This deals with the costs issue. I couldn't have it on my conscious to see you walk into the mine field of the Canadian courts, because they have no morals or principals and have thrown their own Cannons of Ethics out the window, They know what they have done in the past and are still doing is criminal behaviour and they can't allow it to be exposed now.
That is why they use, " The English Rule" as for costs, The Limeys have used this system for 100's of years to control not only their own peoples but those of other nations they decided to rule, ("Canada should know that all to well") also, The Judiciary are the Third arm of Government . They use the cost system on people they consider a threat to shut them up or close them down.
There are enough people in Canada who have had their intestines slowly ripped out of their ear holes, with each subsequent court appearance, and are now existing in a state of penury, I would hate to see them lay claim on your home. Via their costs regime.
However as the law is supposed to be equally available to all, if someone who has nothing to loose!! i.e. the people who carry their intestine's around in a plastic bag. were to file then costs would be irrelevant, Its called ,"Indigent Status" May also be helpful to some people on these lists.
INDIGENCY APPLICATIONS
A party who alleges he or she is unable to pay court fees may apply for an order relieving them of the obligation to pay the fees to the government. The court must find that the person is “indigent” according to the law and that the claim proposed to be made is a reasonable one. An indigency order covers the fees set out in Schedule 1 of Appendix C to the Supreme Court Civil and Supreme Court Family Rules. An indigency order does not cover the costs of transcripts as those fees are payable to the private company that you choose to prepare the transcript.
Supreme Court Civil Rule 20-5 and Supreme Court Family Rule 20-5 are the rules specific to applications for indigent status.
Included in this package are;
- Supreme Court Civil Rule 20-5 – Persons Who are Indigent
- Civil Form 17 – Requisition
- Civil Form 79 – Order for Indigent Status
- Civil Form 80 – Affidavit in Support of Indigent Application
- Supreme Court Family Rule 20-5 – Persons Who are Indigent
- Family Form F17 – Requisition
- Family Form F85 – Order for Indigent Status
- Family Form F86 – Affidavit in Support of Indigent Application
- - - - -
Connie so the mails ( which I hate writing) don't get to long.
For The Sake Of The Child.
The Judiciary know full well what they are doing, a female judge in Alberta in the mid 90's filed for divorce, her Affidavit?? or closer to the truth, "a carefully constructed instrument of malice" normally drawn deliberately as such, up by lawyers who are fully aware of what they are doing, was full of false allegations, the preferred weapon of choice in the first rounds fired in any divorce,
An elastic relationship with the truth is what the crooks who are members of the Canadian Bar Association would call it, the other 90% of Canadians, know what they are and call them LIES.
Maybe someone should recuse a judge and state in their affidavit that due to his record of decisions, they truly believe that he must have been abused by his own father as a child, now lets see him rebut that.?
If false allegations aren't used then, Ex-Parte applications are, these are against the fundamental principals of the whole justice system, where a person is not able to defend themselves, they are supposed to be an emergency order and very difficult to obtain, but if you observe the courts in person they are handed out like Candy at the beginning of any court session.
They have been abused so much over the last 20years, it has almost become standard operating procedure, for members of the legal community who again are members of the Canadian Bar Association.
The last time they were used with such abandon in the Anglophone nations would be in the, "1850 fugitive slave act" where
Both the fact of the escape and the identity of the fugitive were determined on purely ex parte testimony. If a slave was brought in and returned to the master, the person who brought in the slave would receive the sum of $10 ($283 as of 2014), [13] per slave
See en.wikipedia.org/ T
Modern day courts treat men the same as niggers in 1850 ( I use the term not with derogatory intent but in sympathy with the way they were treated)
Today They may not be physically whipped but are whipped, Mentally, Emotionally and Financially by a system that is deemed just. assisted by members of the Canadian Bar Association,
The Female Discounts in Sentencing. If you're a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.
Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says,
See: huffingtonpost.com
Again with the full knowledge of the Canadian Bar Association
In Barbara Kay's A few months ago, bowing to pressure from the Canadian Bar Association, the federal government slammed the door shut on a private member’s bill advancing shared parenting as the default in child custody after parental separation.
fullcomment.nationalpost.com
Now if we look at the Criminal code of Canada Re: Organised Crime.
THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION fit the whole criteria to be classed as a Criminal Organisation
See: edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/
Organized Crime Legislation
As stated in the Criminal Code, section 467.1(1), a "criminal organization" means a group, however organized, that
- is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and,
- has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences, that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any one of the persons who constitute the group.
It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.
Factors to consider
In determining whether an individual participates in OR actively contributes to any activity of a criminal organization, the Court may look at the following:
- If they use a name, word, symbol, or other representation that identifies, or is associated with, that criminal organization;
- If they frequently associate with any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization;
- If they receive any benefit from the criminal organization;
- If they repeatedly engage in activities at the instruction of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.
Source: ~Connie, apologies for the delay getting back to you, but lets continue. fathers_in_action
Ontario high court shoots down CAS protection order appeal
: Follow-up by: JANE SIMS
: sunnewsnetwork.ca
