6 Uncomfortable Truths

Updated: Sep 2


The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled 'the Criminal Code and provincial human rights laws contain prohibitions against the publication of messages that promote hatred.'

Someone trained by false argument is dangerous.


The key Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the constitutionality of former section 13 of the CHRA, rendered in 1990, is Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor. This case involved John Ross Taylor and the Western Guard Party, which at the time were operating a hate promotion telephone message service.


In 2013, in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the constitutionality of section 14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, which is similar to former section 13 of the CHRA in that it prohibits 'any representation' (i.e. messages or other publications) that 'exposes or tends ot expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or other wise affronts the dignity of any person or class of person on the basis of a prohibited ground.' 67

'If left unaddressed, it can lead to acts of violence and conflict on a wider scale.' In this sense hate speech is an extreme form of intolerance which contributes to hate crime. 1


Women are targets of these messages in the family court. The court does not protect women or children. Below are examples of letters I received and that are part of a Continuing Record, meaning they are public, and were the responsibility of Ontario Superior Court judges, to read.


These messages are not only derogatory, they induce a tone of disgust, contempt, of a woman who happens to be a mother as well. The situations have been staged, so that each court doesn't understand the context, however, it is still the court's responsibility to follow the case, without ridiculing the documents presented which do so.


In the first message, a US lawyer is suggesting that I couldn't cross the border for 'various reasons'. He does not cite the letter he submitted to the Ontario court (public) which states that he tampered with my passport so that I could not attend.


The second message by the same lawyer is self explanatory. Justice Paisley has Endorsed reintegration between my son and me but the father had not complied, had moved him to another house. He did not inform the court ~ meaning he wrote a false address on a court motion. I spoke with a neighbor who told me the father and son had moved but he did not know where.


This was the second time I could not leave Ontario - the first being in 2015 to go to the TRO hearing (my son was abducted the day before, therefore I could not speak at the hearing) The Ontario lawyer denied service of the TRO until the divorce trial in 2018, three years later.


The first photo below, is part of a motion filed by my former partner in the state of Hawaii. Some of the other wording is '[he] believes that she is too irrational and mentally disturbed to make reasonable decisions concerning the property.' He asks for 'exclusive occupancy of the premises -- not because he intends to reside there, but because [her] presence (although unlikely) would be a major obstacle to the sale. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 says a US lawyer can only make motion claims that are '(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;'


The first sale of an Ontario property was entirely organized by me, and I chose the realtor for the Hawaii property. The first sale organized and paid many things, including all debt relief from the marriage.

That what this man was writing was complete garbage is not the issue, what is the issue is that he mailed it to my P.O. box in Hawaii after tampering with my passport, in writing to Homeland Security.

I was denied entry and told to come back later.


This lawyer suggested in his letter to Homeland Security that I might be arrested. This threat was repeatedly used. This is a type of swatting, calling or writing police using false allegations. The lawyer had been sued in a similar claim. See:

(https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/man-can-sue-ex-wifes-lawyer-court-rules/article975957/)

This same woman lawyer would write to me that I could not afford to do anything to stop her. She told a judge in 2021 that I ignored cashing a fund which she made up. I asked her if she understood that giving false evidence to create orders was against the law and she said nothing.

In her 'Opening Statement' at the divorce trial in front of J. Monahan (Ontario Superior Court) in Sept of 2018, this lawyer said, she attempted to evict my client from the home - an exact reversal of the Motion filed by her own client in the US to take over the property. This is against the law. There is no reasonable reason to say she did it, when the Motion clearly shows its filing by her client.

In 2016, I received a letter telling me, 'Stop telling people [child's name] is missing, (when he was missing).

No matter what I said, this lawyer would refute it. She claimed she never met the children. *

She emailed me to wish me a pleasant journey back to Hawaii knowing that I would be stopped, and smiled while saying she received the TRO on May 28, 2015, while at the divorce trial, showing she had lied to Judge MacLeod on September 17, 2015. She smiled while looking at me.

The team's US attorney retried a motion without my presence which had already been decided and could not be tried with the same evidence at the same level court. The team had not filed an appeal within 30 days.

In 2019 the other party used this method to appropriate joint property. A decision of the Ontario judge at trial would have shown that a 50 - 50 split of expenses had already been determined six weeks before the closure of the sale of the US property, meaning that no further expenses could be appropriated by either party, even in another jurisdiction. Joint property, where ever held remains jointly owned. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 says motions may be filed so long as, '(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;' My former partner wrote that he would 'give' me 20,000. or he would give this to his lawyer. I had no choice in the matter.

A lawyer or his/her firm who submits a file with these qualifications can be fined.


This type of psychological warfare has recently come into the public purview https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-women-public-life-journalists-politicians-1.6564376 It has been used in the family court for a long time.


It is a form of bait and switch, where the judge, or police, are told a false story, they respond, and this gives an advantage of time, possibly money, clarity for the issue in front of the court, or police. It is a form of avoidance that is then carried through thoughout.


