to the opposing counsel who succeeded in limiting the
Psychologist's testimony to less than an hour; considering the complexity of
the case file, and in shortening the duration of the trial from one week to 3
days which resulted in shortcuts, and therefore in not dealing thoroughly with
the issues.
His ill-preparedness, lack of thoroughness and aggressiveness in his crossexamination of the Assessor, succumbing to the opposing counsels steering of
the trial away from its objective, his control over the scheduling, as well as
being easily intimidated by the trial Judge has all the landmarks of collusion.
This is supported by him pulling me aside as early as the second day of the
trial, requesting me to lower my expectations. A lawyers sworn duty is to do
all what is within his power to get the best results for his client. This is
definitely not what happened during this trial.

18
Once you read my lawyers responses to my correspondences, you would
agree with me that this is the text book definition of legal misrepresentation
and collusion, except of course the governing authority of the profession; the
Alberta Law Society, who did not see the merit of my concerns.
A complaint for legal misrepresentation and likelihood of collusion was filed
with the governing body but was dismissed, despite of the evidence pointing to
his guilt. This decision was appealed and I am still waiting for a response.
PART IV CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PRIME MINISTER
POLITICAL LEADERS, MINISTERS AND CHIEF JUSTICES

OF

CANADA,

After all my complaints have been dismissed, my next move was to report to
the highest authorities of the land through a correspondence dated May 20 th,
2015, by exposing unethical conduct, unprofessionalism, abuse of authority
and injustice at the lower hierarchical level. This approach was resorted to in
order to prompt them to act accordingly, not only to assign responsibilities to
those who discredit the values by which the Canadian institutions stand for,
but to also bring about some much needed corrective measures; such as
accountability and even much anticipated legislative reforms.
After realizing that nothing positive has come from my correspondences to
pertinent authorities as well to the highest authorities and no remedy was
taken as a result of my correspondences, I came to the realization that no
institution is willing to investigate itself and hold one of its own to account. I
am therefore going public with my long march of injustice through the corridors
of injustice, in joining the mainstream of those citizens who are subjected daily
to similar treatments and violations of their fundamental rights, and who are
counting on the support of organizations like yours in lobbying the policy
makers for some corrective changes. Organizations like yours are usually at the
source of winds of change, as you do hold the balance of power in allowing the
voiceless to be heard, and the publicly elected individuals in power to listen.
PART V THE EX-WIFE, APPEAL AND ASSOCIATED ORGANIZATIONS

The Ex-wife
The ex-wife comes from a dysfunctional family where aggression is the only
mean used to resolve differences and outstanding issues. Her father, a retired
member of the RCMP threatened two of his brothers with a firearm, and this
nearly landed him in jail, if it were not for the intervention of the elderly of the
community and family members, who convinced the brothers to forgive him.
Due to his violent nature, and despite of the fact that he had a few brushes
with the law, he mandated his two sons in a failed assassination attempt on
myself, which is documented at the Canadian embassy as well as the local
police station. In September of 2009 and while on a trip to Algeria, I was
subjected to an aggression that resulted in bodily harm, and necessitated

19
medical attention. I would not be here writing this letter, had it not been for a
timely intervention of two police officers who happened to be close by.
Since our separation in 2006, she has been dependent on government
assistance, including welfare; grants; subsidies; Child Tax Benefits and lately on
student loans after she has exhausted all possible means of milking the system
instead of getting a job, considering that she has been working during our
marriage.
It is not difficult to see that she is a financial abuser, and becoming a single
mother was not a necessity but a meticulously planned choice, so to enrich
herself and her family in Algeria.
For instance, she stole money from the husband she send to her family, took
CTB cheques of the first 4 months of 2006 to Algeria, chose not to work after
becoming a single mother despite of holding 2 Certificates in Childcare and
Accounting as well as a Diploma in Financial Services that pay at least $16.00
an hour, being audited by the Government of Canada in September 2009 after
failing to put a temporary stop on EI payments while on a trip to Algeria.
In regards to the ex-wifes culture of entitlement, she relied exclusively on me
in supporting the family, as she contributed neither to the household expenses,
nor to the maintenance and preservation of the matrimonial property. Her
income was spent extravagantly in part on herself; including $6,130.00 on a
cosmetic orthodontic procedure, while the balance was transferred to Algeria;
which was injected into a very profitable joint business venture with her father;
as bank transfer records and statements attest. She sought to divert her
attention as early as one year into the marriage and one month before she
started working into finding ways to get her hands on my money, as she made
2 deposits on September 29th, 2003 totalling $890.00
What transpires to be true in the aftermath of this relationship, is that I realized
too late in the relationship that I sowed the seeds of trust in an unfertile
ground; that of an arranged marriage, only to reap punitive repercussions, as I
fell victim of my own gullibility. As a matter of fact, she used my sponsorship as
a bridge to access the land of riches, marriage as a financial institution and
procreation merely as a source of cash flow. At the same time, her exit strategy
from the relationship is part of an elaborate scheme engineered to quit the
relationship once such a marital arrangement has become no longer lucrative
after depleting my financial resources, once she secured her familys financial
aspirations and once she realized that she can continue her financial abuse of
the system through divorce.
A footnote: I received information that while married, the ex-wife tried to talk
Houda out of the marriage, by enumerating the numerous financial
advantages that come with divorce. Her husband Mourad was not
comfortable with my ex-wifes numerous visits to his house, which prompted
him to express to his wife his unease with my ex-wifes presence in their lives.
It turned out that his feelings about her were dead on true.

20
It is no longer a mystery that her financially oriented schooling; as the titles of
her Certificate and Diploma attest; and which is a complete U-turn from her
line of work while still in Algeria, is a well-thought strategy that enables her to
seek the knowledge necessary to navigate through the financial system,
expand her investment possibilities, maximize returns on her investment
portfolios and exploit the loop holes to conceal cash transfers to offshore bank
accounts. This is in line with her money consciousness as reflected through the
well-established trend in defrauding the husband, abusing the system and her
investment aspirations to benefit her family as well as herself. She came to
Canada not to raise a family but to find ways on how to raise funds for her
family and her retirement fund too.
Although selfishness and the material aspect of marriage is the number one
killer of a relationship, I was accommodating regardless and took a conciliatory
approach instead of a confrontational one. For instance, this is true of the
failure to bring her jewellery from Algeria, to contribute equally to household
expenses while I was on parental leave and she was working, fraudulent use of
my debit card, frequent cash removals from my pockets with neither my
consent nor my knowledge.
In regards to her allegations of abuse, the followings are examples of the many
pre-trial failed attempts: Filing a restraining order without my knowledge
before even access was reinstated and when there was no contact with her
whatsoever; which I did not know about until I read about it in the CFSA report
and which was denied as the Judge must have come to the realisation of her
alibi, calling the police on me on October 9 th, 2010 while serving court
documents on her by accusing me of banging on her door and threatening her
in Arabic, as well as turning a police intervention on December 4 th, 2011 from
one dealing with enforcement of access to a domestic one; accusing me of
breaking the knob on the front door which got me nearly arrested; only for the
officers to realize soon thereafter there was no ground for an arrest; and
subsequently no report was issued regarding the latest incident.
She went even to the extreme by staging and recounting a fictitious domestic
violence scenario where she was supposedly punched; fell on the sofa and left
with a black eye as she described it during her contradictory testimony at
Pages 61 to 65 of the transcripts, which is diametrically opposed to the police
report dated January 22nd, 2006 she was referring to, which does not depict any
reference to physical violence other than an argument. Had she truly had a
black eye, the police officer would have had no choice but to call for medical
assistance, charge me with assault and made me spend the night in Jail. None
of that took place.
She is undeniably a confirmed and documented liar, as the evidentiary
documentation attests. By knowingly making a long list of false and
unsubstantiated allegations; including rape and abuse, she committed a
number of offences under the Criminal Code.
Other offences were also committed; including giving false evidence under
oath; that is perjury (section 131), making a false affidavit (section 138),

21
programming a child and persuading or misleading another person to make a
false statement; that is obstruction of justice (section 139).
The evidence proves that the ex-wife is a school drop-out; a child abuser and a
violent individual who cannot control her anger and lacks disciplining and
parenting skills. For instance, she has been delegating childcare services to her
male companions and shady care givers while attending evening classes,
encouraging the children to jaywalk; hence introducing them to violate the law
at an early age, and whose only method of disciplining the children is by
raising her voice at them, in the same way she was raised.
Being a first class manipulator and conniver, she was able to play the role of
the victim, which got her sympathy from both the custody Assessor and the
trial Judge, as she manipulated the former by shedding a few turtle tears
during the assessment, and recounting the victimization she had been
purportedly subjected to in a dramatic fashion during the trial.
Our youngest child has some challenges which are not medical in nature as his
medical records attest, and which she has been adamantly trying all along to
attribute to. She has been trying to associate his symptoms with Autism in an
effort to remove the blame away from her abusive attitude, a claim that was
soon put to rest by the Doctors. Such a claim could not be substantiated, in
addition to both parents being healthy and no medical history from both
parents lineages having been reported to suggest that his symptoms are
hereditary.
If both the CFSA and the Assessor did their job correctly by reviewing
thoroughly both parents as well as our childs medical files, they would have
realized that no child from both sides has any symptoms to establish a
hereditary link, which leaves the door wide open for the possibility of the
verbal and emotional abuse he was subjected to as a toddler as a probable
cause.
She was instrumental in the father being reduced to just a visitor to our
children and a mere week-end father. Even with this minimal access, it was not
enough for the ex-wife who continued to interfere with my access immediately
after the trial ended, by presenting herself at the school during my access
time, and taking the children under the watchful eye of the school principal, an
act which should have been condemned by the trial Judge but condoned
instead, as the latter blocked any attempt to file an application for leave to file
a court application for contempt of court.
THE APPEAL

