Court Judgement Docs

.

Court Transcipts before jail:

June 10, 2005 Judgement (Click Here)
.

Reasons for Judgements in my ten day trial:

November 14, 2006 Judgement (Click Here)

My Latest Trial Appearance

Click here to view transcripts of my last time in court.

.

This is my response to Justice Coutu’s reasons for Judgement.

To Justice Coutu

I have reviewed your Reasons for Judgment. I wish to make the following comments, where applicable following the paragraphs in your form of Order. I mark as exhibit A my last correspondence to you.

paragraph 1. I have not brought 35 applications on this matter. I have been to court 35 times. I mark as exhibit B a copy of my Procedure of Record

paragraph 5 Your statement that I would not continue with counseling is wrong. We went to several counselors in Vancouver and even attended counseling in Calgary with Dr. Ailon, Ms Wallat’s councilor of 25 years. Ms Wallat was suffering from post pardon depression as determined in court and I found it very frustrating that Ms Wallat accused me of alcohol, drug and child abuse. When Ms. Wallat returned In April of 2002 I tried to accommodate her request she made to a councilor, which stated she wanted me to stay out of the kitchen between the hours of 8 pm and 7 am. At this time Ms Wallat photo copied my company records which she latter brought to discovery. I even flew into Calgary at the beginning of 2002 specifically for a session with Dr Fong. Ms Wallat made a 4 hr appointment at $300 per hour. At this time I informed Ms Wallat that I could not afford this price and suggested we see a less expensive councilor. She refused and claims that I will not return to counseling. I refer to exhibit B of exhibit A which I am asking Ms Wallat to return to counseling.

paragraph 6 Your statement that I felt that Ms Wallat tricked me when she got pregnant is wrong. I merely stated that she did not inform me that she had gone of the pill. We had discussed having a child and I was under the impression that she wanted to wait a few months. Your statement that I became emotional at trial when I asked Ms Wallat “Why did she marry me is wrong.” I became emotional when I asked Ms Wallat “Why will you not let me talk to Matthew.”

paragraph 7 I felt used by Ms Wallat because 1 week after I told Ms Wallat that I could no longer afford to pay all the bills and the mortgage on the Sylvan property she left me.

paragraph 8 Your statement that Ms Wallat paid the Sylvan Lake expenses is wrong. From January 1 to December 31 2001 I paid the expenses and the Mortgage and the taxes. The court has cancelled checks paid to Ms Wallat that adds up to the same amount as the mortgage and the taxes of the sylvan lake property for this time period.

paragraph 9 Your statement that I bragged that I have made $5000 per week less expenses is correct. However since I met Ms Wailat I have been catering to her needs as well as the needs of the Sylvan home during the marriage. Since the marriage ended I have been tied up in litigation and am currently taking 10 days off per month in a city that I cannot make a living in. My business is flexible; however I need to be in Vancouver to take full advantage of my capabilities. My business needs to be built back up as this Divorce has taken its toll.

paragraph 10 Your statement that we did not know each others financial situation is not true. Ms Wallat was aware of my recent inheritance and I was aware of the value of      the Sylvan lake property ($220,000) as well as the debts that she had to her mother. 14 Your statement that I pressured Ms Wallat to sell her truck is wrong. Ms Wallat purchased a new truck and was trying to retail her old one for the last 3 months and was unable to do so.

paragraph 22 Your statement that I said I cannot afford child support is not true. I stated that it is not fair that that my access costs are not taken into consideration when determining my child support obligations. For the 1st 2 years of separation my access costs have been approximately $1000 per month. They are now closer to $2000 per month. These costs relate to airfare, hotel accommodation, parking, gas etc. I would not have these expenses if I did not have a child in Red Deer. Since I do have a child in Alta I have diversified my business to selling cars in Alta therefore allowing me to write off such expenses as business expenses. I do acknowledge that I have support obligations and I am current with child support.

