Presumably, the majority of Canadians believe that justice prevails in Canada. They hold dear to the idea that when the courts issue orders to miscreants detailing how they must address their misdeeds or repay for injustices committed against society or, in many cases, spouses, that those orders must be upheld; that those court orders are sacrosanct. Such is not always the case.
Two examples of high jacked justice: one involving a former high-end roller, and the other a wife and mother; one from the East the other from the West. Neither supports the idea that justice prevails in Canada.
First, the Eastern former high-roller.
"Robert Campeau, who once ran a multi-billion-dollar real estate and retailing empire, is having trouble collecting on a court ruling that says he is owed $25,000 in monthly spousal support payments, his lawyer says." That quote from National Post of 07 December 2004. It seems that his estranged wife, Ilse, "continues to evade payments" as she divides her time between her Austria home and her Toronto residence. Currently, she lives with her partner Francois Xavier Weiss.
It would seem from the above that Ms. Campeau is using her ability as a high-roller to jet back and forth between Europe and Canada and thumb her nose at the court-ordered spousal support. It must be quite a fall from financial grace for Robert Campeau, who at the height of his fame and fortune, oversaw a $10 billion empire and controlled some major U.S. stores such as Bloomingdale's. Today, he cries poverty and cites as a cause his estimated $10,000 monthly expenses. According to reports, a good portion of that money is for medical costs. According to his lawyer, "Mr. Campeau has been in and out of care" due to his ongoing health problems, he has not been working and his only income is from his pension. The Mood Disorders Society of Canada has named Campeau as a "famous Canadian suffering from a mood disorder." So, the poor chap cannot live on his court ordered spousal support of $25,000 per month. His difficulty is exacerbated by his wife's refusal or delay in sending the monthly allotment. His difficulty might end, however, because in mid-October 2004, a justice ruled that Campeau "should be granted $9 million in family assets and a "monthly spousal allotment of $25,000, retroactive to March 2003." Time and the estranged wife's willingness to adhere to a court-ordered spousal allotment will tell whether or not Robert Campeau succeeds in his quest to receive the support payments that a court ordered be paid by his wife. Time and a woman's fickle view of things legal will tell. We wait but not with bated breath; that we leave for the spouse of a Western jerk.
Second, the Western wife and mother.
This is a story of heartache, first and foremost and secondly a story of how a jerk - some add the adjective, useless - has twisted and turned and used all manner possible to avoid supporting his estranged wife and their three young girls. Unlike the former high-roller above who is at the whim of his estranged wife, this fellow does not slither and slide between locations as the high-roller's wife does; rather, he openly defies a court order. He does more than thumb his nose at the order; he takes great delight in kicking his estranged wife when she is down and then laughing about it as he proclaims his manhood. Ugh, what a jerk!
This story had its beginning a few years ago when a naïve young gal took the hand of her Prince Charming and the couple set off on a journey that both - well, she thought so - would bring them happiness at every turn and that they would go gently into the sunset together. Their religion was [is] such that the woman was to be fully attentive to her husband; therein, might lay one of the problems that plague this sad tale.
Things began to come apart shortly after the husband - the jerk - began driving a semi-trailer unit; he had a female partner who owned the huge rig. The partner was single and the jerk's marriage vow of fidelity went out the rig's window to blow forever on the winds of sexual arousal. Soon, the jerk co-habited with his partner; yet, continued the pretence of marriage to his wife and claimed to be a fine example of a father to his children.
In late 2000, separation proceedings were begun. In early December Master Donaldson of BC, issued a court order - interim joint custody and joint guardianship. The mother was given custody of the three children with the father having visiting rights on a regular basis. Additionally, the court ordered the husband to pay spousal support of $900 per month as well as $987 per month for child support. Payments were to be made on the fifth day of each month.
In March 2001, BC's family maintenance enforcement programme [FMEP] opened a file to monitor support payments. Interestingly, support payments, ordered to be paid by the 5th of each month, usually did not arrive until the 15th and were dated on the 7th of the month.
In October of that year, the jerk stopped making full amount support payments. FMEP acted by sending the delinquent husband/father a letter that advised him of his obligation. Mr. Jerk ignored the letter, and by extension, he ignored FMEP. By further extension, he ignored the court order of spousal/child support. Normally, when a person defies a court, that person is charged with contempt of court; however, not in this case and not in BC. In BC, apparently, court orders can be ignored willy-nilly.
Later, in early 2002, the plaintiff - the young woman - was back in court seeking redress for the late or less-than-ordered support payments. Her petition was met with arrogance by her estranged husband's lawyer who told her to take it up with FMEP.