On October 9th, 2013, my application for an appeal of Madam Justice

Andersons decision was struck down, for filing the Book of records, a mere
long week-end after the deadline, which in turn was appealed and dismissed
unjustly by Mr Justice C. D. OBrien, despite of Madam Justice Anderson erring
on all the 3 issues on the agenda. The simple fact that the trial Judge did not
hesitate to review the trial transcripts, and subsequently brought hastily some

22
changes to her decision soon after she was made aware of my application for
an appeal, is indicative that such a decision is arbitrary and that the husband
has grounds for appealing her decision.
Involving the opposing party did not help either, as it was incumbent on the
husband alone to provide an explanation to the court of appeal for not filing by
the deadline. Only the court of appeal has jurisdiction to reverse a decision, in
light of the nature of the rule violated and regardless of the opposing partys
opinion, in addition to such an application being initially brought against the
trial Judges decision and not the ex-wife.
This is an appeal intended for the husband to provide reasons for not filing on
time to justify reinstatement of the appeal, and therefore the opposing party
should not have been given jurisdiction over decision making with respect to
reinstatement.
The ex-wife had no grounds and legitimacy in interfering with the
reinstatement of the appeal. Her only interest was in maintaining an unjust
decision that is in her favour, whereas the husbands grounds for reinitiating
the appeal is to disclose errors; unethical conduct, unprofessionalism; abuse of
authority and injustice, in the hope of bringing some corrections to such a
decision, by implementing some changes to the lower court decision.
Clearly, the circumstances wherein the husband has been self-represented
thanks to denial of access to legal services by Legal Aid, and having spent an
inordinate amount of time preparing the Book of records and the Factum,
did not appear to have an effect on Mr Justice OBrien in at least jumpstarting
the human side in decision making, by giving the husband a second chance to
be heard, unless self-representation was seen as a handicap, not warranting
court time.
The Legal Aid Authority
The decision making authority appears to be very selective in providing its
services to Canadian citizens. Apparently, legal representation seems to be
based on gender and status rather than income, contrary to statements made
on their website. Considering that we are both eligible for legal representation
according to the income threshold established by the institution, the is no
reason for the ex-wife to be granted unlimited and unconditional access to
such services, as a total of 6 lawyers were retained to offer their services at
different times, while a stop was imposed after only 4 lawyers were retained
for the husband. It seems that the low income bracket eligibility criteria does
not apply in my case and, is replaced by the discrimination and gender
inequality criteria.
This is clearly a violation of Article (7) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which states that All are equal before the law and are entitled without
any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
I had my request for the continuation of legal representation denied three
times for three different reasons and appealed three times,:

23
The first time for supposedly having too many lawyers (4) retained to
represent me, and yet the ex-wife had a total of 6 lawyers retained by
comparison. No limitation was observed in her case.
The second time for supposedly having equity on the property I owned,
which I eventually did not benefit from, as the likelihood of receiving any
money from its sale is nil due to an order for equal distribution; filing for
bankruptcy and a significant debt owing, although equity was never an issue
when applications were made for retaining the 4 lawyers. Considering that
the decision makers are lawyers and aware that the ex-wife is at least
presumably entitled to half of matrimonial property, they chose not to use
the same standard with respect to the ex-wifes applications for a lawyer.
The third time, being refused an appeal lawyer on the ground of merit, as it
was determined that there is no possibility for the lower court decision to be
overturned, and therefore, retaining a lawyer would be futile and a waste of
the institutions resources. It is perplexing that in parallel, the same
institution does not use the same standard when determining the merit of
offering its legal services to those charged with criminal offenses, as legal
assistance is not contingent upon guilt vs. innocence.
The Opposing Counsels
The ex-wifes lawyers did not seem to be interested in the best interests of the
children as much as the ex-wifes interest, and their obsession with how
effectively they can make the husbands life stressful; principally through
obstruction of justice.
For instance, her third lawyer James Robertson was disrespectful to me, as he
was rude and unprofessional when he responded that it is none of my
business when simply asked if he was retained by Legal Aid. Not only he
intentionally failed to seek funding for his client in order to delay the conduct
of the bi-lateral assessment, but also blocked my application for contempt of
court; deferred the case file to case management for two long years where the
issues on the agenda were put on life support and removed the assigned
Assessor, Dr Victor Grossi, in an attempt to have him replaced by one of his
choice, Dr Yasenik. His actions were deliberate and destined to maintain the
status quo which was in favour of his client in terms of maintaining the status
quo, and which had also a disguised effect in delaying matrimonial distribution
until the mortgage is fully paid by the husband, so to enable his client to leave
the relationship with the largest share possible from distribution. This is the
type of malevolence intended to do harm to husbands, and to which opposing
counsels are sadly and dishonourably engaging in.
A detailed complaint supported by evidence was filed with the Alberta Law
Society and guess what, nothing transpired that lead me to believe that the
organization cares about the conduct of its members vis--vis of their clients,
as it has become a rule of thumb that institutions have no interest is finding a
member of their own guilty of wrongdoing.

24
The Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP)
The MEP authority was implemented to collect child support payments on
behalf of single mothers. It is worth noting that the MEP authority is to
enforcement of child support payment, what the law enforcement authority is
supposedly to the safeguard of access rights of fathers to their children. The
MEP authority would stop at nothing to collect child support arrears, using a
number of tools destined to break fathers knees such as driving license
suspension; passport confiscation; wage garnishing and freezing bank
accounts, whereas on the other hand, the law enforcement does not go to the
extreme likewise in protecting fathers rights to access; and does not take
violations seriously enough to hold mothers accountable for violating a court
order; as the MEP does to non-paying fathers; and end up hardly getting even
a slap on the wrist.
In my case, The MEP authority wasted no time in throwing the books at me,
despite of my low income. It used the authority given by the court to severely
punish me by suspending my driving license; confiscating my passport;
garnishing my salary; freezing my bank account; emptying my childrens
saving accounts of a total of approximately $3,500.00 to the benefit of the exwife. The authority went even to the extreme in displaying its malfeasance by
blocking access to my line of credit, which was used as a life support to pay for
my living expenses, legal costs as well as child support.
On the other hand, the mother violated the terms of access at least 55 times,
of which physical access was denied 8 times, as both an Affidavit and a
Supplemental Affidavit attest. Such a number is significantly high by
comparison to the national average and yet, neither the law enforcement; nor
my lawyers; the Assessor or the trial Judge were troubled by such a frequency.
The law enforcement authority
I got my first taste of what it is like trying to get a police officer to perform his
duty; for which he is paid by the tax payers; the same people he is supposed to
serve and protect, through denial of access and visitation.
There have been numerous violations of the terms of access, as per a court
order. A total of over 55 violations including 8 denials of access were reported
to the law enforcement authority, but no concrete action was taken, other than
drafting incident reports. They could have imposed punitive actions,
considering the order contains an enforcement clause. Doing nothing only
resulted in an increase in the ex-wifes overconfidence that she is untouchable,
and a subsequent exponential increase in the number of violations.
For instance, on December 4th, 2011, I called upon the police assistance after
the ex-wife refused to make the children available according to a scheduled
access. 3 Police cars and 3 Police constables were dispatched to her residence.
One of the Constables confronted me with an angry and intimidating tone by

25
accusing me of breaking the knob on her door. The mothers call made to the
Police was simply a diversion, intended to have the focus of the Police shifted
from enforcing access to attending a domestic incident, as she is a
manipulative and conniving individual, who has been remarkably successful in
obtaining sympathy from members of all the institutions that were involved
with the case file, including the law enforcement authority.
I have referred the Constable to the numerous violations of the terms of
access, such as the 12 Police interventions that generated 8 Police reports,
which are indicative of a history of denial of a court ordered access. Such
information was not enough to bring his attention to the fact that this is not an
isolated incident and that I have been encountering difficulties with exercising
my right to access to our children for the last 12 months. He insisted that he
was to deal with the events of that day only.
The 2 male constables did act as machos, were intimidating, harder on me and
dealt with me brutally merely on the basis of a false accusation of having
allegedly broken the knob on her door, while the female officer was calm and
did not exhibit any sign of anger. As a result, I almost ended up being arrested,
as reflected in the strong presence of Police officers, if it were not for my
handling of the situation calmly and professionally. After all, the sole purpose of
my presence near her residence was to pick up the children for access as
ordered by the court and nothing else.
The irony is that the parent who called them to assist a scheduled access with
a court order in hand and an enforcement clause in support, got nearly
arrested simply because the Constables were duped by a manipulative and
conniving mother, who was able to turn an access situation into a domestic
one, using an imaginary broken door knob as a bait; not only to steer away
the officers from the real issue; but to score big in intimidating the father, with
the hope that I should preferably forget about access altogether if I do not
want to be arrested.
The Constable refused to provide me with his name and the Police report
number. It was only afterward that I discovered there was no record of a Police
report stating the events of that day, as they had no solid proof to pursue the
matter further.
He also requested the Badge Number of another Constable, whom I referred to
as one who dealt with a violation of access on August 13 th, 2011, in a much a
different way, which I provided him with from a business card I had in my
possession. I was not comfortable with this unnecessary request and had
serious concerns as to a possible violation of the code of ethics, and to the
implication this might have on future requests for Police assistance with regard
to enforcement of future violations of access.
It is worth noting that the law enforcement authority takes domestic situations
more seriously than denial of access to fathers. For instance, immediately after
my request for assistance to enforce access on that day, the ex-wife requested

