Zealous Advocacy or Abuse of Process?

This week two Vancouver lawyers were excoriated by a Supreme Court Justice because of the tactics they employed in a case involving the proposed adoption of a young Metis child, referred to as SS. (A.S. v. British Columbia (Director Of Child, Family and Community Services),2017 BCSC 1175)

Lawyer JH represented foster parents who were desperate to retain custody and adopt the young child, while lawyer NG represented the biological parents, who supported the claims of the Metis foster parents. Their mutual nemesis was the Director of the Ministry of Child, Family and Community Services who determined the child, born in 2013, should be placed for adoption with a non-Metis Ontario family who had already adopted the child’s two siblings.

The court battle was hard fought involving multiple and duplicate actions and subsequent appeals, however, the lynchpin of Madam Justice Fisher’s damning findings against lawyer JH centered on a settlement letter JH sent to the Ministry, threatening to disclose a recording of an interview between Ministry social workers and the child which he said would show that the social workers had perjured themselves in their evidence in court. HH wrote:

“This is critical information which should be made available to Madam Justice Dickson, the panel hearing the appeal, and every subsequent Justice hearing any further matter in these and all related proceedings. Should the contested litigation continue, appropriate sanctions may be appropriate against the 3 social workers and the Director.

I have instructions from my clients, counsel for the birth parents, and the President of the BC Metis Federation, that if the Director is prepared to consent to my clients adopting S.S. by 10:00 a.m. this Wednesday, September 7, 2016, my clients, the birth parents and the BC Metis Federation are prepared to discontinue all legal proceedings, with the exception, of course, of the finalization of the adoption, and will enter into comprehensive releases involving all of the parties with respect to any and all possible legal outstanding matters.”

Despite repeated requests by the Ministry, JH refused to produce the alleged tape, a tape that if it existed was of questionable origin since the social workers had not recorded the meeting. If a recording existed it could only have been done surreptitiously by the unwitting child.

Madam Justice Fisher found that JH and NG had become blinded by their zeal to obtain custody for the foster parents ignoring that the Ministry could only settle the case if it was in the child’s best interests. To accept JH’s proposal would be a dereliction of their duty to act only in the best interests of their wards. A settlement to avoid scandal, the purported perjury, would be unconscionable. Madam Justice Fisher characterized JH’s conduct as a form of blackmail.

Lawyer NG was chastised for an email he sent accusing a Ministry lawyer of conduct that was “totally outrageous”,”totally unreasonable” and of a pattern of behaviour that showed “utter disrespect for the Court and to counsel”. He then threatened to report the alleged misconduct to the Law Society of British Columbia, apparently forgetting that while counsel may report another lawyer’s conduct, it is inappropriate to threaten to do so. One reports or not, but threats to report are sacrosanct.

The Court found that the lawyers’ conduct, which also included advancing inconsistent versions of their clients’ claims and unreasonable delay tactics was worthy of rebuke in the form of an order that each pay special costs to the Ministry for their egregious conduct, a rare sanction from the court. It is commonplace to order that a litigant pay costs but to order a lawyer to be responsible personally for costs is highly unusual and it is even scarcer to see a judge order special costs, which is typically 90% of the actual costs of the litigation.

The Reasons in this case illustrate that while lawyers should advance every legitimate argument in favour of their client, if they become enmeshed in their client’s cause they may lose objectivity and the perspective required of them. Following a client’s instructions will not protect an overzealous lawyer who is expected to control heated litigation as both an effective advocate and an officer of the court.

It is important to note that both JH and NG retained lawyers to represent them at the hearing where special costs were imposed and I predict that each lawyer will appeal the ruling of Madam Justice Fisher.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

When Will Our Judges Speak Out Forcefully Against Perjury?

In yet another British Columbia family law decision, the court fails to denounce, in the strongest terms, a litigant whose testimony is rife with lies. Yes, this judge addresses credibility, but in the same anemic way that permeates most family law cases, namely ” I accept the evidence of the claimant where it differs from the evidence of the respondent.”

That’s it, no rebuke, no censure, not even an award of special costs, despite the litigant’s devious conduct requiring untold extra preparation and court time to present a narrative that is flagrantly false, requiring a robust defence….yes, a rebuttal to a pack of lies.