paragraph 23 Your statement that I blatantly attempted to conceal income for child support purposes is wrong and I am offended by this allegation. Justice Kenney imputed my income to be $50,000 up from the $30,000 I had reported my income to be, therefore establishing support at $616 per month. This was done by imputing my business expenses as being personal expenses. At this time I was $10,000 in dept to Coastal Ford pertaining to cars that I had purchased from them and had not repaid. To compound matters my driver’s license had been suspended as I had fallen 3 months behind on my support. I was also 20 some thousand in dept to Revenue Canada who had recently put a garnish on my bank account. I was also 20 some thousand in dept to my financial institutions. The 2.5 years old legal rambling and high access costs had finally caught up to me. I guess you could call this the lowest point of my career. I approached Mr. Millani who was sympathetic to my situation. He is the largest used car dealer in western Canada and has over 30 employees. He offered me a Job and a solution to my financial and personal problem. Our deal was that if I worked exclusively for him he would pay my dept to coastal ford temporarily. This would guarantee my continued relationship with Coastal Ford that happens to be my biggest account. He also offered to pay my back child support therefore allowing me to continue working. This arrangement was mutually beneficial as we were competing for cars prior to this arrangement. My job was to buy and sell cars for him in Alta. and BC and he would cover all expenses pertaining to the Business. This allowed me to continue on with my access and he would guarantee me $1500 per month which he paid my company. This enabled me to cover my living expenses. Unfortunately this arrangement did not allow coverage for my debts to revenue Canada or my financial institutions. In regards to your statement that Mr. Millani paid $30,000 for rent and utilities and airfare you are wrong. He did cover my rent of $1000 per month, however all other expenses such as gas cellular and travel were legitimate business expenses which were his responsibility over that 6 month period. In short Mr. Millani saved me from certain bankruptcy and I owe him a lot. Not to mention I still owe him $10.000.

paragraph 27 In regards to paragraph 27 “Position of Ms Wallat “I agree that the current access schedule of Justice Kenney should be maintained with a slight variation.
Increase the 1 weekend per month to I week per month with access being where ever Mr. Marshall desires as long as Ms. Wallat is aware. Vancouver is only 1 hr away. Why must I stay in a hotel and pay $130 per night as I am currently doing. It is not fair to me and it is not fair to Matthew.
5 additional days in each month with a minimum of 3 days notice. With overnight access to be included. If I fly in on a Thursday and go back on a Friday I should be allowed to keep him over night on Thursday. This access is what Ms. Wallat wants with only a slight variation. I would be happy with this access schedule for the next 14 years. It is reasonable and fair. For the best interest of the child Ms. Wallat and myself, 1 feel this is the best access schedule. It is basically what she is proposing. I am flexible on what ever week she would like me to care for the child (Matthew.)

paragraph 32 You are wrong on the 1 overnight access. The judge granted 48 hrs access which is 2 overnights. My lawyer at the time Brian Adair wrote the order up as 24 hr access per month. I stated to Mr. Adair that the Judge said 48 hrs access. He said how do you know, you were not even there. I responded by saying Yes I was. I showed him a copy of the transcript which clearly stated 48 hr access. Ms Wallat’s lawyer at the time never signed the order nor did the Judge He told me to give him another $3500 and he said he would have the Order amended. I promptly fired him and returned to court with the transcript. The Order was then signed by Justice Urb in December to reflect the 48 hr access. We had 2 sessions with her.

paragraph 34 I do not feel that access 1 extended weekend per month was fair and generous. It was devastating not to be able to see my son. 1 thought it was cold and heartless.

paragraph 35 In regards to paragraph 35. Ms Wallat put Matthew in a day home for 11 hrs a day and would not allow me access. I asked Ms Wallat “Why leave Matthew with a stranger when I was willing to help care for him.” Her response was “Matthew sees Sharon every day. You’re the stranger.”

paragraph 36 You are wrong. I never refused mediation. I stated that t could not afford $300 per hr Psychologist when she was booking 4 hr appointments.

