The Shotgun Blog
« Yorkton to host film (and pork barreling) festival | Main | Georges St. Pierre: Kicking it, Canadian-style »
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Imputing income out of thin air
Posted by Grant Brown on April 19, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e551ec2fba8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Imputing income out of thin air:
Comments
Grant,
No doubt some yahoo will ask why you oppose children.
I've seen the child support racket first hand. In 1996 they gave the children a raise in Ontario without consideration of the parent having, well you know, actually having received a raise in income.
And who spent the extra money you might ask?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-19 9:14:10 PM
2006...not 1996.
Oops! Still, it left the payee further in arrears without even getting a raise!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-19 9:15:46 PM
WOW! You must be the worst lawyer in the world! I read the document and find your comments on it quite inaccurate - if not utterly bizarre.
Let's start here. You say: "But since dad's income was zero, and the mom therefore wasn't entitled to child support in the first place...." Really? So I guess you did not read the extensive explanation (with numerous previous cases cited for support) that explains exactly why your "therefore" is wrong. If dad's income drops he is only entitled to a reduction of payments if the drop was not his fault. So the guy who quit his job and worked for free for wife #2 because he did not want to pay support was told he still had to pay up. And the guy who went to jail for beating up the woman he owed was not let off the payments to her either. And in several other cases cited guys who went to jail were not allowed to use their incarceration as an excuse not to be responsible for supporting their children. So your claim that the kids were not entitled to support from him is just plain wrong.
Next, you write: "Justice Macklin apparently takes the view that dad didn't positively *disprove* that he had an income of $10,000 per year, so he is fair game to be imputed that income." An interesting theory, but utterly bananas. The Judge wrote nothing that suggests any of this. He did not write anything that shows that he thinks that it is possible that dad had an income of $10,000. In fact, the judge is well aware that dad had no income. What the judge *does* say is this:
(1) Dad does not get off the hook for money owed due to loss of income because the loss of income was dad's fault due to his criminal behaviour.
(2) But in collecting arrears owed, it is unreasonable to demand payment that is too onerous on dad. In his words, "one must question the merits of continuing the obligation to pay substantial arrears where this places a burden on the debtor such that he finds it difficult, if not impossible, to reintegrate into society. Although it is in the children’s interests that the father support them financially, it is also in their interests that he become reintegrated as a fully functioning member of society."
(3) If mom wants to waive the arrears owed to her, that is her business.
(4) So with the arrears owed mom waived, it leaves only $68 per month left in arrears to settle. Asking repayment of that is no great burden to him, so he must pay it.
The reference to $10,000 is just to say that is how much he would have had to have made had he not been in jail for an order of $68 per month to be made. And as there is nothing excessive about supposing he would have had an income at least that much had he not been in jail, the amount owed is reasonable.
Finally, you gripe about the "moralizing" phrase "the author of his own misfortune." But there is nothing at all moralizing about it. Do you even know what the phrase means? Let me break it down: "the author" means "the maker, cause, or creator" (it's, like, a metaphor, eh?). "misfortune" means "bad circumstance or situation". Now the "misfortune" he was referring to was having been in jail and having had no income. There is nothing "moralizing" about calling being in jail and having no income a "misfortune". And to say he was "the author" of it is just to say that he was the cause of it. He was not falsely imprisoned. He killed a guy and as a result was sent to jail. The cause for him being in jail and having no income was himself. It is not "moralizing" to note that. So to say he was "the author of his own misfortune" is not moralizing but to point to a legally relevant fact. The fact that his loss of income and inability to make money to support his children was not caused by others and not caused by fate or chance. It was caused by his own actions, which means that legally he need not be excused from his debts.
Grant, if your analysis of this (very short) judgment is any indication of your reading ability and legal skill, it is a good thing you stopped practicing law. The law might be an ass, but some of its practitioners give it a run for its money.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-19 10:29:46 PM
Call me a hardass, Fact Check, but I believe that judges are appointed to apply the law, not to make it up according to their own moral compass.
There is nothing in the statutes cited by Justice Macklin at the beginning of his analysis that says or implies that entitlement to child support can be based on considerations of "fault." In fact, s. 17(6) of the Divorce Act (quoted by Justice Macklin) says that a judge is not allowed to the consider the "conduct" of the payor except as provided for in the statutes.
What the statutes and case law say is that a person cannot evade child support obligations by being deliberately unemployed or under-employed, for the purpose of evading child support. But Justice Macklin found as a matter of fact that Bernard was NOT trying to evade child support by going to jail. His income was, in the only sense that is legally relevant, "legitimately" zero.
The only way Justice Macklin could find a duty to pay $68 per month in child support was if he could say that Bernard "should have been" earning $10,000 per year in income -- and imputing that income to him. That's why it is more than an irrelevant remark when Justice Macklin refers to this figure. But there is nothing in the statutes that permits judges to impute income on the basis of the "public policy" reasons Justice Macklin adduces. You may check that fact for yourself.
It might be a person's own fault that he breaks his neck skiing or gets Type II diabetes and cannot work; but just because he is "the author of his own misfortune" does not justify the Court in augmenting that misfortune by refusing to relieve him of child support obligations.
To return to the theme of my last column: Fathers from intact families sometimes lose their incomes for all kinds of fault-based reasons, too -- including going to jail. But the Courts don't step in and say: "Because you are the author of your own misfortune, we are going to make you spend so much money on things we think your children need." If dad goes to jail, and mom goes on welfare, and then dad gets out of jail and goes back home again, the Courts have no grounds for getting any money out of dad to pay the welfare authorities back. There is no subrogated claim. (Maybe I should ask truewest to explain why this doublt standard is justified.)
Justice Macklin acknowledges that there is "some variance" in how the Courts have treated incarceration in the past. None of the cases he cites -- except Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt (C.A.), which supports my view -- is a binding authority on point, so he is free to make a ruling according to the law as it is written rather than as he would have preferred it to have been written. The best authority he cites that is directly on point (Justice Veit's) agrees with me. It's the unreported -- and for all we know inaccurately summarized -- cases that present the opening for Justice Macklin to repeat the mistakes of others.