The Supreme Court of Canada says, "In 1990, then Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Antonio Lamer described offences that address forms of speech or expression as falling under the following categories: offences against the public order, offences related to falsehood, offences against the persons and reputation, offences related to public morals and disorderly conduct.' 2


All contacts between me, the mother, the legal team, and the families were intended to have an effect. That effect was not a respectful duty of equality. It was something quite different.


Any person looking to find equalization within a family court such as this one, is subject to these same rules.


The arguments I present here concerning intention to create hate were in my dossier to the family court (Ontario Superior Family Court, October 28, 2021) in a hearing to request a long motion. The long motion, 3-4 hours was to explain evidence I had filed that same day. It was not possible to explain the trail of what I alleged was fraud over six years in less than thirty minutes, with another lawyer interrupting, and using more false narrative. This was denied.


My former partner was awarded a bifurcated divorce in 2015. 'The Divorce Order and Certificate of Divorce did not request nor award custody of the minor children.'3 The children were not mentioned. In Ontario you cannot divorce without a child support determination. The judge did not order child support.

This means that for over six months I had to find income to support myself and our children. I was a stay at home parent, a volunteer teacher, a filmmaker, a former fashion designer, a community member.

At the trial, the trial judge awarded neither side retro-active payments, saying each party had paid half.


The usual division of responsibility is usually 10% to stay at home parents, 90% to working parent (who will quickly be able to create income.) The judge did not use this.

This is not a minor point.


Women who raise children are being cut out of balanced equalization by child retention, the children used as leverage. There is scientific basis for this. Women are 100% the servers to the children for mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria means power center of the cell. Mothers are programmed genetically to protect their young.


Hatred of women is fueling femicide (killing a woman because she is a woman) and harming our children physically and mentally.


And, unless we recognize this corruption of a system, everyone using it profits, with rising salaries, at the expense of those without power structures. We must shatter the glass ceiling that refuses to listen to women because of overconfidence bias. Someone trained by false argument is dangerous.


For the Superior Court of Ontario to have relevance it must follow its own rules. It has become an enabler.






1 https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/hate-speech-and-violence


2 10 Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(C) of the criminal code (Man.)

[1990] 1 S. C. R. 1123. Justice Lamer noted 25 offences in the Criminal Code that place some kind of restriction on expression.


3 Justice Andrew P. Wilson, Third Circuit Court, Hawaii. Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement. Filed 2016, Jan 4, PM 3:50.


Justice Wilson determined 16. 'Under HRS 583A-207, Hawaii is the more convenient forum and will not decline jurisdiction. The parties, with [child] moved to Hawaii in {date}, resided in a home they purchased in {date}. [child] has attended school in Hawaii for the past five years -- his teachers, friends, coaches, tutors and other pertinent witnesses all live in Hawaii. Ontario, Canada is over 2,500 miles from Hawaii. Dated Kamuela, Hawaii, Dec 09, 2015. Andrew P. Wilson (Seal)


*On September 17, 2015, Theresa MacLean said, "My client was never served with those papers [Temporary Restraining Order] until August the 10th"

This statement was false. Theresa MacLean's office signed for service of the Temporary Restraining Order on May 28, 2015. MacLean then stated, "What she did - was she chose to do instead was sit on the documents, return to court adjournments so that her temporary restraining order would remain in effect, and my client wasn't served"

There were 2 hearings, one in April and one in June, 2015.

My former partner knew about both. He had been called by a police officer from Waimea. My son put his father on speaker, as his father was yelling loudly, swearing. My son said, 'Dad, you're on speaker.'

Then again, Theresa MacLean or someone in her office signed for the receipt of the Temporary Restraining Order on May 28, 2015.


Theresa MacLean lied to Justice MacLeod when she said, "What she did - was she chose to do instead was sit on the documents, return to court adjournments so that her temporary restraining order would remain in effect, and my client wasn't served" This creates anchor bias. Science shows this is very difficult to change in the brain.


Not only had the other party the information, he sent his lawyer, named Vaughan Winborne to the court. At the June hearing Mr. Winborne sat alone in the body of the court. He approached me after the hearing.

The father knew about the hearing because Ms. MacLean was served the documents on May 28, 2015.


She denies service of the TRO multiple times in the first hearing - during a child abduction.


It was her client who tracked the child in Toronto after waiting in the hotel lobby and texting up to him in our room the night before the hearing and the morning of.

The wording of Theresa MacLean used this instigation to continue the narrative from this false starting point. Justice J. S. MacLeod, September 17, 2015 at PETERBOROUGH, Ontario. Offical Transcript P 18 - 19.

Psychological Abuse of the children cannot be verified because they are not allowed to talk to me. I told this lawyer that I would report it to police and she wrote back that she didn't care.

When I sent her the voicemail from the caregiver, panicked, when my son disappeared from her home, during the child abduction, this lawyer wrote, 'What is your point?'


Justice MacLeod ruled in her favor, my child was given over to his father, suffered, and reported blackouts to William Osler Emergency room on October 4, 2015.


Justice MacLeod was overturned in appeal. The child was not returned. Further investigation is necessary.

22 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All