paragraph 37 You are wrong On Sept 10 Justice Kenney Ordered Dr Fong or another Dr whose name I forget to do the practice note 7. Both Dr’s refused to do it. I was referred to Dr Daya so 1 had to return to court on Sept 16 to have Justice Kenney order Dr Daya to do the practice note 7. After the practice note 7 was completed 1 asked Dr Daya what I should do. She in confidante and against the instructions of the Judge said I should file for full custody and ask for a Psychological evaluation and mention the fact that Ms Wallat hired a live in care giver for Matthew when she was not working. I sent a letter stating this to Justice Kenney.

paragraph 38 is wrong. On December 12 we went in front of Justice Hughs to have Dr Daya recommendation implemented as Justice Kenney could not make it to court. Ms Hoffman was able to convince Justice Hughs that Dr Daya report stated that my overnight access was to be cut down to 1 night every second weekend. I stated that this is not what Dr Daya was saying. Justice Hughs said that we could ask Dr Daya for a clarification letter and if her clarification letter came back the way I said it was to read then we could have the new order varied to reflect Dr Daya recommendation. After receiving the clarification letter I tried to have the order varied to reflect Dr Daya recommendation to no avail. I wrote a letter to Justive Kenney only to have her receptionist Linda Potter tell me that Justice Kenney was no longer seized with the case and that I was to go back to open chambers. I filed a notice of motion and returned to court on January 30 with Justice Macleod hoping to have the clarification letter implemented. When I arrived at court Ms Hoffman said that Justice Kenney was seized with the case. Justice Macleod adjourned the case. I then returned to court on February 9 to have Dr Daya clarification letter implemented. Justice Kenney agreed that both letters from Dr Daya were the way I interpreted them, but would not implement them as Justice Hughs stated. I was appalled at the system had manipulated me and it was at this point that I wrote the abusive emails.

paragraph 42 In regards not paying for The Psychological evaluation. As stated earlier I was In financial ruin and on the verge of Bankruptcy.

paragraph 44 In regards to paragraph 44. Thank you for acknowledging that Ms Hoffinan manipulated the orders. She also made sure that no one in the court system would help, thus creating my legal nightmare and nearly my financial ruin.

paragraph 45 You are right that Ms Wallat and I cannot communicate. Ms Wallat refuses to. She does not answer her telephone and consistently deny’s me the opportunity to see Matthew. Even if I am In Red Deer and the child is in the day home she will not allow any extra access.

paragraph 46 In regards to paragraph 46. I prefer to live in Vancouver. However, Justice Kenney said since I live in Vancouver I only have her consent to see Matthew 1 weekend per month. How would you like to be able to see your child 1 weekend per month? I am currently spending almost 2 weeks per month in Alta. I am no different than any one who works out of town in the oil industry. 2 weeks on 2 weeks off

paragraph 48 You are wrong in saying Ms Wallat has better parenting abilities. For 3 years Ms Wallat drops Matthew off at a day home for 10 to 11 hrs a day and deny’s me the opportunity see him if 1 am in town. She is selfish and only concerned about herself

paragraph 50 Matthew is a well adjusted child because he has the good fortune of being placed in a day home. In regards to access. There are difficulties because Ms Wallat refuses to allow his father the opportunity’ to see him. If I happen to be in Red Deer on an unscheduled access day and I am able to get in touch with her by phone and ask her if I can take Matthew for a swim she responds by saying this is not an access day. Matthew stays in the day home and if you go near the day home I will call the police. This is not a good parent. This is a selfish vindictive person.

paragraph 51 In regards to you being impressed with Ms Ailon testimony. What do you think she is going to say? She has treated Ms Wallat for 25 years. As Dr Daya said after I told her this. She has paid her mortgage on her house.

paragraph 52 You are wrong in saying there is no evidence that Ms Wallat is unfit or has Psychological issues. Dr Ailon states that Ms Wallat has issues such as sleep depreva on which she has been treated for in the past. Dr Peirce states in his report that she portrays signs of depression, referring to my comment where she says I am waiting for my personality to come back. Dr Reid states in our 45 minute session that Ms Wallat has issues and that he feels he might be able to help her. Dr Daya told me that I should ask for Psychological evaluation and recommended that a clause be implemented in her report that Ms Wallat not be allowed to drink or do drugs when Matthew is in her care. Just because I could not afford to pay for Ms. Wallat’s evaluation does not mean that she does not have issue’s that need to be addressed Every Psychologist has stated that Ms Wallat has issues of concern. Even Matthew’s care givers have stated to there concern of Ms Wallat’s state of mind. Unfortunately, any one who has personal knowledge of Ms. Wallat does not live in Calgary. You have 4 Psychologists, two of Matthews care giver’s, my family, mutual friends, and even her family has stated Ms Wallat has issue’s. Of concern. Her father even stated in court that he did not want to get involved in our situation. You are wrong Justice Coutu. Please, for the sake of the child order a Psychological risk evaluation. I will pay for it as I am back on my feet financially speaking.

paragraph 54 You are wrong to say that I want Matthew to be shuffled between to provinces on a weekly basis. There is nothing wrong with taking Matthew to Vancouver I time a month as he his not in school. There is something wrong with the court determining that I must implement access at hotel rooms.

paragraph 55 I have a close bond with my son Matthew, no thanks to the system or Ms Wallat who has done everything possible to limit access.

paragraph 56 You are wrong again. I am not talking about bringing the child back on a weekly basis. I am suggesting a monthly basis. It is important for children to develop ties with there family. Thanks to the court order of the last 3.5 years my son has virtually no interaction with my family. A child does not need to sit in a day home for 10 hrs a day to intact with other children. Especially when he has a father who wants to see him but is denied that right by the courts and by his own mother who prefers to have Matthew stay with his caregiver

paragraph 57 Your statement that I want to bring Matthew back to Vancouver on a weekly basis is unfair. I have never said that yet you keep saying I did. Dr. Pearce called me Narcissistic to a certain degree. I leave my home in Vancouver and take 10 day’s off work per month in order to spend time with Matthew. How Narcissistic can I be. You say Matthew show’s signs of stress and anxiety. Please refer to exhibit A of Exhibit A. Stress and Anxiety is passes on from one person to the next. Ms Wallat is where the stress and Anxiety originate.

paragraph 58 I think access 1 week a month in Vancouver with his father and family is in Matthew’s best interest considering the alternative is to leaving him in a day home 10 hrs a day.

paragraph 59 You are wrong in saying that I do not want to pay child support. Ms Wallat’s support is paid up to date. You are wrong in doubling my income and not taking into consideration the $ 24,000 1 spend on implementing access. How can you say I do not provide the necessities of life? I have to purchase clothes for Matthew. Ms Wallat provides 2 teddy bears and the cloth’s on his back which are usually clothes that I have purchased in the past. You are wrong to say that I do not put priority on support obligations. The fact that I went to Thailand and had Laser eye therapy is irrelevant. It came at a time that my brother sold a building and he had to go to Asia to collect his money. He paid for the trip and the eye surgery. Your statement that I do not pay my support is not true. You are using it as an excuse with no merit. I have fallen behind at times however given the situation and the fact that Ms Wallat is well off and currently has in her possession $40,000 of my money according to your Judgment The fact that I can take 9 days off per month to spend with Matthew is a credit to my flexibility with my job. I am sure if Ms Wallat could take 9 day’s of per month she would still place Matthew in a day home and go back to bed as she has done in the past. Again I refer to exhibit A of Exhibit A. I have been told by Matthew’s care giver that this is common practice for Ms Wallat. Unfortunately Ms Hoffman manipulated the system so that the trial was held outside of Red Deer and none of these witnesses could appear and I was Not allowed to hand in any affidavits from said people.

paragraph 60 You are wrong in saying it is immature for me to care for Matthew while in my care in Vancouver. There is nothing wrong with Matthew spending 2 hrs with me while I drive through a car lot to see what trade ins have arrived. People care for there kids 8 hrs a day while they are working. Fortunately I only need to work 2 hrs a day while in Vancouver. The rest of the time I get to spend with Matthew in parks and playgrounds and swimming pools with other children. Day homes are not the only place children can bond with other children.

paragraph 61 Other than Ms Wallat’s blatant Lies to the court and My family friends and coworkers there is no collaboration that any of these lies are even remotely true.

paragraph 71 You are wrong in saying I refuse professional help. I have been to see councilors approximately 10 times with Ms Wallat. I have issue with Ms Wallat coming up with blatant lies such as Drugs alcohol child abuse spousal abuse. The truth is it is Ms Wallat who has Psychological issues four the past 25 years. Did you read Dr Ailon’s notes. Psychological issue’s do not heal like a broken leg. They are often recurring as has been so in Ms Wallat’s life.

paragraph 72 You are wrong. Matthew does not start school in the fall. Of course Matthew is attached to Ms Wallat. He is the only person that is consistent in his life. He has had 7 care givers before his 4 birthday. And to compound Matters the 1 two years the court would only allow me to see Matthew I weekend a month. It is ridiculous to think this was reasonable and generous. I feel it is abusive thoughtless and uncaring.

paragraph 73 You are wrong to thing that Ms. Wallat is better at caring for his allergies. I have experience as my nephew has a peanut allergy. Did you know that Matthew is 4 years old and he has never been tested for his allergies. How is she better equipped when he hasn’t even been tested. She is irresponsible.

paragraph 74 To say that I did not pick up the fact that Ms Wallat’ parents do not like me is ridiculous. Just because I am nice to them is more of a credit on how patient I am. It is obvious that Barbara Wallat plays a role in this divorce. She is one of the main instigators. Quite frankly I would like to tell her off But what would be the point. I try to respect the people in Matthew’s life’ and put my personal feelings aside.

paragraph 75 The abusive emails were derived by the system’s blatant manipulation. I have had to listen to Ms Hoffman’s blatant lies that I would through dirty diapers at Matthew’s care givers. I have had to put up with Ms Wallat’s blatant lies of child abuse and substance abuse I have had to withstand Ms Wallat contacting my family friends and even people in the Auto industry with such lies. She should be sued for defamation of character for sending transcripts of the trial to people in the auto industry. She spent $100,000 trying to keep me away from Matthew and trying to destroy me financially.

paragraph 76 You are wrong in saying I have no interest in a child care plan for Matthew. I read it. I just did not read it during the trial. As I stated in court. I asked Ms Wallat for some information on what Matthew likes to eat. Her response was “you will figure it out.” There is not much I can do if you choose not to believe this statement. But it is true.

paragraph 77 How am I suppose to defend blatant lies other than saying she is not speaking the truth. What would your reaction be if your husband out of the blue said your an alcoholic drug attic and a spousal and child abuser?

paragraph 78 You are wrong to say I would not return to counseling. I obviously did 10 more times to other councilors.

paragraph 79 You are wrong to think that I was dismissive to Ms Wallat concerns. 1 went to see every councilor she asked me to. Ms Wallat has issues. I am certainly not going to admit to her lies. All I could do was try and deal with her concerns. She is the one that is carrying around this Psychological baggage. You are wrong in thinking that Ms Wallat does not try and keep me away from my son. On Matthew’s birthday she said you only get to see him for 2 hrs as per you instructions. He stay’s in the day home. I do not care if Matthew wants to see you. She just cares that Matthew does not see me. This is obvious. In 3.5 years the only extra access she ever gave me above what the court order states is when her car broke down. Six Times I have come for scheduled access and 6 times she has refused to let me see him. It is not like I drove across town. I came all the way from Vancouver at a considerable cost. I have flown to Calgary 60 to 70 times over the last 4 years’ She has not brought Matthew to Vancouver 1 time on her own accord.