FMEP garnished the delinquent's wages - at that time he was in excess of $3,000 in arrears.
Six months later the mother received notice that her estranged husband's lawyer has been fired. A warrant had been issued for the estranged husband's arrest; somehow he avoided paying a penalty. Then, the entire affair came crashing down on the poor wife's head.
In a case that must surely cause people to shake their heads and wonder where is the justice in Canada especially as it applies - or does not apply - to young mothers with young children. In January 2003, Master Horn cancelled the defendant's $12,000 arrears then changed the original September 2000 order. Horn accepted the defendant's claim that as he had lost his job [fired?], and had only recently secured another position but with less income than before, he had less to live on. It was revealed that the defendant's annual income had dropped from $54,000 to $31,000. Horn then ordered the monthly support payments to be reduced; for the wife, her support was reduced by 35 per cent per month and for the children a reduction to $604. Payments to be made on the first of each month.
At about this time, the plaintiff had to apply for disability and was forced to discontinue her education. In February the disability was approved but in July 2003, a provincial review took place. In July 2003, Canada Pension denied the plaintiff's request for disability on the basis that she was able to sell Tupperware.
In October 2003, Mr. Macho -the jerk - physically assaulted his wife at her home after dropping off the children. Again, in December, Mr. Jerk again assaulted his wife, this time when he arrived to pick up the children, who, it must be noted, did not always want to accompany their father. The situation deteriorated to the point that the wife felt compelled to call police and seek assistance; she called but the police did not attend. Many hours later, the police did get around to looking into the matter but nothing of substance occurred. The police in this case are RCMP.
Although the RCMP failed to attend as requested, the Force did advise the provincial ministry for children and families and a report was filed. The RCMP was unable to obtain a peace bond because of the infrequency of the assaults despite the jerk continually making a nuisance of himself by badgering and harassing his wife. About all the officials in BC would do was to suggest that a neutral, public place be selected for the picking up and dropping off of the children.
In February 2004, the wife's home was broken into and many items, including children's things and jewellery, were stolen. The police were unable to find the culprit.
Eight days later, the plaintiff's home was broken into again. Again, children's possessions were the thief's target. This time the police stated that the defendant - Mr. Jerk - was suspected of being the culprit.
In March 2004, Haven House, a child counselling place, began to counsel children based on the assaults on their mother that they witnessed.
There is more to this sad tale but the above ought to be sufficient to show that justice is often a figment of the imagination and less an ideal to uphold. This case highlights in graphic form how the system does not work well in British Columbia.
In gathering material for this story, the BC attorney general was contacted by correspondence. After two weeks, neither an acknowledgement of receipt nor a response to the stated inquiry was received. A follow-up letter advised the attorney general that the story would run with the information made available and that a notation would be appended to state that the attorney general ignored the opportunity to provide material/information to support or to deny the allegations made in the initial letter which were that "the fulfilment of family maintenance in British Columbia is flawed."
As of this writing, 08 December 2004, the defendant continues to be late in making support payments; the children do not wish to visit their father and they dislike being forced to do so. The defendant continues to harass his estranged wife and belittles her in front of their children. Moreover, the defendant does not agree to utilise counselling to attempt to alleviate the children's fears. Additionally, the estranged husband/father refuses to pay his portion of a joint loan, refuses to try mediation to resolve the issues of conflict, and finally, he continues to refuse to return personal items that belong to the couple's children.
It would seem that in BC, a master is able to alter [defy?] the order of another master; that in BC a master accepts the word of an estranged husband/father who is delinquent in spousal payments, and in BC the attorney general ignores a legitimate request for information that concerns an abused wife/mother.
None of the foregoing is surprising given that the Liberal government of British Columbia has been on a campaign of cutbacks, reductions, terminations, and the like, in its attempt to repair some of the damage the previous NDP government inflicted on the province. The Liberals, however, in the eyes of much of the province, have been draconian in their 'repairs.' It would seem that one wife/mother is the end result of the government's ham-handed attempts at repair.
This space is disappointed in Attorney-General Geoff Plant's lack of response. His action speaks volumes and might well be an indication that in his mind, wives/mothers do not count.
Bob Orrick is a private tutor of English grammar, literature, poetry and Canadian history to off-shore youngsters. His pupils hail from such places as Taiwan, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Venezuela. He was previously in international marketing, was a ministerial assistant to a provincial cabinet minister, spent a few years as a reporter then editor of a community newspaper and enjoyed a career in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Advertising Information 