26
assistance with supposedly a domestic situation. Subsequently, the dispatcher
who had already sent 2 officers to assist me, recalled and replaced them with
an arrest team made up of 3 officers and 3 police cruisers in response to the
ex-wifes request for assistance. This is food for thought to those who are nave
enough to still believe in justice and equality in the land of freedom.
I was treated like a criminal from the moment the officers showed up at her
door, mainly because they acted solely on the word of a vindictive and
conniving woman who already had a documented history of fabricating false
allegations to police. Never did I have any problem in any of the countries I
resided in prior to coming to Canada, nor did I abuse any of my previous two
wives, as the local court transcripts attest. It was thanks to divorce that I first
had to be involved against my will with the law enforcement authority.
A correspondence from the Inspector, Cathy Light; in which she stated that the
matter regarding my complaint against the 2 officers in question, has been
classified as Resolved Informally, which took me by surprise and prompted
me to reiterate to the Professional Standards Commissioner, the need for a full
and thorough investigation. I have also made sure to be subsequently informed
with respect to the outcome of the investigation. In this regard, she stated on
the phone that this matter will be reviewed by their supervisor, and the
outcome cannot be disclosed to the complainant anyway. I knew right away
what I was up and against, and simply let my complaint fall within the cracks,
as I was actively engaged in a full fledge fight for custody of the children.
I heard it all before in the media since when the police authority had the will
to investigate itself???
B SUPPORT TO MY CASE
My case is supported by the Research, Testimonies, Human Rights Violations
and the known facts about False Allegations and the Gender-Bias at the Family
court level as well as at the associated institutions:
THE RESEARCH AND STATISTICS

There is a mindset that says fathers should be restricted to the breadwinner

role while mothers should undertake the care-taking role, despite of women
representing 47% of the working force.
75% of divorce is initiated by women. 90% of women are awarded custody of
the children.
75% of child support orders are in arrears, and this large creation of deadbeat
dads is attributed to the government, the courts and the enforcement
agencies.
The divorce rate in Canada is among the highest in the world. The cost related
to divorce has been shown to be the number one reason for child poverty and
personal bankruptcy. The Divorce industry is estimated at 6 billion dollars a
year. Oddly enough and in the name of the best interest of a child, while the
divorce industry is doing quite well financially, the children on the other hand,

27
are being victimized by a dysfunctional judicial system, and are doing neither
financially; educationally or emotionally well.
[Courts from Hell Family Injustice in Canada] by Frank Simons
He also added that Since the introduction in the late 1960s of the no fault
divorce, a unilateral law intended to grant wives immunity from being held
accountable for the dissolution of the marriage; considering they represent
three quarter of initiators of divorce, which has resulted in an increase in
divorce rate from 8 to 50% and the number of family law lawyers from 5,000 to
25,000, in addition to the childrens aid society and the maintenance
enforcement agencies trying to benefit financially from such a law.
A survey of 201 psychologists from 39 states who conducted custody
evaluations indicated that domestic violence was not considered by most to be
a major factor in making custody determinations. Conversely, three-quarters of
the custody evaluators recommended denying sole or joint custody to a parent
who "alienates the child from the other parent by negatively interpreting the
other parent's behavior."
For instance, mothers alleging domestic violence only received primary
physical custody 35% of the time.
In the US, fathers seem to have a far better chance in obtaining custody than
their counterparts in Canada.
For instance, 59% of fathers who won custody litigation had abused their
wives. In all cases where sole custody was awarded, fathers were awarded
custody in 79% of the cases. In 26% of the cases fathers were either proven or
alleged to have physically and sexually abused their children.
The vast majority of child physical and sexual abuse is committed in singleparent homes, home usually where the father is absent. "Contrary to public
perception, research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young
child will be that childs mother, not a male in the household." [Patrick Fagan
and Dorothy Hanks, the Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of
Marriage, Family, and the American Community (Washington, DC:
Heritage Foundation "Backgrounder," 3 June 1997), p. 16.]
Judges are definitely aware of wives who use the abuse card to get a leg up
in custody determination as the data and numerous surveys show, but have no
interest going against the mainstream belief that men are abusers, and to
steer away from mythical stereotypes. Far more women assault men than the
opposite. 65% of women reported that they regularly hit their husbands.
Also, the data reveals that more than 40% of domestic violence victims are
men. It would be therefore erroneous to assume that all divorces are abuse
related, considering that 75% of divorces are initiated by women.
[The Home Office Statistical Bulletin and the British Crime Survey]
Attorneys who represented mothers at these proceedings said that they often
advised their clients not to tell the mediator about domestic abuse. After

28
looking at the results of such mediations, the researchers determined that the
attorneys advice may well be justified; women who informed custody
mediators that they were victims of domestic violence often received less
favorable custody awards.
Clearly it has become obvious that the unsubstantiated allegations and the
malicious use of the abuse card is no longer tolerated by the courts and the
associated agencies, and any spouse whose intention to maliciously have a leg
up in custody backfires.
The Arizona studies main findings showed that having a custody evaluator
more likely resulted in the mother losing custody, a confirmation that the
findings of such an assessment usually militate against mothers, contrary to
my case, where the Assessor portrayed the ex-wife as the embodiment of a
picture perfect wife, without a single shortcoming and with a clean bill of
health in terms of caring for the children and parenting skills.
Erickson notes that great care must be taken by Assessors when interpreting
MMPI scores that do not accurately evaluate the parenting ability of a parent,
and a misinterpretation could result in placing custody of a child with a
batterer, which could put the child at severe risk. In contrast, Ms Rohatinsky
relied on tests that are in line with the MMPI such as the MMPI - 2, MCMI III,
PSI and PCRI, which could have resulted in misinterpretation of the results, in
addition to conducting her first bi-lateral assessment.
Cornell University professor Urie Bronfenbrenner, one of the most eminent
developmental psychologists of our time wrote: "Controlling factors such as
low income, children growing up in [father absent] households are at a greater
risk for experiencing a variety of behavioural and educational problems,
including extremes of hyperactivity and withdrawal; lack of attentiveness in
the classroom; difficulty in deferring gratification; impaired academic
achievement; school misbehaviour; absenteeism; dropping out; involvement in
socially alienated peer groups, and the so-called teenage syndrome of
behaviours that tend to hang together smoking, drinking, early and frequent
sexual experience, and in the more extreme cases, drugs, suicide, vandalism,
violence, and criminal acts."
Father-deprived children are:
1. 72% of all teenage murderers
2. 60% of rapists
3. 70% of kids incarcerated
4. Twice as likely to quit school
5. 11 times more likely to be violent
6. 75% of teen suicides
7. 80% of the adolescents in psychiatric hospitals
8. 90% of runaways
Sources: National Fatherhood Initiative (U.S.A.), US Bureau of Census
(U.S.A.), FBI (U.S.A.)
Children who grew up fatherless are:

29
Eight times more likely to go to prison

Five times more likely to commit suicide

20 times more likely to have behavioural problems

20 times more likely to become rapists

32 times more likely to become runaways

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances `

Nine times more likely to drop out of high school

One-tenth as likely to get A's in school

The Institute for the Study of Civil Society (Civitas) U.K.
If you think Canada is one of the best places to raise a child, think again.
According to UNICEF Canada President David Morley The fact that our children
rank in the bottom half in terms of quality of life when compared to other
industrialized nations simply isnt good enough.
The courts are contributing to such a situation, in that despite of both parents
being complementary in raising a child, granting quasi-exclusively custody of
children to mothers, hence minimizing the importance of fathers contribution
can only be part of the problem and not the solution.
As a matter of fact, there is a symbiosis between what the research says, and
what the reality is. According to a report in "Fathers and Their Impact on
Children's well-Being", children who have an involved father are more likely to
be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and as they
grow older, have better social connections. Fathers spend a higher percentage
of their one-to-one interactions with infants and preschoolers in stimulating
playful activity than mothers do, which is opposite to Ms Rohatinskys finding
during the conduct of play activities in her office. Children with involved, caring
fathers have better educational outcomes.
The reality is that there is no question that fathers do play an important part in
their children's lives, and the majority of studies affirm that an involved father
can play a crucial role particularly in the cognitive; behavioral and general
health and well-being areas of a child's life, that having a positive male role
model helps an adolescent boy develop positive gender-role characteristics.
On the other hand, the new field of Psychology seems to play a major part in
diminishing the role of the father. In fact, psychology became part of the
problem. Research studies did not place much importance on the role of the
father, and his influence on the development and growth of his child, which
was reported as "insignificant".
Consequently, the marriage of family law with Psychology is in fact a
dangerous combination by which custody is resolved, in that it is at the origin
of shifting the focus away from the children, and onto punishing husbands,
hence putting the children under the bus.
A footnote: It is ironic that Madam Justice Anderson had recourse to an
unqualified and inexperienced Evaluator, Ms Rohatinsky, in assisting her to
determine the best custodial arrangement of the children; in light of what is in

30
the best interest of that child, and yet the trial Judge confined her decision
merely to the content of an assessment report, without taking into account
what prominent experts in the field; such as Professor Urie Bronfenbrenner had
to say, from which S.16(10) of the Divorce Act recommendation for maximum
access of the children to their fathers appears to be inspired a child of the
marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with
the best interests of the child.
Research proves that children thrive with the active and meaningful
participation of both biological parents, and is true for post-divorce families.
"Father-deprivation is a serious form of child abuse that is institutionalized and
entrenched within our legal system. Powerful sexist people have a vested
interest in diminishing the role of men, especially their role as fathers.
Dick Feeman, Joseph Maiello, Mike Jebbet, "Child Custody or Child
Abuse", Victoria Times-Colonist, Jan 8, 1998).
Divorced men can care and nurture their children competently and are equally
capable of managing the responsibilities of custody, with the possible
exception that the fathers have been found more effective when it comes to
matters like discipline, enforcing limits, and that is particularly true with boys."
[Dr. Richard A. Warshak's submission to the Joint Interim Committee
on Family Law for State of Missouri].
The major finding of the study was that across a variety of assessments of
psychological well-being (self-esteem, anxiety, depression, problem behaviors),
children (especially boys) did significantly better in the custody of their fathers.
Moreover, children in father custody had the advantage of maintaining a more
positive relationship with the non-residential parent - the mother.
[K. Alison Clarke-Stewart and Craig Haywood: Advantages of Father
Custody and Contact for the Psychological Wellbeing of School-Age
Children (1996), 17 Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
239].
Statistics on shared parenting are fragmented. But several studies in recent
years show that while shared parenting is becoming more popular, it is far from
the norm. A 2014 study showed that the percentage of cases in Wisconsin that
ended in equal shared custody grew from 5% in 1986 to 27% in 2008.
The research has prompted 20 states to consider proposals that generally
encourage judges to adopt custody schedules and maximize time for each
parent. Some of the measures, such as those proposed in New York and
Washington states, take an additional step by requiring judges to award equal
time to each parent unless there is proof that such an arrangement wouldnt
be in a childs best interest.
42% of children said their mothers tried to prevent them from seeing their
fathers after divorce - 16% said their fathers tried to prevent them seeing their
mothers.

31
[Glynnis Walker: Solomon's Children - Exploding the Myths of Divorce,
New York: Arbor House, 1986]
Clearly mothers are 3 times as likely to violate fathers access as vice versa.
Under such circumstances and in light of the friendly rule, where the law
insists on respecting the non-custodial parents right to access, would it not
make more sense to award custody to more fathers than mothers, departing
hence from the present trend?
According to Lawyer Walter Fox, 50% of all complaints against Judges in
Canada are against Family Law Judges.
The vast discretionary powers given to Judges are at the root of the injustice
husbands are subjected to, as 2 different judges may make opposite decisions
for an identical case. For instance, Judges responding to the question about
whether they consider violence or threats of violence when making custody
and visitation decisions, only a little more than half of the judges (58%)
indicated that they always considered it. (11%) percent said that they never
considered it (Michigan).
TESTIMONIES

We know from admittedly subjective experience that to succeed as a man in

court, it is much more difficult than if you are a woman. That is the reality.
Toronto lawyer Michael Day quoted: When I go to court with a male client who
is looking for custody, it's always an uphill battle. I always have to have a
special fact situation in order to have a good chance at getting custody.
Toronto Psychologist and custody assessor, Dr. Marty McKay testified: My
finding is that there are a lot of nurturing fathers out there. I've had some
women tell me they don't care how the assessment turns out because they are
going to get custody of the children anyway "because they always give
custody to the woman".
Let us not forget the often sordid role of custody-access assessors. There was
an excellent article by Donna Laframboise in the National Post on January 30,
1999. She described three cases where assessors had relied on false
information, faulty assumptions and in one case it was clear that the assessor
proceeded from the assumption that children normally should be with their
mother. Some custody-access assessors and trial Judges are all part of the
problem.
I have reviewed the family law, divorce and matrimonial property acts, and
subsequently totally agree with lawyer Carey Linde of Vancouver, B.C. in that
the gender neutral divorce laws are not the problem. The problem is with the
"judicially assumed presumptions" that govern the day to day determinations
of the best interest of the child test in our lower courts. These "presumptions"
typically have never been put to the test of evidence, but spring from and are
maintained out of gender biases still ingrained in the system.

32
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The Fathers Rights Movement declared that evil mothers have lodged false
allegations of sexual or physical abuse and domestic violence against millions
of fathers just to deprive and alienate them from their children.
A recurring pattern of potential human rights violations by Canada is well
documented, for instance through numerous complaints reported by fathers to
Canada Court Watch, corresponding to rights guaranteed in multiple
internationally accepted human rights covenants and treaties. The human
rights framework is a powerful tool for demonstrating the need for legal, social,
and political reforms regarding the Canadian Judiciary.
FALSE ALLEGATIONS

Women have a weapon at their disposal, which is just as lethal as any firearm
or poison. That weapon is the false allegation.
False allegations are lies and people who make them are by definition liars. A
false allegation of abuse isnt just any lie; its one of the most contemptible lies
that exist. Even one victim of such a despicable lie is one victim too many.
Too many men have become the targets of false allegations of domestic
violence and sexual abuse, a practice that has become very popular with
women in order to gain the upper hand in divorce and custody battles.
Women who perpetrate false allegations are malicious and disturbed. There are
clear tactical advantages for women who fabricate false allegations.
Over the last 25 years, as the domestic violence and divorce industries have
grown, a stubborn system has developed in response to female initiated
allegations of abuse in which the accuser is rewarded. The accusers get
attention. The person they hate is punished. They receive social approval and
full back-up. Female false accusers also receive free legal representation,
welfare payments, free counseling and other support services and support
from family, friends and neighbors in other words, even more attention.
(Wakefield & Underwager,1990).
Furthermore, there are very little, if any consequences for women who make
false allegations in family court. Ultimately, the false accuser has far more to
gain than she has to lose.
(Green & Schetky, 1988)
Family law courts have granted diplomatic immunity to ex-wives, as they can
violate the law with impunity. For instance, by knowingly making a long list of
false and unsubstantiated allegations; including rape and abuse, the ex-wife
committed a number of offences under the Criminal Code.
Other offences were also committed, including perjury - giving false evidence
under oath (section 131), making a false affidavit (section 138), programming

33
a child and persuading or misleading another person to make a false
statement, which is an obstruction of justice (section 139). Regardless, she was
never held accountable for her acts.
The trial transcripts are a testimony to the ex-wifes perjurious trait, as the
discrepancies between her testimony about the incident of January 22 nd, 2005
and the police report are diametrically opposed, but the trial Judge ignored
them anyway, approving hence perjury.
Many men experience a very rude awakening when they enter the justice
system via false allegations. Perhaps the truth will prevail, but typically not
without a considerable amount of collateral damage to themselves and their
children.
When a man is accused of abusing a woman or a child, any concept of due
process and innocent until proven guilty flies out the window. Men are
assumed guilty until proven innocent when a woman cries abuse or rape.
Fighting to prove his innocence can take years and become a financial burden
many men simply cant afford.
Wakefield and Underwager (1990) determined that false accusers are much
more likely to have a personality disorder such as histrionic, borderline,
passive-aggressive, or paranoid. False accusers appear to be highly defensive
and rigid, to have poor insight and a tendency to deny personal shortcomings.
They tend to be extremely concerned about and sensitive to how others
perceive them. False accusers tend to confuse feelings with facts. A woman
may feel abused or may feel the children are being abused, when
objectively speaking, no abuse has ever actually occurred
(Zepezauer,1994).
Wakefield and Underwager (1990) found that:
[False accusers] are likely to misperceive the behavior of others and to react
to stressful situations in maladaptive ways. Depending upon the specific
personality disorder, they are characterized by instability of mood, impulsivity,
inappropriate emotional overreactions, a need for approval and attention, and
difficulties handling anger and conflict.
False accusers also have an obsessive hatred of and anger toward their expartner, so much so that their hatred and anger become a driving force in their
lives. False accusers are individuals who hate their exes more than they love
their children. Their hatred and anger trumps the needs and very much put the
best interests of their children in a pandemonium state.
The accused tend to be your average nice guy who has a more nurturing and
passive personality. These men are often educated and unlikely to be socially
aggressive or competitive and tend to lack insight into their personal
relationships, which may explain why so many of these men are thrown for a
loop when their exes throw them under the bus even when they have made

34
threats throughout their marriage to leave the relationship, call 911 and have
their husbands arrested.
(Wakefield & Underwager,1990).
Additionally, these men, because of their sensitive and caring natures, may be
more vulnerable to relationships with needy and manipulative women. Once in
a relationship with a high-conflict (HCP) and/or abusive personality disordered
woman (APDI), they may behave somewhat passively as they continue to
naively hope that everything will magically work out in the end.
Breaking-up with an abusive, manipulating, high-conflict and possibly
personality disordered woman is often very much like handling a live grenade,
which often results in the man being at risk of becoming the target of false
allegations.
False allegations, even if they are later refuted rarely result in a completely
happy ending for the accused and the children. Family court and law officials
must begin implementing serious consequences beyond the anemic
consequence of outpatient counseling for both women and men who make
false allegations. Perhaps, if women who are inclined to make false allegations
knew there would be real life consequences such as jail time; fines and loss of
custody; they would not be as likely to see making false allegations as a viable
option.
Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1990). (Personality Characteristics of
Parents Making False Accusations of Sexual Abuse in Custody
Disputes). Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 2(3), 121-136.
Zepezauer, F. S. (1994) (Believe her! The woman never lies myth).
Just as false accusers rarely receive consequences for perverting and
obstructing justice, court evaluators and mental health professionals who
wrongly determine that abuse has occurred through their own incompetence
and biases are rarely held accountable. The falsely accused is not the only
casualty of a court appointees or mental health evaluators rush to judgment.
Both the accused and his children are hurt. This is not justice; it is a calculated
transgression of husbands and a travesty of justice.
Although both common sense and the prevailing legal standard dictate careful
consideration of evidence in domestic violence and abuse when determining
custody; as is the case in criminal law, allegations of domestic violence and
abuse made during a divorce or custody proceeding are always taken as
factual, despite of the absence of evidence. These allegations often are false
because they are fabricated and asserted in a contentious environment. Such
allegations often result in unfair retribution against husbands.
Judges south of the border, appear to understand well the phenomenon of the
use of the abuse card during custody trials and its purpose, contrary to their
Canadian counterparts, who side with mothers despite of the lack of
corroborating evidence for abuse.

35
Unreasonable denial of access, false claims of abuse, and other tactics which
deprive children of a separated/divorced parent, are significant and tragic
problems that call out not only for social solutions (as correctly advocated by
the C.B.A. committee), but for effective legislative remedies as well.
GENDER BIAS

"Gender Bias" is the tendency to interpret the actual facts of the case before
the court through a judicial prism of favoritism to one gender over the other,
where such favoritism is based on prejudice; stereotyping; distortion and
irrational preference. (In the worst cases of "gender bias", my case being one
of them, the actual facts are not "interpreted"; the facts are actually ignored).
The bias in the system results in pathologizing, punishing, and discriminating
against men. The system leaves decisions, which should be made on the basis
of factual information in a courtroom, to counsels for wives; extra-judicial
public and private personnel from associated agencies.
The system precludes the parties, particularly the father, from his rights to due
process, including a thorough trial; long cause hearing; or adjudication; to
which he is entitled, much less an appeal of these decisions. Fathers are
coerced into stipulations through the rubber-stamping of definitive evaluations
and reports, which become the courts ruling.
Task forces were initiated by a variety of institutions and organizations in the
United States, including the state supreme court; judicial council; and bar
association to give prominence to the goal of raising awareness of gender bias
in the court system. Thirty-four have published reports.
I should emphasize that my firm belief is that the majority of judges in Canada
have no intention to discriminate upon grounds of gender. But those who do,
just like the public at large, have been influenced by popularly held
stereotypes and myths that have been with us, in many cases, for years and
years. These stereotypes and myths have been eagerly and professionally
reinforced by radical feminists and by certain media, who like many of us, have
feared to question the factual basis behind these stereotypes and myths.
It is the responsibility of litigants and their legal counsel to properly present the
evidence and the authorities that challenge these myths.
I can say with some degree of confidence that the vast majority of the laws in
Canada are worded in gender neutral terms. The greater part of the problem
lies with the judicial interpretation of our statutes as applied to the facts of
individual cases.
The law of Canada is rising to rid itself of gender bias in some areas, while in
the area of family law, men are discriminated against, vilified and simply put
down for no other reason than the fact that they are men. It is curious indeed
that gender bias is being wrestled to the ground in those areas where women
have historically been faced with the most invidious and objectionable
discrimination. But when men are subject to equally objectionable
stereotyping, then this passes as science or common sense.

36
The discrepancies between family law and court decisions, in terms of gender
Bias, is a deliberately staged act, intended to bait men into getting married, so
that once hooked, a divorce even initiated by the wife would financially ruin
them. If the law were drafted in favor of women in plain wording; which is not
in its present form, it would be unthinkable for men to contemplate walking on
thin ice, by entering into such a relationship, knowing well ahead that in case
of a divorce the presumption of custody of the children to the wife and half of
the assets to her despite of her non-contribution to the marriage are upheld by
the court. If that is the case, I guarantee that a handful of men would
contemplate marriage, with a number of extra precautionary measures such as
a prenuptial agreement along with a list of conditions, and that each partner
would come with a protective shield upfront, which is contrary to the purpose
of marriage.
There is a very encouraging signal from the Supreme Court of Canada that
gender bias and stereotyping are not to be tolerated. So if that is the case, why
should not the Canadian Judicial Council follow the footsteps of the supreme
court of Canada, instead of tolerating such practice, by dismissing nearly all of
the citizens complaints into that effect, to protect members of their own by
subscribing to cover-ups. Apparently, legislation and its application at the lower
hierarchical level are two quiet different concepts.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has also struck a great blow against gender bias's
first cousin, gender stereotyping.
The self-defeatist outlook of most family law lawyers feeds into the stereotypes
and perpetuates injustice. A lawyer must properly interview a client and see if
he has the requisite fact situation that would justify pursuing matters whether
through patient negotiation or through court action. Lawyers must not just
assume defeat based on gender, by not taking leadership positions when it
comes to promoting gender equality and gender fairness.
There was a time when women as a group were not being treated fairly; that
was wrong and it has now been largely remedied. But the pendulum has swung
too far in the opposite direction. Now it is men who face discrimination in the
family courts. Court cases must be decided upon the real evidence and not on
retribution for our ancestors wrongdoing and scapegoating.
CONCLUSION

[Judges] - refers only to those assigned to family law, and who use the same
approach in dealing with relevant issues as Madam Justice Anderson.
I have become against my will, one of the numerous Canadians who have
found themselves either on a collision course with our judicial system, or
trapped within the cracks of the system. I subsequently found myself actively
engaged in the mainstream movement of Canadians who are fighting the
unethical conduct, stereotyping, bias and injustice in the family courtrooms.

37
What I have been subjected to is not something new, as it has been described
by Backlash groups, who have painted pictures of modern day witch-hunts and
McCarthy-type hearings, attempting to shift the focus from abused children to
innocent fathers who are being persecuted by vindictive wives; partial Judges;
biased/dishonest Assessors and corrupt lawyers.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law is the
memorandum operandi by which the criminal jurisprudence operates.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about family law, where a husband is
guilty until proven innocent. Even under this presumption, I personally was not
even allowed to introduce evidence that exonerate me from the guilt of abuse;
rape and misogyny that the Assessor labelled me with in her report.
It is no secret that intentional prosecutional misconduct has often resulted in
wrongful convictions, which robbed many innocent individuals of their
freedoms; one of the most cherished human right. Fortunately, many were
exonerated as a result of the validation of breakthrough advances in DNA
forensic analysis.
In parallel, the same cannot be said about the injustice to which husbands are
subjected to in family courtrooms, as there is no equivalent forensic tool to
authenticate unethical conduct and abuse of power. In this situation,
overhauling the Family justice system from top to bottom and establishing
accountability are the solution.
I have been all my life a crusader against abuse in any shape or form and
injustice, regardless of the type of relationship involved and gender:
Husband/wife, Parent/child, Landlord/tenant, Manager/employee, Government
authority/subordinate, Public servant/citizen, and so on. I particularly condemn
sturdily child abusers, and expect no sympathy from Judges in awarding them
custody; and if they do authorize access, it should be supervised at all times.
Yet, it is mindboggling that Judges show leniency and sympathy towards child
abusing mothers who falsely testify in a dramatic way about being subjected
themselves to abuse by their husbands, while the vulnerable and voiceless
children of the marriage, who do not have the same privilege to voice the
abuse they have been subjected to, are often ignored.
Even worse, unsubstantiated allegations of abuse are more likely to override
documented evidence proving child abuse in granting custody to mothers,
whereas husbands would have definitely not been granted custody, had the
situation been reversed. This is an insult to human intelligence.
Fatherless children have a higher dependency on expensive state-funded
services such as welfare, subsidy and care programs, special education
programs, child support enforcement, juvenile detentions centres and the list
goes on.
It is one of the greatest social problems in Canada, and so is gender-bias and
untrue allegations of abuse and rape in custody determination, and the
subsequent miserable failure in terms of fairness and conventional thinking at

38
the court level as well as the associated agencies. As a result, fathers are
treated unfairly and inhumanely. It is therefore, time to hold those responsible
accountable.
It seems like the same system which is entrusted with the welfare of children,
is allowing voiceless and defenseless children slip through the protective net
and into the care of abusive single mothers, even when good loving fathers
with good education and appropriate parenting skills are available to take care
of their children without dependence on the government.
It is not difficult to link crimes, rape, gang activities, violence on the streets,
which is more likely the result of children of broken marriages who lack a father
figure in their lives to set-up moral guidelines. This is the product of the
present system, which is allowing the destruction of families, and in making
children of marriages lose their identity and purpose in life.
Judges want you to believe that daily decisions made in the courtrooms are in
the best interest of children. If that is so, how is it that in my case for example,
Madam Justice Anderson ruled out shared parenting; hence marginalizing the
father, when studies had revealed the disastrous consequences on the children
of mono-parental custodial arrangements, even worse when the custodial
parent is a child abuser, as supported by the evidence which was rejected as
non-relevant.
Bad decisions like this are made all the time by Judges, such as Madam Justice
Anderson who are either new to family law, prefer to use their discretion based
on side issues rather than the law, or are more likely not well-versed in the
psychology as it relates to the repercussion and the dangers on society of
children raised in single homes, particularly where a father figure is excluded
from the children lives.
In contrast, the Honourable Judge Judy Sheindlin; for whom I have tremendous
respect, who is honest and not afraid to speak the truth, has qualities that
have most certainly contributed to the success of her TV show. Had she been
subscribing to bias, stereotyping, abuse of authority and injustice during her
televised court sessions, her open and public show would have most certainly
been met with criticism from the audience and had the plug pulled out.
The followings are excerpts from her interview with Larry King:
Ive always thought in this country we do a terrible disservice to fathers.
There is a law that says no one parent is favored over the other, now thats
honored more in the breach than it is honored in actuality. And, I have been a
proponent for many years of there being a presumption in this country for joint
custody of children. Thats where courts should start.
If youre going to deviate from that, you have to demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that there is some valid reason why youre going to
deviate from that because one parent is crazy, one parent has a drug problem,
an alcohol problem, somethings wrong.
That should be the standard joint custody because children are entitled to be
raised by two parents even if the parents dont get along anymore.

39
I agree fully with the Honourable Judge Judy Sheindlin in that why the god
given right to equal parenting which is being practised during the marriage, is
all of a sudden overruled by Judges immediately after one parent decides to
quit the relationship, and even worse, awarding custody to the parent who
leaves the marriage for reasons that are not even in the best interest of the
children?
If all Judges use the same line of reasoning, the judicial system would not be in
crisis today and we would have better court outcomes. I do not see why some
Judges would not want to use the courtroom as an opportunity in finding
solutions, instead of using it for women advocacy, retribution and punishment
to husbands. If only Judges are willing to follow her footsteps, the journey
through the corridors of justice would be far less stressful, and the image of the
justice system would be improved significantly.
Furthermore, it is unfortunate that the courts have adopted the award of
custody to mothers as the rule instead of the exception. If Judges are not
giving sole custody to mothers in record numbers, a problematic and
contentious child support concept would not have been implemented, as
shared parenting by nature would allow both parents to provide for their
children while under their care, without the need of insistence from the court,
making hence child support unnecessary.
Child support arrears do not necessarily make fathers deadbeats, and being
unable to make payments is by no means a gage for child neglect.
In my case, I have been working a part-time job well before our separation, and
cannot be defined as being underemployed to justify imputing income to me.
Moreover, the decision to grant the ex-wife custody of our children, whereas a
just trial Judge would have granted it to the father; in light of the supporting
evidence, which would have made her in a position of child support payer, is
somehow problematic. It is the case of putting the cart before the horse.
Furthermore, making payments to her when she is proven not to be trusted
with household finances, her inability to buy the children decent cloths with no
holes; despite of monthly Child Tax payments made to her in the amount of
$976.00 and her obsession with extravagant spending and brand name
clothes; shoes and Jewellery as well as funds transfer to Algeria, would be
unwise. This is just adding insult to injury.
Marriage is a contract between two spouses that encompasses rights and
responsibilities, and should be no different than any other binding contract
between two individuals or more. The no-fault divorce is simply a nullification
of the contractual aspect of marriage. If violations of a contract are punishable
by law under other jurisprudences, why violation of a marriage contract is an
exception to the rule? It seems that the reason is that the majority of the 75%
of the violators are women, and that abuse is not always the reason behind
divorce as much as the financial motivation is.
In my case, it is no secret that the ex-wife used me merely as a sperm donor
and a cash cow, and marriage as a financial institution. She quitted the
relationship once the marital arrangement was no longer lucrative, which in
itself is a violation of the marriage contract. Voicing my concern fell on deaf

40
ears, and my supporting evidence was rejected, while the allegations of abuse
were listened to attentively.
By definition, a Judge is someone who adjudicates legal cases; assesses
information provided by each side; oversees court proceedings and pronounces
informed decisions in an impartial manner, based on the law and pertinent
evidence, and not on side issues and lies.
A religious leader is more inclined to deal with people justly and impartially due
to god fearing, which makes him potentially more suitable in taking a leading
role in making decisions, when the law and the evidence are no longer a
prerequisite in a court of law in deciding family law cases.
A custody evaluator is a professional whose job description is to focus on the
children by determining their best interests, and appointing the custodial
parent who can best meet those. Leading blindly a malicious crusade against
the father, while backing up unconditionally the ex-wife in support of her quest
for custody, is definitely not helpful in making a just court decision. Anyone
with no Psychology degree but with integrity and good human qualities would
have done a much better job.
A lawyer is a professional who swore an oath to represent his clients in the best
way possible, to not be intimidated by the opposing party and succumb to
external factors. With no Law degree, I could have done a much better job than
my lawyer, as I did obtain good results prior while self-represented.
The reality is that family law has become an area of practice of choice for
many law students because of its lucrative nature. A corrupt legal system led
to the increase in self-representation. Such signs which heightened the
awareness of Canadians, may also lead to the demise of family law in the near
future.
There was conspicuously a synergy between the major players in my divorce
case, who are none other than the trial Judge; the Assessor; lawyers from both
sides; complaint Managers; the Legal Aid and law enforcement authorities, in
that it is their combined effort in standing in the way of a fair custodial
arrangement through the use of a variety of tools such as bias, stereotyping,
gender discrimination, protectionism of single mothers and above all, a culture
of covering up each others malicious involvement. The team is very much
aware of the domino effect that would ensue, if any member is exposed.
Instead of exposing those who disgrace the governing body of the profession
through their unethical conduct as expected; the organization distancing itself
from biased professionals; and considering them as not representing the
values of the relevant institution, they receive a tap on the back as a sign of
support and approval from their superiors and conduct Managers. In doing so,
they condone disgraceful unethical conduct, putting hence the institution in
the line of fire and making the department supposed to oversee complaints
against their members unnecessary if not futile.

41
Instead of using standards of honesty; justice and humanity in making an
assessment or rendering a decision, judgements appears to be based on
arbitrary characteristics such as, cultural and religious backgrounds, gender;
stereotyping, retribution, scapegoating, among other criteria.
Theoretically, the law guides and controls child custody evaluations, but the
prevailing custody standard, the ''best interests of the child'' test is a vague
rule that directs judges to make decisions tailored to individual cases according
to gender, stereotypes, cultural and religious backgrounds and unclearly
defined best interests of a child. Furthermore, although the law is gender
indiscriminate, state statutes typically offer only vague guidelines as to how
judges and evaluators are to assess parents and the merits of their cases, and
how they should ultimately decide what custody arrangements will be in a
child's best interests. In this vacuum, custody evaluators typically administer
to parents and children an array of tests and assess them through less formal
means including interviews and observation. Sadly, we find that:
Tests specifically developed to assess questions relevant to custody are
completely inadequate on scientific grounds.
The claims of some anointed experts about their favorite constructs e.g.,
allegations of abuse and rape' are equally hollow when subjected to
evidentiary scrutiny.
Evaluators should question the use even of well-established psychological
measures e.g., measures of intelligence; personality; psychopathology; and
academic achievement because of their often limited relevance to the
questions before the court.
Law is the rule of our society. Justice is a concept of the virtue of fairness.
Although in theory, they both complement each other, in reality they are
viewed as 2 distinct concepts in the courtroom. When the law is not applied in
a just manner by an unethical judge, you have injustice.
Our judicial system was never meant to be rewarding and too friendly to those
who offend the laws of the land by obstructing justice, committing perjury and
being in contempt of court regardless of gender. The courtroom is supposed to
be a platform where justice is delivered based on facts and not hearsay.
Anything less could be construed as obstruction to justice. Instead of being a
litigant against the ex-wife in a court of law, I found myself unfortunately a
litigant against the trial Judge, the Assessor and lawyers in the court of public
opinion.
What is taught in the schools of law and Psychology is one thing, what
transpires in the courtroom and the Assessors office is often an entirely
different thing. It has become so painfully clear that the family courts and
assessors are polarizing our society and disintegrating the very foundation of
marriage by favoring women over men, which is subsequently dissuading men
from getting married, living hence on the sideline of righteousness.
The arrogance of those Canadian family court judges with their destructive
decisions is beginning to become known throughout the world. When I

42
announced the negative results to family members back home, they did not
seem to be shocked at all, as they appeared to know the results well ahead of
time. The internet has become the tool of choice, providing women with
invaluable information with respect to countries with soft immigration laws and
wife friendly divorce court systems. This cannot be better supported by the
fact that 4 mothers offered me their teenage daughters into marriage, which I
adamantly rejected, knowing now what I did not prior to the divorce.
Under bias and stereotyping circumstances, a family court judge and an
Assessor hearing unproven accusations, often do not want to believe that the
accusing parent is lying, smearing the other parents reputation to intentionally
severe the umbilical link between father and child. Such wives are often
controlling, domineering, connivers and manipulators, and do not hesitate to
even shed a few turtle tears, or testify against her supposedly and mythical
victimization in a dramatic fashion, knowing that she would be believable.
That is an offense under Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act, which stipulates
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 any malicious hindrance
must be punishable by loss of custody.
Confirmation of an Assessor who had never conducted a bi-lateral assessment,
approving her report and using it exclusively as a blueprint in conducting the
trial without putting it through a fine comb for fingerprints of bias, allowing the
opposing counsel to have the upper hand over the trial by limiting the
Assessors time; shortening the duration of the trial; steering the proceedings
to his clients advantage by focusing on her victimization instead of the
children, while putting my lawyer on the sideline by refusing to allow his
clients evidence were landmarks that the outcome was already decided and
the faith of the children was sealed. Even my lawyer saw what was at play in
the court room as he pulled me aside as early as the second day of the trial;
and prior to the start of the proceedings, suggesting that I should lower my
expectations.
The combination of assignments of a Judge relatively new to family law and a
Psychologist, who has not conducted a single bi-lateral assessment prior and
has been consulting with Dr Jeff Chang and Dr Larry Fong during the
assessment is a recipe for disaster and leaves many unanswered questions
regarding the circumstances leading to their assignments; their level of
expertise in family law and in conducting bi-lateral assessments respectively
and the matching of such assignments in accordance with the complexity of
the file; the high conflict nature of the divorce and the contentious issues on
the agenda.
A clear case of abuse of discretion is the fact that Madam Justice Anderson
ignored the provision of the Matrimonial Property Act under s. (8) factors in
distributing matrimonial property justly and fairly. She failed to factor in the exwifes non-contribution to the marriage as well as her involvement in
fraudulent activities; concealment and enrichment, by not allowing pertinent
evidence entered during the trial. The law was neither meant to recompense

43
sponsored spouses who use marriage as a financial institution; procreation as a
cash flow; divorce as a mean to abuse the system; put the children in harms
way as a result, nor to encourage such practises.
For instance, Madam Justice Anderson assumed that the ex-wife was
deliberately put in a disadvantaged position, where she was forced to be a stay
home mother to look after the children and perform cleaning choirs around the
house. This is totally untrue, as I personally send her to school and allowed her
to join the workforce, and is by no mean a situation where I forced her to quit a
good paying job so to stay at home, a situation that would undoubtedly entitle
her to a financial compensation through matrimonial property distribution. To
the contrary, her overall situation has significantly improved through my
sponsorship and marriage where she obtained unlimited freedoms that were
denied by a hardliner father, a permanent landed immigrant status, Canadian
citizenship and passport and an increase in income from approximately
$1,000.00 to $32,000.00 annually, which I should the least be thanked for.
60 years ago, a wifes primary role in a relationship was a homemaker while
the husbands role was a bread winner, and the divorce law at the time did
take into account this dependent/provider relationship. In this day and age,
such a dependency does not hold any longer, as womens educational and
employment prospects have improved significantly. 47% of the workforce is
made up of women, 80% of households are two-income earners and more girls
than boys are attending High School. Unfortunately, the contemporary mindset
has not been reset accordingly to reflect such changes.
Madam Justice Andersons trampling over the fathers fundamental right to a
fair trial, violation of the ethical principles of the profession as well as the
childrens bill of rights cannot be better displayed by other than putting my
complaint and the trial transcripts side by side, wherein pertinent information;
details and evidence were left out during the trial, which resulted in an
outcome that does not reflect the facts surrounding the issues of the case file.
This is a clear example of miscarriage of justice. I stood in the house of justice
and yet there was no justice for me.
The trial Judge did not abide by the standards that the judicial system has in
place, such as the principle of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law,
reliance on the evidence, the rules of court, the family law; divorce and MPA
Acts. Instead, and for convenience purposes, she threw all these against the
wall and backed fully a biased and unsubstantiated bi-lateral assessment
report, while refusing to admit over 57 Exhibits; evidence in the form of
documentation as well as audio; video and pictorial forms, which clearly
militates against the ex-wife.
Madam Justice Anderson acted against the rule of law, the principle of fairness,
and contrary to the ethical principles and professional conduct, and certainly
not with the best interest of the children in mind, in light of s.(15)(1) and s.(28)
of the Constitution Act (1982), the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
respectively, s.(1)(b) and s.(2)(e) of the Canadian bill of rights, s.(1)(b) of the

44
Alberta Bill of Rights (1972) and s.(3), (5), (6), (8), (10), (12), (15) and (20) of
the childrens bill of rights.
It is about time that independent observers participate in the courtrooms to
increase transparency and accountability of those judges who trample over the
rights of citizens.
It is also about time to have all meeting with the Assessors recorded, as a
deterrent for those who chose to act as womens advocates rather than
childrens advocate, and who use their assessment report as an indictment of
the husband instead of a vector of facts and the truth.
Even better, to amend family law by introducing the same system of trial by a
jury as practiced in criminal law to circumvent a Judge from being the Judge;
the Jury and the executioner, and to reduce unethical conduct; abuse of
authority; bias and injustice that have become the deciding factor instead of
the law.
There is a need for a clear definition within the law to remove the extended
latitude given to Judges to evade accountability regarding biased and
discriminatory decisions against fathers without just cause in taking away
Gods given right to be equal parents, and restrict their ability to create and
justify their own laws, which many times contradict the intend of the existing
laws that govern family law.
The family courtroom should be ruled by common sense and not by emotions,
by succumbing to theatrical victimization of wives and by blaming and
punishing husbands for supposedly being the wrongdoers.
The wind of change is blowing south of the border, where the lobbyists for
justice to husbands are pressing ahead for affecting long overdue change, and
the American government is willing to listen, whereas its counterpart north is
stagnant on custody issues and choses the status quo over change.
For instance, the Colorado senate introduced a shared parenting bill in January.
The measure requires courts to explain in writing why a custody order that
does not order substantially equal parenting time between the parties is in
the best interest of the child. The Senate unanimously passed the legislation
last month and it is pending in the state House.
For an institution that represents a country committed to a charter of rights
and freedoms; equality before justice and whose leaders preach human
rights to other nations, what I have been through; seen and learned in my 7
years of hell is reprehensible. I found through my personal experience and not
as an observer on the sideline, a dysfunctional justice system with fractured;
ambiguous and inadequate laws, corrupt and financially motivated lawyers,
biased custody Evaluator and Judge and an overall costly; adversarial;
ineffective; inefficient and self-serving family court system.
Without a question, the Canadian government is the first to speak up loud and
clear about the injustice women face around the world; particularly in the

45
Islamic world, and yet it turns its back to men who are subjected to similar
treatment, right in its own backyard.
Among the western countries, Canada is the only country that opens itself to
abuse through the family class immigration, where spouses from the third and
developing nations and financially disadvantaged families, use the back door
through the family class immigration to put their hands in the cookie jar.
European countries are aware of this phenomenon and stepped up in taking
appropriate measures to ensure that marriages are authentic, based on true
love and not financially motivated such as imposing a probation period for the
sponsored spouse. On the other hand, the former Minister of immigration, the
Honorable Jason Kenney refused to follow the British model stating that such
an action opens up the door wide open for abuse of husbands to their wives, as
if all men are born abusers or carry such a gene in their DNA. What about
protecting husbands and the taxpayers of financial abuse from imported
spouses? Is not that a priority? Especially when it is well known that the
Revenue Canada Agency would stop at nothing in recuperating what is owed.
Prime Minister Stephen Harpers comment about the veil being rooted in a
culture that is anti-women. has disparaged the veil favoured by some
Muslims, which can only make it much easier at the lower level court to abuse
women who wear it in court, as the civil case of Ms El-Alloul attests. At the
same time, such a statement insinuates that it is imposed on them by abusive
husbands and therefore, one may argue that the family courtrooms can only
be inspired, by viewing husbands as abusers and controllers in divorce cases
involving culturally and religiously sensitive backgrounds.
On the other side, the Malala Yousafzais case was so politicized to the point of
the prime minister meeting with her in person, awarding her an honorary
citizenship, in addition to being awarded the Nobel price. This is not because
by pity for being shot simply for wanting to go to school, but because of whom
she was shot by: women abusers. Women are being abused right here for
noble causes, and hundreds of aboriginal women go missing right in our
backyard, and yet do not get extensive coverage and Nobel prices. Also,
hundreds of girls are raped and killed south of the border, going down in
history simply as statistics, with no funding put in place to do something about
such atrocities, while Malala Yousafzais tragic experience was a magnet in
prompting Mr Harper to commit funding to her education mission. His action
speaks volume.
As a result, the inspiration the courts and the associated agencies are getting
from such messages is driving some professionals into acting accordingly by
vilifying husbands from such backgrounds, and punishing them accordingly in
retribution, while backing-up single mothers every step of the way. There is a
trend to favour and support women who belong to the group that wants the
children; the house but not the husbands.
As fathers and Canadian citizens, we are entitled to our fundamental right to
equality which is entrenched in the constitution and the Canadian charter of