Ngo v. Do 2017 BCSC 83 focuses on the breakdown of the marriage of a Vietnamese couple who agreed they married and immigrated to Canada in 1994. From that point on the parties’ evidence is sharply divergent.

He said their marriage ended two years later, in 1996, while she maintained they lived together as husband and wife in the family home in East Vancouver until their separation in 2012. When asked where he lived after 1996, since he alleged he did not live with his wife and children,  he was unable to provide a single address, except to say that he lived in East Vancouver with a friend.

When asked to explain how it was that he and his wife added three additional children to their union after his alleged departure in 1996, he acknowledged that despite the shattering of the bonds of matrimony, they remained intimate with one another.

The date of separation was critical to a determination of the wife’s interest in two homes, a crab boat, and a license to catch crab. Ms. Ngo testified their first home was purchased in 2000 and became the family home where she and her husband raised the children, for all but one year of their marriage.  She believed the home was registered in her husband’s name. Not so, said Mr. Do. He testified that the home’s owner was Mr. Den Van Ta, who he said he barely knew, although he had earlier said Den Van Ta was”like a brother” to him.

A second home in Maple Ridge was purchased in 2004, however, Mr. Do said it was purchased by his cousin, Kevin Phan. He testified that he lived with the children in the home from 2004 to 2008 rent-free and that Ms. Ngo was not permitted to live there. Ms. Ngo gave evidence that her husband told her the second home was rented out, but in 2006 he moved the family to the second home for a year, advising her that it was a more convenient location to travel to his employment in Maple Ridge.

Eventually the Maple Ridge home was registered in Mr. Do’s name. He explained that his cousin took pity on him and gifted the property to him in 2007. However, land title documents described the transaction as a cash sale for $445,000, subject to his cousin’s existing mortgage. Mr. Do sold the Maple Ridge home in 2009 netting $145,000 in profit.

Mr. Do’s lucky streak continued. He advised the court that the first home in East Vancouver was later gifted to him by Mr. Den Van Ta. The statement of adjustments described the transfer as a “gift of equity from the seller to the buyer in the amount of $269,000.” He also purchased a vessel and crab license sharing the cost equally with Mr. Den Van Ta, who, no surprise here, later gifted his one-half interest in their crab business to Mr. Do, gratis, for free.

The parties’ two eldest children corroborated Ms. Ngo’s evidence, while Mr. Den Van Ta was called to back up Mr. Do’s version of events with respect to the first home and the crab business. He was less than impressive. Mr. Phan was not called to testify leaving the court to draw an adverse inference.

The outcome? Mr. Do’s evidence was rejected and all the family property was shared equally. However, nowhere does the court suggest that Mr. Do’s perjured testimony is an abuse of process or of such a character as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Can anybody reason why Ms. Ngo was not awarded special costs, which is a full reimbursement of every penny she paid to her lawyer to respond to her husband’s pernicious lies? The court’s apparent trivialization of perjury by failing to award  special costs to Ms. Ngo sends a strong message to litigants that perjury is acceptable.

Pulitzer prize-winning author James B. Stewart succinctly writes in “Tangled Webs: How False Statements are Undermining America”: “Our judicial system rests on an honor code: “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Perjury is not acceptable behaviour.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Custody Dispute Puts Father in Prison for 18 Years

For those of you who think that false allegations of abuse are a rarity in family law cases, think again! Recently I acted for two clients, the first was a father accused by his estranged wife of molesting their young son. A police investigation was initiated and the Ministry of Child and Family Services barred him from seeing any of his children.

The second client was accused by his common law spouse of all manner of outrageous abuse: physical, sexual, and psychological. The graphic descriptions of her alleged suffering were like nothing I had ever seen before. Another day, another police investigation.

In both cases the allegations were unfounded and dismissed, but not before wreaking havoc in two innocent men’s lives.

And not all abuse allegations are nipped in the bud…take for example the case of Luther Jones of  Santa Rosa, California. In 1998 he obtained custody of his daughter, an event that changed his life, only because immediately after he was awarded custody, his 10-year old daughter accused him of sexually molesting her.

Mr. Jones alleged that his former girlfriend, Elizabeth Woods’ accusations were false and only surfaced when he received custody of one of their children. A witness at trial told the court that Woods had told her she would put Jones in jail to prevent him from gaining custody. The ten-year old testified against Mr.  Jones. He was convicted and sentenced to 27 years in prison, all the while protesting his innocence.