paragraph 80 Ms Wallat has a tendency of getting help for her problems. My concern is that her issues are reoccurring continuously. Dr. Ailon testimony is obviously biased If Ms Wallat is so comfortable in her role as a mother, then why did she hired a live in care giver at a cost of $2500 when she was not working.

paragraph 82 If Ms Wallat still has issues of me being a flight risk because she can not get over the 1 instance where I took him to Vancouver then I feel she still has Psychological issues that need to be addressed before you make a decision that I have to live with for the next 14 years.

paragraph 82 How can I ask for access on demand when I am in Vancouver? I have 1 weekend per month which she is aware of and I have 5 day accesses with 3 day’s notice. The pickup are at the day home and the drop offs are at her home. Ms Wallat is at work and she is not inconvenienced at all. In fact when Ms Wallat is at work she has never allowed extra access at this time. If I want extra access to take him for a swim she still refuses access. There have never been any issues with me being late. Access always begins at the day home.

paragraph 83 You are wrong. I have always maintained that it is Ms Wallat who refuses to see Dr Ailon with me. Again refer to exhibit B of exhibit B.

paragraph 84 I believe Ms Hoffman Manipulated the system to make sure that the gradual plan was manipulated in an attempt to limit my access with Matthew and leave him in a day home for 10 to 11 hrs a day as per Ms Wallet’s instructions. Isn’t it Ms Hoffman’s Job to do what Ms Wallat desire’s

paragraph 85 The conclusion that I refused access is Ms Hoffman’s manipulation of the system. There is no evidence. In fact the evidence is to the contrary.

paragraph 86 you are wrong in thinking that I was not manipulated. You basically stated so in paragraph 44. Ms Wallat paid $100,000 to manipulate the system. You know this money was spent to keep me away from Matthew. Ms Wallat has dragged me and everyone else through a living hell because she cannot accept me being in Matthew’s life. That is the bottom line. All of the Dr’s say Miss Wallat is a candidate to be helped. The only Dr I had a problem with was Dr. Ailon because of there 25 year relationship.
87 Ms Hoffman made sure that the professionals did not have a chance. What do you think she was paid for? She certainly did not try and encourage access as per exhibit C of exhibit A

paragraph 90 In regard to your access schedule. As Matthew is not in school I do not want it and neither does Ms Wallat as stated in paragraph 27 titled Position of Ms Wallat. The notion that I am not flexible is ridiculous. It is Ms Wallat that is not flexible on the access issue. In 3.5 years I have been to court over 35 times with access being the issue. If Ms Wallat wants the drop off points to be at the day home she would never see me. All of Matthew’s care giver’s like me. They have written affidavits stating so. Ms Wallat would not inconvenience at all. The day home workers like me and I work together with them on issue’s pertaining Matthew.

paragraph 91 Your access decision is wrong. Please forgive me for saying so but I feel it is a generic access arrangement that does not take into account our issues or consideration what either Ms Wallat or I want.

paragraph 96 I declare $30,000 income. I am current with support based on $50,000 income. I pay access costs between 20,000 to $25,000 per year. I also take 10 day’s away from Vancouver per month to see my son. You say I am under employed. I prefer to say I am a father who sacrifices a lot of money and a lot of his time to be able to spend time with his son whom he loves more than anything else in the world. How often do you see people like me come through court room? Isn’t it nice to see a father who cares and takes responsibility for his son? 101 Let us say I spend $20,000 on access and $7200 on support per year. What would my income have to be, to warrant support payments of 27,000 per year basing Ms Wallet’s income at $65,000.

paragraph 127 You were wrong in your decision of $60,000 for me on the Sylvan property. It was not fair. In reality how can I expect to be treated fairly when Ms Wallat spends $100,000 on council and I am self represented. Who ever said the system was fair. I did at one time. You can take away my money but I refuse to loose my
SOD.

paragraph 137 You are wrong in thinking that I will file for Bankruptcy.

—