46
rights. It is also our right to have the benefit of a process which permits filing a
complaint about the conduct of a member of the judiciary and any member of
an associated agency, as well as questioning the merits of legislation and
lobbying government for change is an inherent right in our democratic society.
Canadians want full protection of their fundamental principles of Justice upon
which our democracy was founded and for which many of our soldiers have
given their lives in battle to leave as their legacy to future Canadians. They
want security for their individual rights and freedoms as well as true justice,
and in family court matters; true gender equality and for children to have
meaningful relationships with both parents and extended families.
I had a strong belief that the Canadian judicial system is fair and nondiscriminatory, and that all citizens are equal before the law, where decisions
are not based on stereotyping; presumptions; misrepresentations; false
allegations and suppression of evidence, family law being no exception. I never
envisaged that the courtroom could be used for a theatrical presentation
instead of the exercise of the law, and the delivery of justice until I came face
to face with the reality of divorce in the real world, where I found myself
discriminated against and declared guilty until proven innocent in a court of
law, that my faith in the system started to crumble. I stood in the house of
justice, and yet there was no justice for me.
For instance, The best interests of a child standard as prescribed in the law,
is a vague concept that gives judges too much latitude to employ latent biases
and unfairly encourages parents to diminish each others abilities in a public
forum.
The court system too often creates winners and losers out of well-intentioned
parents. The winner gets the children, and the loser often hardly gets to be a
parent, regardless of the motives behind divorce and who was at its origin.
Not sure where the every other week-end access mindset the Judges seem to
unanimously agree upon; a size fits all comes from, despite of no two divorce
cases are alike, on top of nothing in the law pointing to such a
recommendation. This is in contrast with the maximum contact of children
with both parents as stipulated in family law.
Both men and women carry the same number of chromosomes, and all
newborns carry half of each parents chromosomes. If creation itself does not
subscribe to gender inequality, as it equally includes fathers in their
conception, and that the laws prescribed in family law equally do not subscribe
to discrimination, then why the judiciary; lawyers and custody Assessors take it
upon themselves to marginalize fathers and consider them as disposable and
not that indispensable in their childrens lives? Is this not violation of the law?
Awarding custody quasi-exclusively to mothers insinuates that mothers are
born to raise children, whereas the purpose of fathers is merely to bring
income to the household. Had such a prerogative been made outside a court

47
setting, it would have made the headlines, and would have certainly caused
the feminists to raise their voice loudly in protestation. Although such a stand
by the court should be considered archaic and even considered an insult to
women, Judges seem not to be too concerned, as they are immune to criticism
by the feminists, for the simple reason of the entitlement to inexhaustible
financial benefits to single mothers that accompany such a custodial
arrangement, in addition to the priceless parent-child bonding they inherit as a
result. Fathers do love their children as much as mothers.
Such a perception is false and has no place in our modern society. In this day
and age, the line that separates mens and womens jobs is as thin as a razor
blade. For instance, women can apply for the same jobs as men and the latter
can perform basic household choirs such as cooking; doing laundry and ironing
just like any other women. For instance, it is no secret that men have even
distinguished themselves as top chefs in the food industry, and that south of
the border, men are increasingly entrusted with raising their children.
The part of gender equality which is entrenched in the society and protected
by the constitution and the Canadian charter of rights, led to the striking down
of the doctrine; which prior to 1985, allowed the mother to enjoy a rebuttable
presumption that it was in the best interest of children under the age of seven
to be with their mother. This prompted legislators to amend the Divorce act,
whereby section 16(8) requires that custody is decided solely on what is in the
best interest of a child by establishing a few elements that are genderless to
be considered in analyzing the issue of custody.
In addition to the best interests of a child standard, the status quo has
replaced the tender years doctrine as a starting point in most custody
matters. The status quo can be summed up by two questions: What is the
current custody arrangement between the parties, and what role has each
parent played in the life of the child leading into the trial date? Under those
circumstances, most judges will understandably assume that maintaining the
status quo is beneficial for the child unless, unless there is material change or
evidence to the contrary.
Family law courts treat single mothers as a species in danger of extinction, and
have granted them diplomatic immunity, as they can violate the law with
impunity.
For instance they can violate access to fathers persistently and maliciously,
and the law enforcement authority is powerless to intervene in a strong way to
have court orders respected and access clauses enforced, and often the only
punishment is a verbal warning, which is nothing more than a slap on the
wrist.
Furthermore and on top of financial assistance, single mothers enjoy limitless
privileges. They have access to certain educational programs, which married
women are not entitled to. It is not difficult for married women, particularly
those from the third and developing worlds, to be enticed in crossing over from
a marital to a single mother arrangement. Such privileges can be construed as

48
a communication tool, intended to send the message to women that divorce
offers more rewarding financial opportunities.
Moreover, legal services made available to them by the Legal Aid authority,
inflate boldness and make them feel overprotected, which explains the reason
the school Principal would not help enforce my scheduled pick-up access from
the school, for fear of being sued by the ex-wife as he stated, in addition to the
potential of legal costs incurred to him.
This disparity is no truer than in enforcement of the law, as it is clearly
depicted in enforcement of child support payments vs. enforcement of a
fathers access to his children. The law enforcement authority with a court
order and an access enforcement clause chose not to punish the ex-wife for
being in contempt of court and in violation of the terms of access; despite of 12
police interventions and 8 police reports, whereas the maintenance
enforcement authority enforced fully a child support order by bringing a
number of severe punitive actions against the father; despite of my
documented meagre income and my inability to pay. (Pg.20)
This by definition is gender discrimination, which in itself is a violation of the
constitution and the Canadian charter of rights.
Congruently, my experience allows me to state conclusively that police officers
have no desire in enforcing access and visitation court orders for fathers, yet if
a citizen breaks the law under any jurisprudence other than family law, these
same officers would not hesitate a minute to step in forcibly and almost
immediately. Court Orders aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
Feminism is going to be the demise of the foundation on which the civilized
world was built. Women have risen up past oppression, and now they are
becoming the oppressors!!! Perhaps, they see that time has come for
retribution to the control they have been under for so many centuries, as it
appears that the aphorism that goes: It shall be done to you as you do to
others, is very much alive, while at the same time Two wrongs do not
necessarily make it right.
There is a presumption that all men are abusive, when in fact the evidence
shows that women are becoming more and more abusive, that women are
becoming more and more ruthless!
Common sense dictates that the benefits of gender equality most certainly
outweigh those of gender favoritism.
Getting justice has become a game of poker, where winning is dependent on
the presiding Justices human qualities and discretion, and the court location
rather than the law. This is what happens when there is no oversight and
accountability of those who were given the authority to decide.
For instance a Judge who unjustly decides against an individual cannot be held
responsible by the provincial Ombudsman, as the latter does not have the
authority to initiate an investigation against a Judge, and hardly prompt
opening an investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council, except in cases
where the CBC/Gopulic team and/or a member of parliament get involved.

49
The followings are quotes which resonate very well with my personal case:
"We must vigilantly stand on guard within our own borders for human rights
and fundamental freedoms which are our proud heritage.we cannot take for
granted the continuance and maintenance of those rights and freedoms." John Diefenbaker 1895-1979
"Few will has the greatness to bend history; however, each time a man stands
up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against
injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... and crossing each other from a
million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that
can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F.
Kennedy
"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial
justice to all citizens." - Thomas Jefferson
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are
evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert
Einstein
Shame on the government that allows openly violation of human rights of noncustodial fathers by its civil servants
Shame on the Prime Minister who through divisive and stereotypical speeches
inspire those with authority at a lower level to use it maliciously towards a
segment of Canadians
Shame on the Justice Minister who ignores listening to the voiceless and
vulnerable, the children of marriage
Shame on Judges who exploit tragedy by allowing the courtroom to be used as
a boxing arena, to deliver a knock out to husbands, using gender
discrimination; cultural background; stereotyping and retribution as a referee
Shame on biased Assessors who act as women advocates by exploiting divorce
to advance single mothers interests at the expense of the childrens
Shame on lawyers who exploit human family break-ups and childrens suffering
for their own financial benefit

Sincerely
Mohamed Fidjel

50