>>> Part 2 of 5...
Mr. Justice Blair stated:
        Lawyers were criticised for their drafting of lengthy, damaging,
        and sometimes unsupportable affidavit material.
        The Review was frequently told about... the often poisonous nature
        of lengthy affidavit material.
        We were told...that perjury in these affidavits is rampant.
        ...it is clearly a perception... that such perjury goes unpunished.
He further stated:
Concern and frustration were expressed about the number of allegations made
in affidavits that were not capable of being substantiated in any way.
Some contents of affidavits .... were reported by members of the public to
be damaging forever.
...lawyers...taking on family cases when they are not sufficiently
experienced or qualified to do so.
Mr. Justice Blair's Review findings about family law practice ar disturbing
and troubling. They tell us, sometimes boldly and sometimes in
understatement, that false statements under oath, perjury and malice are
part of the routine proceedings of the practice of family law in the
Province of Ontario. These findings tell us that the course of justice is
being corrupted and perverted. The findings have been confirmed to me by
several barristers in practice in Ontario who inform that false statements
under oath in judicial proceedings are an epidemic.
Honourable senators, the case of Reverend B. is an example of th use of
falsehood in judicial proceedings in a child custody dispute. It is a
traumatization of two little girls and a father who has suffered an
enormous personal and financial cost. I should explain that I am using
initials to protect the children who are still minors.
The case is as follows: Reverend B., an Anglican minister, and Mrs. B. were
married for 10 years with two girls, aged two and four. Mrs. B. left her
husband, Reverend B., taking the two children, all the household furniture,
all their joint savings and departed with her lover, a convicted criminal.
Separation and child custody proceedings followed. Months later, when it
appeared that Reverend B. might be awarded custody of the children, Mrs.
B., after taking legal advice, suddenly announced that Reverend B. had
sexually abused the two girls. She swore several affidavits to this effect.
The Children's Aid Society worker initiated child protection activities.
This custody-cum-child-protection case was tried in 1987 in family court.
Reverend B. won. In the trial judgement, Judge Dunn awarded custody of the
girls to Reverend B.
Honourable senators, a tragic aspect of this case was the children's
experience at the hands of the mother and her lover, a convicted child sex
offender. The damage to these children is enormous. The destructive aspect
of this case is the fabrication of this diabolical scheme by persons who
seem to have legal knowledge, and the enlistment of the justice system to
this end. I shall quote Judge P.W. Dunn's judgement in 1987 in this child
dispute trial. About Mrs. B.'s testimony at the trial, he said that she -
...did not tell the facts in an objective manner to the professionals, she
advocated, almost vigoruously, her position that  -
- and here they refer to Reverend B.-
        -was a child molestor. In November 1985, -
-Mrs. B. told an individual-
        that she had witnesses who saw
Reverend B.-
        molesting and being brutal with the girls and with herself and that
        when the case would be finished-
Reverend B. -
        would be behind bars...
About this testimony, Judge Dunn continued:
        I do not find that-
-Mrs. B.'s-
        -testimony measured up adequately to my hallmarks of credibilty.
Judge Dunn further added that:
        Her recitations of the past history did not have the "ring of
        truth..."
In the 1987 proceeding regarding costs, Judge Dunn spoke of the Children's
Aid Society and the worker, saying:
 >>> Continued to next message...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- Maximus 3.00
---------------