In one case, the man dissipated $50,000 from RRSPs on a cocaine habit. But RRSP withdrawals are treated as income, so he was correctly not relieved of his child support obligations.
In another case or three, the man was in jail for only a short period, and Courts have long held that short gaps of unemployment should be bridged from savings. A 7-year incarceration is not a "gap" that can be "bridged" with savings.
In the Haisman (C.A.) case that Justice Macklin relies upon, and is a binding precedent, the underlying arrears in child support were based on an actual entitlement. That's why Haisman wasn't allowed to simply walk away from the arrears as long as his future earnings could cover it. But in Bernard, the whole point is that the mom had no entitlement to begin with. The arrears were a mistake, legally speaking. Bernard had a right to come to Court and have that mistake corrected, not to be lectured and moralized to.
The principle the C.A. enumciated in Haisman was that arrears should be be cancelled if the payor had the ability to pay *at the time the arrears accumulated* (and if there is a good prospect that he will earn enough to pay them off in the future). This principle gets perverted later in Justice Macklin's reasons into a refusal to cancel arrears if the payor has a "*present* and future ability to pay." You can come to any conclusion you want if you distort your precendents enough.
In the Fetterly case, the man was deliberately evading child support -- a case the statutes cover.
In Alderson, the man was in jail a short period for assaulting his wife, to whom he owed the support. That's the kind of hard case that makes bad law. I'm inclined to agree with Justice Macklin's reasoning about this case in paragraph 43; but it is a distinguishable case.
So there you have it. Again Fact Check's condescending foolishness is laid to rest. It kind of reminds me of the Monty Python skit, where the guy keeps running to the net in tennis and getting "smacked between the eyes" with the return volley: "But by this time, I was getting used to it," he says. Fact Check must be so numb by now that my rebuttals don't sting him any more.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-04-20 12:06:48 AM
...And given that the whole child support regime is unconstitutional to begin with, you might hope judges would apply it with restraint instead of pushing it the the very limits of absurdity...
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-04-20 12:11:33 AM
Grant,
Once again you prove yourself unable to understand the words right before your eyes, so there is no point in engaging in an extended debate. You clearly lack the ability for it. So let me point out one small example of your complete incapacity. You wrote, "there is nothing in the statutes that permits judges to impute income on the basis of the 'public policy' reasons Justice Macklin adduces. You may check that fact for yourself."
I did check it. In fact, Macklin quotes the relevant statute for us (something you would have noticed if you were capable of reading). Federal Child Support Guidelines 19(1) says, "The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following...". You might not like the broad discretion of the words "AS IT CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE", but they are there in the law. And the "include the following" part is, of course, an indicator that the explicitly mentioned circumstances are NOT to be read as an exhaustive list.
Now you might be so hell bent on wanting to absolve men of their duties to take care of their own children that you think it is reasonable to allow a killer to transfer his responsibility to take care of his kids to the public (ie; the taxpayers, ie; people like me) even when he can afford to pay the cost, but I (like Macklin and the numerous other judges before him who have said the same) do consider it appropriate to hold him to his parental obligations.
The idea that Bernard is a "victim" because killing someone does not excuse him from taking care of his kids is just ridiculous. Under any other circumstances you would call it bleeding-heart liberal nonsense.
Game, set, and match.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-20 7:49:04 AM
I find these sorts of debates really interesting - whether or not I have an opinion on the subject on way or another. I just appreciate the strategic and tactical points made by each, however I get really bored with the vilification expressed especially by Fact Check. If you find it is necessary to indulge in this sort of invection then I find it unnecessary to read your arguments....
Posted by: Sipper | 2008-04-20 9:35:45 AM
Dear Fact Check,
I think that you are missing the forest for the trees?
The fact of the matter is that this dad was convicted of manslaughter which by definition is a death resulting without intent. The clause in the Law that you refer to is dependant upon an intentional depletion of income and if we are to accept your position, then we first have to accept that this man went out to murder someone just to avoid his child support obligations.
Now, just for a moment imagine how this situation would be treated in mom and dad were married at the time of incarceration or if she did not qualify for welfare.
In the first scenario, the law would not require a convicted husband to repay her welfare.
In the second scenario the government would not give a damn.
Therefore, is it not a fact that you seek to chastise this man simply because he want to be dad and who had the misfortune of having his marriage fail.
It is further significant to note that none of the money that the Maintenance regime went after will never go towards the child. In fact, this order effectively provides that his ability to maintain his current obligations or provide a reasonable quality of life for his children during parenting time has now been compromised.
Now as a taxpayer you must know that the mere pittance collected just cost us thousands. I will never understand the mentality or mindset of people like you...
I hope that you do not want us to believe that you have any real interest in what is best for the child?
Allan Buteau
Redwater, Alberta
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-20 9:50:55 AM
Give the STATE an inch and they want to take a foot. And if you don’t want to give the foot, they’ll take it anyway. better off not giving them anything.
Instead of arguing the fact of a government entity exhibiting dictoral powers over the people, some are more concerned of delving into the politically correct gender rhetoric. And I really don’t care about the law applied in Family Court. In this court the law will be contorted and the ‘discretion’ applied to the side of the sword which benefits the ‘system’ best.
There are 2 litigating parties who negotiated arrears and came to an agreement that amounted to zero. There is nothing that states these litigants where ‘incapable’ of making sound decisions. Why then isn’t that good enough for Big Brother. Apparently, the mom has been found to be incapable of making the ‘RIGHT” decision for her children and Big Brother intervenes by forcing the “RIGHT” action.
FRO is not a system for the people, it’s a system for the system within the system. It does the dirty deeds for the government under the auspice of acting in the ‘best interest of the child’, and the courts are more than happy to oblige.