But that little 10-year old grew up and at the age of 30 admitted to authorities that her mother forced her to falsely accuse Jones, because her mom was enraged that he obtained custody of another child of theirs. She also acknowledged that she was molested, but the perpetrator was a different boyfriend of her mother’s.

Luther Jones, now 70 years old, ill and frail, was released from prison and is expected to receive compensation of about $1 million dollars from the State of California.

The current county district attorney, Don Anderson remarked that in the context of a custody battle, the allegations of abuse must have attracted suspicion, but apparently not enough to see justice prevail. Anderson has announced his willingness to seek perjury-related charges against Ms. Woods, a fate that is far less than she deserves. He is also determined to investigate the new information that the ten-year old was molested, just not by Luther Jones.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Ghomeshi Verdict: Part 3

While some have tried to characterize this decision as gender discrimination, the truth is these witnesses can blame no one but themselves for the Court’s devastating critique of their characters.”

The allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi came from three witnesses, each of whom was thoroughly discredited. That the Crown did not abort their case mid-trial is astonishing to me. I can only imagine the conversations between the Crown lawyers and their embarrassment as they presented their case.

The third witness/victim was referred to as S.D. She was a professional dancer and met Mr. Ghomeshi after a performance in Toronto. They had one dinner date and then met after one of her shows and took a walk to a local park. S.D. told the police that it was after dark when they sat on a park bench and kissed. She said she felt his hands and teeth on her neck. She said it was “not right”, “rough”, and unwelcome. She socialized with Mr. Ghomeshi at public events two or three times after that evening and then had no further relationship with him.

Her evidence at trial was problematic. It was imprecise and inconsistent. An excerpt from the trial illustrates this:

“ He had his hand-it was sort of-it was sort of his hands were on my shoulders, kind of my arms here, and then it was-and then I felt his teeth and his hands around my neck…It was rough but-yeah, it was rough.”

Question: “Were his hands open, were they closed?

Answer: “It’s really hard for me to say, but it was just-I felt his hands around my neck, all around my neck…And I –I think I tried to-I tried to get out of it and then his hand was on my mouth, sort of smothering me.”

When asked about her report to the police and the lack of detail she said she was still “trying to figure it out”. When asked if she had spoken to one of the other witnesses before providing her evidence to the police she said she had not. However, under cross-examination she admitted that she had.

Most damaging to S.D. were the Court’s findings that she and witness Lucy DeCoutere had joined forces to bring Mr. Ghomeshi “down”. S.D. and Ms. DeCoutere had exchanged 5,000 emails in a 12-month period. The Court described the strong bond forged between the two women as they discussed witnesses, court dates, and meetings with the Crown. They initially hired the same lawyer and shared a “publicist”, an unusual professional adjunct for a sexual assault victim.

S.D. was adamant that she cut off all further contact with Mr. Ghomeshi and tried to “keep her distance”. What she failed to disclose until the trial was that she and Mr. Ghomeshi had another date at her home where she admitted they “messed around”, describing the sexual acts she engaged in on that occasion. She was forced to admit she had deliberately lied and tried to conceal her continuing relationship with him.

She explained she didn’t think it was important and invoked the Bill Clinton defence “we did not have sexual relations”.  It didn’t work for Bill and clearly undermined her testimony.

The Court also learned that six months after the alleged assault she sent Mr. Ghomeshi an email inquiring whether he “still wanted to have that drink sometime?” Not exactly the sentiment of someone trying to keep their distance from an alleged sexual offender.

Of course we know that Mr. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, thanks to the tenacity of his lawyer, Marie Henein. The Court commented on her skillful cross-examination of the three witnesses:

“The cross-examination dramatically demonstrated that each complainant was less then full, frank and forthcoming in the information they provided to the media, to the police, to Crown Counsel and to this Court.”

The sad truth is that once a witness perjures her or himself their credibility is lost. The Court said the “volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence left the Court with reasonable doubt.”

While some have tried to characterize this decision as gender discrimination, the truth is these witnesses can blame no one but themselves for the Court’s devastating critique of their characters.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: Perjury in Family Court

People tell lies, so-called “white” lies, they tell half-truths, they prevaricate, fabricate, distort, and tell “whoppers”, and they can, unless they are in a court of law or a government hearing where they are “sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yet nowhere is the truth more elusive than in a family law trial and the recent case of Kneller v. Underwood 2015 BCSC 1410 is a prime example of perjury under oath.