At the time of incarceration the children were 9 and 11, both in school for the majority of the day. I wonder why the mother chose to be on welfare and why her lack of ‘financial responsibility’ is not under equal scrutiny. Is it the fault of the father for her “COMPLETE” financial loss? Shouldn’t she be expected to be financially accountable in the same capacity of the father? Didn’t feminism open the door for her to put the work-boots on and strive to be financially independent?
Implying that the father murdered in order to be incarcerated is a ridiculous incinuendo. Perhaps, under that logic, mom gave birth for the opportunity to loaf off the system and fleece the taxpayers. Honestly, if a previous order stipulated ‘parenting time’ would it be enforced by the system and cause the children to be forced to visit the dad in prison. LOL. This is precisely where the hoax of the ‘best interest of the child’ is cued in.
Besides the FRO, is there another government agency holding the same arbitrary and dictoral power to intervien in ‘legal’ agreements between two competent parties?
Posted by: cana | 2008-04-20 10:18:00 AM
First Logic Chopper claims that no income was imputed to Bernard; but when that assertion is refuted, he says it was *properly* imputed. It's hard to argue with someone who is such a chameleon.
The list in section 19(1) of the Guidelines may be non-exhaustive, but (contrary to what you imply) that was never meant to give judges complete discretion to make up whatever they want. If judges want to add to the list of grounds for imputing income, there are "canons of construction" (or rules of statutory interpretation) that are supposed to apply -- something mere logic choppers wouldn't know anything about.
My point was simply that a judge's sense of moral outrage isn't one of the canons of statutory construction. I think I'm on pretty safe ground saying that, even though I'm sure some clever lawyers out there will be able to find cases where judges do make up things out of whole cloth. (Cf. Justice Basterache, again, finding equalization of incomes to be an "objective" of the Guidelines. Speaking of which -- how does Alberta Justice taking away what little income this ex-con might have assist in the equalization of incomes between the custodial and non-custodial parents in this case?...)
I never claimed that Bernard is a "victim." All I said was that Justice Macklin's ruling was wrong in law. I point that out merely as an illustration of the thesis that our legal system frequently goes over the top in extracting money from dads (but rarely raises a finger to secure the much more important things in a child's life, like the father's love). It shows just how perverted the Court's and Albeta Justice's priorities are. Those attitides spill over into more routine cases. Rulings like this only encourage Alberta Justice and mothers to be ever more mean-spirited toward divorced dads.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-04-20 10:41:55 AM
Allan,
"...this dad was convicted of manslaughter which by definition is a death resulting without intent."
Let's see ... Bernard tried to defraud his step-father of money from the life insurance on Bernard's mother when she died. step-dad sued and Bernard got mad. After harassing and threatening step-dad, Bernard got ripping drunk, went to step-dad's house, stabbed him to death and set the house on fire. A guilty plea to manslaughter was accepted because the crown was worried that Bernard's drunkenness might save him from a murder charge. Yeah, so forgive me if I don't see his crime as one without intent.
"Now, just for a moment imagine how this situation would be treated in mom and dad were married at the time of incarceration.... the law would not require a convicted husband to repay her welfare."
You might be right, but that might be a fault in welfare rules. The bottom line is if taxpayers have to pay to support some guy's kids while he is in jail and he can pay us back once he gets out, then the rules should require him to do so. The fact that in intact marriages that does not happen is not a good reason to not make it happen in cases of divorce. If there is an inconsistency here, the welfare rules should change, not the child support rules.
"Now, just for a moment imagine how this situation would be treated ... if she did not qualify for welfare.... the government would not give a damn."
I disagree. The judge did not say that the mother was REQUIRED to forgo the back support he owed her. It was by her agreement that it was eliminated. Had she insisted on it, she might well have gotten it (or at least a portion of it). So in the event that she did not qualify for welfare and insisted on the back money owed, there is no reason to think that the court would not have ordered he pay at least the same $68 per month they did order.
"It is further significant to note that none of the money that the Maintenance regime went after will never go towards the child."
You are right, but only by a technicality of verb tenses. You see, the money ALREADY went to the kids. We, the taxpayers, paid it because he didn't. So what we are looking for now is for him to pay us back. When guys owing child support go to jail and welfare picks up the slack for him, the children are not left in the lurch, nor should they be. But just because they already got the money does not mean that it should remain our burden. He owes us for supporting his kids when he didn't.
"In fact, this order effectively provides that his ability to maintain his current obligations or provide a reasonable quality of life for his children during parenting time has now been compromised."
No. This was the point of the passage I quoted before. Let me quote it again. The judge wrote, "one must question the merits of continuing the obligation to pay substantial arrears where this places a burden on the debtor such that he finds it difficult, if not impossible, to reintegrate into society. Although it is in the children’s interests that the father support them financially, it is also in their interests that he become reintegrated as a fully functioning member of society." He concluded that the amount being asked for would not place an undue burden on him. Also, the youngest of his two kids is now 17 (the older is 19), so the worry about compounding his burden of back payments of child support with current ones is not an issue.
"Now as a taxpayer you must know that the mere pittance collected just cost us thousands."
I am well aware of this, which seems like a good reason to say it was not worth going after this guy's money. But that is a practical point. My argument with Grant was over whether he really owed the money. Just because it makes no sense to try to collect it does not change the fact that he really owes it. If you borrow $5 from me and refuse to pay it back, the wisest course for me might well be just to forget about it. But it still remains true that you do owe it to me. The same can be said of this case.
"Therefore, is it not a fact that you seek to chastise this man simply because he want to be dad and who had the misfortune of having his marriage fail."
I agree. It is not a fact that I blame him for being a dad whose marriage broke down. I blame him for being a defrauding, harassing, threatening, drunken killer and arsonist who wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for raising his kids. It is bad enough he was not there in person to do the work of child rearing (although in this case it might be a blessing to the kids). Trying to get out of paying his share for it and making us taxpayers pay for it is enough reason to blame him.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-20 10:56:20 AM
Grant,
Once again, you have outdone yourself! You wrote: "First Logic Chopper claims that no income was imputed to Bernard;"
So far so good....
" ...but when that assertion is refuted [sic], he says it was *properly* imputed."
No. Not even close. Not even a little bit close. You claimed that "nothing in the statutes that permits judges to impute income..." and I showed you that the statute does PERMIT it. See that? the key word is PERMIT. That the statute does PERMIT it is different from saying that it did happen.
In short, the judge did not impute any income to Bernard (contrary to what you claim), but the statutes allow him to do so (also contrary to what you claim). Good work, Grant. Just when I thought you could not look stupider....
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-20 11:13:08 AM
I have stomach sensitized from "Fast Check" and morons. So I had first to recover from vomiting and puking, after reading "Fast Check"'s 'stuff'.
=======================================
It sounds very much like China where, after an execution, family of executed prisoner receives bill for the bullets used to blow him away.
It puzzles me why Justice Macklin took care that Director of Maintenance Enforcement did not loose any money but ignored to try to collect costs of incarceration. This dude spent seven years in a slammer.
According to Correctional Service of Canada
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/sb-go/07-eng.shtml
Cost of Incarceration
The average annual cost of incarcerating an inmate in a federal institution for 2003/2004:
* Men: $80,965
* Women: $150,867
That works out to $567000.00 that this dudes owes us for his incarceration, not mentioning cost of
police investigation,
case preparation
and a trial.
All that added up should work out to a million dollars that this guy would have to pay us back during the rest of his life.
I know that Canadian system of administration of justice is considered soft on crime and I know that Canadian judges try very hard to change that image but I am not quite sure that this is what Conservatives have in mind.
Posted by: lisa | 2008-04-20 12:01:45 PM
A guilty plea to manslaughter was accepted because the crown was worried that Bernard's drunkenness might save him from a murder charge. Yeah, so forgive me if I don't see his crime as one without intent.
Posted by: Fact Check | 20-Apr-08 10:56:20 AM
You have the luxury to look at it this way, but the Judge cannot. He can only see the ruling that the other court had, not what else was going on (Justice is blind after all).
So as much as I can understand your reasoning in this regard, as far as the Judge is concerened he cannot come to the same conclusion.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-20 12:52:03 PM
Don't know why we're splitting hairs here -- the fact that the man was convicted of manslaughter only means that it couldn't be shown that he intended to cause death. He clearly intended to cause harm to the victim.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-20 12:59:47 PM
Irregardless, it is a long stretch for anyone to muse that this fellow deliberately committed this horrible crime just to avoid paying child support. Simply, because the mother chose to remain on welfare, he was ordered to pay back a portion of what she received. It could just as easily be concluded that the mother by her own actions became dependant on our social system, And, perhaps now that the children are grown, thus vacating any excuse for her to work, we should be demanding that she repay the social regime, minus of course what the dad was ordered to pay back?
I do not believe this to be true and actually believe that our country does not do enough to help our underprivileged. We all should be willing to do more but without the gender bias.
Furthermore, no one can say just what drove this man to commit his crime. I am however certain that he did not come into this world with the driven intent to kill or harm anyone. The mere fact that his marriage failed is for some so devastating that their mental capacity gets reduced to the point of being dysfunctional. Our society is convinced that women require voluminous amounts of support while men are left to their own devises. I know this because I am volunteer advocate and work with fathers on a daily basis. Neither these fathers nor I receive any form of government support.
I posted this to avoid a pissing match on a public forum, and because, if you care enough to post you must care enough to be a part of the solution. This is not a solicitation for anything more than the time it took you to read this message.
Best Regards,
Allan Buteau
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-20 4:17:26 PM
Libertarian clowns at Shotgun Blog find it perfectly OK that Canadian taxpayers spent about million dollar ($1M !!!) to put away for seven years a guy who murdered his step father
but
they choke on the idea that same Canadian taxpayers have spent little over $6000 dollars over same period of time to support two innocent children.
Mother of these kids, knowing that she deals with vindictive killer, signed an agreement not to seek any retroactive child support from him just to protect herself and her kids from possible retaliation for overzealous justice.
Judge the clown decided that financial claims of the state come before mother and children’s right to their personal safety.
This eager protection of government’s financial interest is very characteristic of Justice Macklin’s modus operandi, see:
http://ablawg.ca/2008/01/12/restraining-disinheritance/
Posted by: Eager protection of Gov’s financial interest - Justice Macklin’s modus operandi | 2008-04-20 4:41:54 PM
Logic Chopper, you quote me saying there is "nothing in the statutes that permits judges to impute income..." But it is precisely the words you here elide ("...on the basis of the 'public policy' reasons Justice Macklin adduces") that did all the work in my argument. Check that fact and get back to me. You must surely know that clipping and pasting misleading half-sentences from what other people say and presenting them as though it was their entire thought is an academic crime. Shame on you! No wonder you prize your anonymity so greatly. (I'm still waiting for that impressive bibliography of yours, by the way.)
With minor and temporary caveats discussed above, the statutes do not allow Courts to make child support orders against parents that they are unable to pay at the time the payments come due. Bernard had zero income while in jail for 7 years, therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to make a child support award against him -- either in favour of the mother or Alberta Justice. Its just that the mother had more sense, and fewer taxpayer dollars to waste -- than Alberta Justice. (Allan makes a good point: considering all the laywerly labour power, court time, etc., this case cost the taxpayer tens of thousands to litigate. Utter foolishness!)
To make a child support award necessarily implies that the payor has, or at least "should have," an income. In this case, with the very act of granting a child support award, Justice Macklin implicitly imputed an income to Bernard while he was in jail. That imputation was based on the "public policy" consideration that someone who is in jail "should have" not done his crime and "should have" been working instead. It's his own fault he's in jail, which is deemed by Justice Macklin to be no excuse to not have an income.
It's a crock. Logic chopper might think -- as Justice Macklin evidently does -- that it is a very pleasant smelling crock. That's because they are both fans of judicial activism. But what cannot reasonably be denied is that this entitlement of Alberta Justice to recover welfare payments is a fabrication that goes well beyond what the child support laws intend.
Justice Macklin professes himself to be concerned about creating "inconsistencies within the fabric of the law" -- but doesn't notice that this is exactly what he is doing. His ruling is inconsistent with what the law says about jailed parents in intact relationships.
I agree with truewest that we needn't split hairs about this guy's crimes. The issue isn't whether he intended to kill anyone, or even hurt them; the issue is whether he intended to evade child support by going to jail. He didn't: Justice Macklin was right about that, at least. And that finding "should have" lead to the opposite result.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-04-20 4:50:19 PM
Grant,
I try to have patience with stupid people, but you keep topping yourself. Any discussion with you is clearly futile because not only do you not know what the judgement said nor what I said, you don't even seem to be able to follow what is being discussed, thus your nonsense about what text was elided. In the (vain) hope you might see it as nonsense, let me repeat word-for-word what I wrote before but with the text as you seem to need to have it quoted. It does not change my argument one iota. You would know that if you could follow an argument. Here it is:
=======================================
Grant,
Once again, you have outdone yourself! You wrote: "First Logic Chopper claims that no income was imputed to Bernard;"
So far so good....
" ...but when that assertion is refuted [sic], he says it was *properly* imputed."
No. Not even close. Not even a little bit close. You claimed that "nothing in the statutes that permits judges to impute income on the basis of the 'public policy' reasons Justice Macklin adduces" and I showed you that the statute does PERMIT it. See that? the key word is PERMIT. That the statute does PERMIT it is different from saying that it did happen.
In short, the judge did not impute any income to Bernard (contrary to what you claim), but the statutes allow him to do so (also contrary to what you claim). Good work, Grant. Just when I thought you could not look stupider....
======================================
Well, I don't expect you to understand anything I just wrote, so I jump off this ship here. Swimming to shore is safer than risking that your insanity is catching.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-20 5:49:30 PM
Allan,
"Irregardless, it is a long stretch for anyone to muse that this fellow deliberately committed this horrible crime just to avoid paying child support."
I agree. So does the judge. He says this in the judgement, too.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-20 5:57:09 PM
I don't want to comment too much on all of the legal bantering that has gone back and forth on this one; only to offer this observation. When I went through my "family" court fiasco 18 months ago, I tried arguing that, although my former abuser had no income, she should be expected to at least earn minimum wage towards supporting herself. After all, the law states that both parties are expected to become self-sufficient. This didn't work. The judge assumed her to have zero income.
In the calculation of my income, I stated my salary and the childcare subsidy I receive from the government each month. I also pointed out that a bonus which I received from my employer in a previous year would not be paid again; due to the company's poor financial outlook. This didn't work either. The judge took my total income, added the bonus I received in a previous year, then added the childcare subsidy...AGAIN (stating that I hadn't included it when, in actuality, it was already in there).
In the end, he used a falsely elevated income (for me), and zero income for her, to justify ordering me to pay spousal support that I simply cannot afford. To make matters worse, my salary actually went DOWN a couple months ago due to rollbacks at my place of employment. As a result, that judge has reduced my children (whom I have custody of) to a very basic existence; where I rely on money from my relatives every month to get by and still live paycheque-to-paycheque.
My former abuser still does not work and I have the pleasure of looking to see if she is sitting in the coffee shop as I drive by with the children on our way to or from daycare or my job every day.
In short, it seems to me that "family" court is very quick to boost income for a man anywhere possible; without offering any realistic reasons for doing so. They seem to hold back, though, when it comes to allocating income in a similar fashion for a woman.
Who am I to speak though - I'm just another "Deadbeat Dad" who owes $15000 in spousal support arrears because she was "entitled" to "her money" from the day she was removed from the home by criminal court order.
Oh yeah. Did I mention I don't get any child support from her.
Posted by: Don Dymond | 2008-04-20 6:43:00 PM
I can only repeat: There is no reference to "public policy" in section 19 of the Federal Child support guidelines. Nor are the kinds of considerations that are listed in s. 19 capable of being extrapolated in the way Justice Macklin and Logic Chopper wish to do, *given the standard constraints on statutory interpretation.*
Logic Chopper makes a valid logical point about the meaning of words; but his argument is unsound because he is ignorant of legal practice. Logic, you see, is impotent when it is not infused with learning. That is Logic Chopper's chronic failing in these posts, as I have pointed out numerous times before.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-04-20 7:40:53 PM
Don,
Thank you for sharing this with us.
Yours was a very troubling story to read. For some here the trouble comes from an inability to even fathom that our justice system could possibly be so slanted. For others, it is something that see all too often.
For those that remain skeptical I am providing a link to a recent Ontario Court decision where the dear Mrs. virtually escaped punishment for attempting to murder her husband and went on to profit for her crimes. In this case this poor girl was eventually required to pay a nominal amount of support but no arrears.
Here it is folks for destroying property, and attempted murder this women got a free ride on her child support obligations for almost three years, a few days in jail, and almost 18-grand for her troubles.
Hang in there Don you are not alone.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii4785/2008canlii4785.html
Olson v. Olson, 2008 CanLII 4785 (ON S.C.)
9] Ms. Borg has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Before coming to reside with Mr. Olson in 1999, she had entered a residential drug and alcohol treatment centre, taking Nicholas and Shawn with her, without notice to Mr. Corrigan.
13] On August 25, 2005, people had gathered at 71 Nicholetts Road for a party. Ms. Borg had arranged for a babysitter to watch the children. Ms. Borg testified that she and everyone else were drinking. She was also taking a prescribed anti-depressant medication at the time. She stated she does not know how much she had to drink that day. She testified that because she was drinking, she had no clear recollection of what happened that day. She testified that she recalled being in the home, looking out the window, and seeing the sauna on fire. She said she told the babysitter to call 911 and then ran out to see what had happened to Mr. Olson. Ms. Borg testified that she did not recall being in the sauna that night. She denied causing the fire. She said that there was a quad runner and a small jerry can of gasoline in front of the sauna.
[14] Mr. Olson testified that during the summer of 2005 Ms. Borg would from time to time come into the sauna where he was living. They would talk and sometimes have sexual relations. Mr. Olson stated that on the night of the fire he had had a few beer. He said Ms. Borg arrived at the house, drunk. He testified that at about 2:00 am, he and Ms. Borg were in the sauna. Both of them were smoking. He said that to his knowledge the closest can of gasoline was about 80 feet from the sauna. Mr. Olson testified that Ms. Borg left the sauna and then came back and asked where her cigarettes and matches were. He said she picked them up, came over to where he was laying in bed, gave him a kiss, said goodnight or goodbye, and left. Mr. Olson testified that within five seconds of Ms. Borg having left, the sauna was on fire. Mr. Olson was able to escape, albeit with injuries, through a window. Flames blocked the door. Mr. Olson was attended by persons at the scene while awaiting the arrival of the ambulance. The sauna was destroyed. The police arrested Ms. Borg. She was held in jail for three days until her release pending trial.
[16] On December 1, 2005, Pierce J. granted a temporary order, which has remained in effect during the past two years. Pursuant to that order, Mr. Olson has interim day-to-day care and control of Zoe-Lynn. He is responsible for any decision making involving Zoe-Lynn’s education, medical or other care, unless there is an emergency. The order provides that Ms. Borg shall have access to Zoe-Lynn when Ms. Borg is not working, for 48 hours each week, including overnight, plus one evening when she is not working, from 4:00 pm until one hour before Zoe-Lynn’s bedtime or as the parties may otherwise agree. Given Ms. Borg’s work schedule, Zoe-Lynn is with her mother on weekends and one evening per week.
Conclusion
[79] For the reasons given, the following order shall issue:
(1) Mr. Olson shall have custody of the child, Zoe-Lynn Mariah Olson, born August 25, 2000.
(8) commencing on the 1st day of March 2008 and on the 1st day of each subsequent month Ms. Borg shall pay support for the child in the sum of $272, based on her income of $30,240 and the Child Support Guidelines;
15) within 60 days of this order, Mr. Olson shall pay to Ms. Borg the sum of $17,907.50. Upon payment of this money, Ms. Borg shall forthwith transfer to Mr. Olson all her right, title and interest in the home located at 71 Nicholetts Road, Murillo, Ontario, and each party shall retain the property presently in his or her possession free from any interest or claim by the other party.
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-20 7:57:24 PM
Grant wrote"
"Child Support is unconstitutional"
I would appreciate if this could be explained for the kool-aid drinkers participating in this thread. I wonder if it has anything to do with how the DoJ admitted that spousal support is methodically added to the calculations of child support, or how the DoJ inflated the actual child costs contradictive to the formulas original designers, or how the Canadian child support concept birthed from Communist origins, or how it promotes indentured servitude, or how it routinely discrimminates against the male gender, or how the 98 tax amendments, or the collection methods of FRO...
To remind, inform and remeber!
Posted by: cana | 2008-04-20 8:56:52 PM
WOW! Grant Brown wants taxpayers to pay the child support for low-life jailbirds! Hey Mr Brown, listen up! I don't want my tax money going to pay for low life criminals to escape their responsibilities for child support! Stop being soft on crime and defending scoundrels and dead beat dads!
Fact Check has exposed the silliness and stupidity of Grant Brown in a detailed, factual manner, addressing point by point the flaws and outright deceptions in Brown's claims. If was delicions savouring the cutting up and dicing of Brown's argument. LOL! That one person can take so much public humiliation in argument is admirable, if one admires consistent losers! LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-20 9:22:33 PM
A MESSAGE FOR DEADBEAT DADS AND THOSE CONTEMPLATING BECOMING A DAD
1. Think twice before fathering children.
2. Ask yourself, "Do I want to support a child financially?"
3. If your answer to the above is no, then don't have sex with a woman without taking stringent contraceptive precautions.
4. If you plan on leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for your baby making casual fun, forget it! You will be held accountable and quit whining--you made your decision at the time of conception, now live with it!
5. If the woman you fathered a child with is as bad as you now claim, being a drug addict, a pathological liar, a schemer and violent psychopath, how come you chose her to mother your child? If she was good enough then, and you judged her to be good enough then, don't come whining now to complain about how she is lousy now.
6. Someone has to pay for the children. Either the parents pay, or taxpayers have to foot the bill. I think the courts have it right. The parents who have the money need to pay up. Welfare is no life for a child and is an unfair burden on taxpayers when one or both parents have the resources to cover the expenses but refuse to honour their responsibilities.
A message for those who are cheerleaders for the deadbeat dads--shame on you!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-20 9:32:53 PM
MS. ali_roger@hotmail.com
It is very kind of vendictice Rad-fem attitude that fuels the gender war. "If you are not a part of the solution then you are obviously a part of the problem" Shame on you.
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-20 10:37:15 PM
M Buteau, can you translate your post into English so we can understand what you are struggling to say? LOL! Imitation is the highest form of flattery! In your garbled mess of a post, that came across--thank you, I am humbled by your flattery! LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-20 10:56:17 PM
”M Buteau, can you translate your post into English so we can understand what you are struggling to say? LOL! Imitation is the highest form of flattery! In your garbled mess of a post, that came across--thank you, I am humbled by your flattery! LOL!”
Posted by: ROGER | 20-Apr-08 10:56:17 PM
Dear Madam et al,
You have my most sincere apologies for my previous garbled mess of a post. It was extremely unprofessional of me to not preview or use my spell check. You must know however that in taking the time to respond to Ms. Roger, my instincts told me that my message would be wasted and irregardless of how clearly I wrote; sometimes the people we write to, simply, are incapable of any form of reasonable comprehension.
Therefore, and with all due respect, I believe that I did give my original message to her more than sufficient attention.
For everyone else here, I am sorry for any inconvenience that reading through this and my previous unprofessional post might have caused. In future, I will endeavor to respond only to those comments that merit a degree of professionalism.
Best Regards,
Allan Buteau
Redwater, Alberta
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-21 12:27:59 AM
LOL! A whole lot of nothing! Excuses, apologies and grovelling. Allan, I am not interested in listening to your excuses. As a boss, I expect employees deliver and judge outcomes. I am not interested in excuses for failure. You are wise to withdraw from head on debate with me because you are not up to the task. At least you have the knowledge to know when you are outwitted. Your apologies are accepted, notwithstanding your carping and "irregardless" of words you have invented. What is your first language? All things considered, your English is not bad.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 12:49:52 AM
Madam, Your insults are wasted on me. Like I said, my original post was in error. I have read through most of what you wrote and I see no real purpose in debating with you. There is no pupose or value in discussing anything with one who is so full of hatred for the male gender. Your anger blinds you to any posible rational. I can accept that and still I wish you well.
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-21 1:09:43 AM
LOL! Allan, at least you know when you are beat. Your defense of welfare bums, criminals and dead-beat dads is touching. Please, if you are thinking of fathering any children, make sure the woman is a suitable mother, because I don't want my tax money paying for your erotic romps and mistakes. If you should get the wrong woman pregnant, help her get an abortion because taxpayers are not going to pay your bills for you!
That is all for now.
Thanks for reading my posts and knowing you are unable to respond. Wise conclusion. WHile you sit in a corner, just watch my brilliance shine on this blog! LOL! I am the greatest!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 1:30:04 AM
Madam, before you embarrass yourself further do a Google search of my name. I think that it will surprise you to learn that I am not any of those things that you gleaned me to be.
If you are really the greatest then you certainly would not be ashamed of your real identity. Give us your real name so that we might judge for ourselves.
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-21 1:47:26 AM
Me thinks you doth protest too much, M. Butteau. What's in a name? The merits of my argument stand alone, devoid of a need for name, honours, titles, ascriptions of any kind, authority and power of office. Why ought I to waste time googling your name when you are unable to answer my argument and run from debate? You are unworthy of consideration who have not the courage to taste bitter defeat at my writing. You beg the question, but already conceded. So what more is left after your humiliating concession to me? Nothing. LOL! I am the greatest!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 1:56:43 AM
LOL!!!
This is what Allan Butteau is proud of having written: "I have a Friend who recently gave me a copy of a divorce judgment against him that was obtained without a trial or any representations from him, or on his behalf. I have a copy of a letter he sent to the otherside's Lawyer advising that he was having problems find a lawyer to advise him. The Lawyer merely responded by fast tracking the application through the court and filed as if the this fellow merely consented to everything in her Application."
LOL! Why do fools expect sympathy for stupidity? LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 2:11:41 AM
There you go again. Simply put your comments are devoid of merit, thus, there is nothing to debate excepting for my analogy of you for which all you can do is give us proof in support of what I say.
Now, I have done my best to remain polite with you but, Madam you must know that your writings are nothing more than insults and rhetoric. Anything that you have said that has a remote value gets taken from proceeding postings.
If you have a message or real issue worthy of discussion, please give it to us. Otherwise kindly withdraw as I am too busy for your nonsense and by now even your own supporters, if any, must be waning. Just imagine their embarrassment when they awake to your foolishness.
Perhaps, it is best that you don’t use your real name as I am certain that your Friends and Family are undeserving of the shame that you pose to cast upon them.
I on the other hand, can tell you that my children, my wife, my family and families across Canada are proud to know me.
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-21 2:33:59 AM
LOL!!!
This is what Allan Butteau is proud of having written: "I have a Friend who recently gave me a copy of a divorce judgment against him that was obtained without a trial or any representations from him, or on his behalf. I have a copy of a letter he sent to the otherside's Lawyer advising that he was having problems find a lawyer to advise him. The Lawyer merely responded by fast tracking the application through the court and filed as if the this fellow merely consented to everything in her Application."
LOL! Why do fools expect sympathy for stupidity? LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 21-Apr-08 2:11:41 AM
So now we have it. Your function in life is to merely laugh at those who you deam as stupid.
WOW!! you must be proud of the value that you bring to society. And you have this right because?
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-21 2:58:03 AM
I`m an insecure , trouble making a- hole without a job or any prospect of one , so I try not to dwell on my useless life , by rambling on without context or logic , in the hope that my manic depressive lifestyle will somehow have meaning to someone , anyone .
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 6:49:04 AM
Ms Roger,
Do not dispair. Because you are a women our Alberta Government provides voliminous amounts of assistance.
Bellow you will find but a few.
http://www.services.gov.ab.ca/cps/rde/xchg/sa/hs.xsl/index.html
Grants & Funding
Alberta Creative Development Initiative
Canada-Alberta Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (CAMRIF)
Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Education Fund | Contact
Rural Alberta's Development Fund | Contact
Small Equipment Grants Program
Wellness Fund for Healthy School Communities
Wild Rose Foundation
Federal Service - Apprenticeship Incentive Grant
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-21 9:34:40 AM
wow, I musta hit a nerve with Butteau because he it has been eating him for hours! Butt, you have to admit it was dumb to post that silly thing about how your friend delivered himself on a platter to that smart lawyer! Why was your friend so dumb?
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 2:00:46 PM
roger: "Why was your friend so dumb?"
Roger, let me ask you a question: why are you so rude, confrontational, unkind, boorish, ceaselessly petty, pathologically undiplomatic and self-aggrandizing?
You've changed nothing. All of your opponents have dug in while none of your supporters have chimed in.
You've proven nothing. You're an anonymous flea.
You've contributed nothing. You're what Paul the apostle call's 'a clanging gong'.
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2008-04-21 2:23:37 PM
"I musta hit a nerve with Butteau because he it has been eating him for hours! Butt, you have to admit it was dumb to post that silly thing about how your friend delivered himself on a platter to that smart lawyer! Why was your friend so dumb?"
No, you did not hit a nerve. As I posted earlier: I am a very busy man.
As for this fellow’s misfortune: with my help and Grant Brown's procedural advice we were able to get the ex-parte, default judgment set aside. The young father, who was denied access for almost two years, now has open access, an equitable Child Support arrangement and the lawyer that brought the original application is no longer practicing family-law. All of this was done without the expense of hiring a lawyer.
I did however; have trouble locating the paragraph that you posted so for everyone else here is my complete posting c/w a link:
http://fatherscan.blogspot.com/2007/11/media-release-dads-are-back.html
November 12, 2007 11:07 PM
Allan Buteau said...
"FathersCan will work to ensure that Canadian Men, Fathers and their children are properly represented."
I applaude the efforts of FathersCan and to help demonstraite the Immediate need of Fathers I am writing to advise that in Northern Alberta there are currently NO Family Law Lawyers available to represent Fathers.
According to the Law Society of Alberta's Lawyer Referral Service the nearest available Family Law Lawyer is in Edmonton, sum 500+ Kms away from the some of the worse Hot Spots for Family Injustices.
I have a Friend who recently gave me a copy of a divorce judgment against him that was obtained without a trial or any representations from him, or on his behalf. I have a copy of a letter he sent to the otherside's Lawyer advising that he was having problems find a lawyer to advise him. The Lawyer merely responded by fast tracking the application through the court and filed as if the this fellow merely consented to everything in her Application.
FathersCan our Children need you!
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-21 2:59:17 PM
So things worked out fine for your dumb friend then! What are you complaining about? Everything is working as it should! Thanks for clearing everything up. Glad to know the system works so well! LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 4:38:16 PM
Sorry Folks, I thought that perhaps this parasite had moved on and just now saw this "Rad-fem's" comment. A "Rad-fem" is a "radical feminist" which is in my view, a faction of the women's movement that since the mid-fiftys has "high-jacked" their extremely worth while cause and unfethered desire for true equality.
True or Real Feminists have, like us, been driven under-ground with many of them joining our support organizations. For the ladies here that require a sence of belonging without actually joining a 'mens' group I recommend that you check out "Real Women".
Please know that with the help of corageous men like Dr. Grant Brown, FathersCan, volunteer advocates and other unsupported organizations some disasters are being corrected but not without horrendous cost to both children and our society. With vertually every second marriage in this country still ending in divorce it is reasonable to conclude that each of you have or know someone who has or is about to suffer a similar fate.
I did not write to complain, whine, or grand-stand on this or other forums. My only hope is to reach-out and educate the general public as to how we all are being affected.
To learn more about what you can do please email me directly and in confidence at ajabuteau(at)shaw.ca by merely replcaing the (at) with @.
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-22 8:16:28 AM
LOL! Butteau is trying to create a new industry!
Butteau wants women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, and knowing their place, just like in the idealized 1950s, when father knew best! LOL! Butteau is a N American talibani Christian fundie. REAL women are committed to rolling back the equality rights of women, criminalizing abortion and making virginity mandatory for girls! LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-22 8:23:43 AM
When are you going to realize that none of this has to do with gender alienation?
It is and will always be about the children and what is best for society. I already gave amble links to resources to unable you to put down that boon-boon, get your a-- off of the couch and become a meaningful member of society. The choice to be a full-time domestic engineer is reserved for the parents' choice with both genders equally capable of taking on the role of their chosing.
As I said in my Original all-be-it somewhat garbble message to you: "You are most definately a part of the Problem"
Posted by: Allan Buteau | 2008-04-22 10:59:39 AM
My, my. ROGER is full of surprises.
Little did I know he was a member of REAL women.
Only a person on the inside could reveal such a hidden agenda.
Do you have any tips for the best way to hem my skirt?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-22 11:24:02 AM
ROGER wrote:
"Butteau wants women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, and knowing their place, just like in the idealized 1950s, when father knew best! LOL! Butteau is a N American talibani Christian fundie. REAL women are committed to rolling back the equality rights of women, criminalizing abortion and making virginity mandatory for girls! LOL!"
There is really no use having a dialogue with a 'troll' like Roger. According to him, anyone with a fancy for equality is simply mascarading as a misongynist. Its an OLD debate technique, one of which has been fully exhausted by the feminist regiem. YAWN! Unable to retort with facts and logic they need to resort to unscrupulous blabberings designed to muddle the topic and belittle dissenters of their opinion.
Rogers rational has yet to exceed elementary level, acting as a child havinf=g difficulty grasping certain concepts.
Personly, being a father of teenage daughters, the thought of mandatory virginity for girls would comfort me as it for equal restriction for boys. Moreover, when either mom or dad where the ones raising their children the world undebately was a better place. Feminism achieved the creation of taxing the other half of the population, thus, driving a wedge in the traditional family unit.
When are people going to understand that the creation of feminism had nothing to do with equality and moreso to do with destroying the family.
Roger, what department of the government do you work for?
Posted by: cana | 2008-04-22 11:41:21 AM
ROGER,
Why don't you go back to you single mom community and share your pre-historic ideas in the cofee shops with your peer group?
By the way if you ever hit the school you could have learned that an embryo is the result of sperm and ovum. But forget it, it is too heavy for you, just ask FRO to increase your support checks they are standing by...you need to switch to stronger pot
Posted by: Brian | 2008-04-23 12:21:04 AM
To Allan,
Your time is more precious than wasting here with bunch of crooks who can not (or don't want) to see the reality around them.
Their issue is not that they don't see the reality, they do, they simply benefit from this geneder masacare state of Canada. They are bunch of abusers living on abusive system's allowance.
You know the true nature of them better...
Posted by: Brian | 2008-04-23 12:28:55 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.