The issue was whether or not 36-year-old Twyla Kneller and Jim Greenwood of Cranbrook, B.C. lived together in a marriage-like relationship for nine years, as Twyla testified, or whether they simply were “friends with benefits” as he maintained.

If they were in a spousal relationship, Ms. Kneller would be entitled to share in his property in light of the 2013 law that gave common law spouses the same property rights as married spouses.

Ms. Kneller described a traditional relationship where Mr. Greenwood worked and paid the bills, while she maintained the home with its wood stove, doing the grocery shopping, cooking, baking, canning, cleaning, laundry, and gardening. The parties initially resided in a trailer on bare land and later in a renovated home on acreage, all owned by Mr. Greenwood.

Mr. Greenwood’s parents and grandparents lived on adjacent properties and Twyla became close to his mother.

Interestingly, despite his family’s obvious knowledge of their son’s living arrangements, they were not called to testify, although many other witnesses paraded through the courtroom.

During the nine-year relationship the parties separated on one occasion for three and a half months, not surprisingly, considering Ms. Kneller’s evidence that Mr. Greenwood’s physical
assaults landed her in hospital twice. She testified to regular punching, slapping, kicking, and other abuse. She said that initially Jim would apologize for this behaviour but after a while he didn’t bother. She stayed because she loved him, an oh-so-familiar sentiment in cases of domestic violence.

When it was time for Jim Greenwood to testify his evidence could not have been more different than Ms. Kneller’s.

He swore they never lived together, although she spent some nights with him. He said she lived in Cranbrook with her mother. He apparently forgot that in an earlier affidavit he said “they lived together off and on”. He testified their finances were completely separate and they each filed “single” status tax returns, a misstatement he was forced to correct when his 2010 tax return showed he claimed tax deductions in respect of his “common law spouse”.

He denied he gave her a “promise” ring and was cornered when it came to light he had added her to his medical and dental insurance as a common law spouse. He recounted a denigrating anecdote to the court where he felt it necessary to “take her home”. When it was apparent the “home” he referred to was his, and not Twyla’s Cranbrook home, he squirmed and became agitated and nervous.

When he abruptly asked Ms. Kneller to leave, he said she had almost nothing to pack, despite photographs showing a U-Haul with furniture and personal chattels piled in. He had forgotten that in an earlier affidavit he swore she took all of the furniture, although he paid for it all. He also couldn’t keep the date of their separation straight: Was it August 2013, as he first suggested, or October 2013?

Of course, who to believe was the central issue in the trial, a task that was not daunting for the trial judge. He found that Ms. Kneller was one of the “most genuine, down-to-earth, credible and engaging witnesses” he had ever encountered.

As for Jim Greenwood the court said:

“The respondent’s evidence, in particular, was disingenuous and lacking in credibility. It consisted almost entirely of vague, unsubstantiated and unsupported assertions. His evidence at trial contradicted his earlier affidavit evidence in many significant respects. The best he could muster when faced with the conflicts in his sworn evidence was to blame the drafter of the affidavits, to say he wasn’t a very good reader and to state, “that is what you get when you don’t look at the things you sign.”

The trial judge also declared that Mr. Greenwood’s blanket denial the parties ever lived together, and his testimony that he never physically abused his spouse were “devoid of truth”.

Finally, the trial judge said he didn’t believe or accept anything Jim Greenwood had to say that contradicted the evidence of his common-law spouse and her witnesses.

“In my view, the respondent would be well served by a recalibration of his moral compass.”

It’s called “perjury”, an indictable criminal offence with a possible 14-year jail term attached to it, and yet, liars are not prosecuted in Canada. Oh yes, Air India terrorist, Inderjit Singh Reyat’s acquittal in 2003 on murder charges prompted the Crown to charge him with perjury, securing a conviction and a nine-year prison term, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Not so in the United States where Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Martha Stewart and others faced charges, not for steroid use or securities fraud, but for lying.

Canada’s refusal to deliver consequences to parties who blatantly lie in court needs to be addressed. Mr. Greenwood was a poor liar but there are many cases where Mr. or Ms. Charming fool the court and justice does not prevail. Perjury is a serious issue, particularly in our family courts and steps must be taken to punish liars who make a mockery of their oath to tell the truth.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang