Julie Audet

coming soon: the twisted logic used to support her decision that I am only entitled to $1,230/month in spousal support

Instead of simply nodding your head to whomever presenting whatever in court, please ask “why would I treat a reduction in her own savings as income? That is the most absurd idea that I have ever heard. Are you actually attempting to convince me that after you and your “associates” Michéle Blais of Victor Vallance Blais and Tanya Davies of Davies Law convinced this woman to take a dividend from her corporate savings so that she could survive without support payments from John Kiska, that you are now trying to use this against her? To reduce the quantum of support due? Next thing you will try to do is convince me that RRSP withdrawals (taken out of desperation) should be considered income for support calculation purposes. What sort of fool do you believe me to be, Mr. Smith?”

(insert content re: S&B)

(insert multiple versions of DivorceMate, each more self-serving than the previous: Link to pfi.ROCKS Exposing DivorceMate article)

Here is a piece of Case Law to which you can refer to assign costs AND provide the victim with compensation re: Bad Faith (under the Family Law Rules) support a decision to strike abusive spouse’s affidavit … an obvious abuse of process … retaliatory manoeuvre by the abusive spouse.

Who is Wade Smith? Why should his “oral reasons given” be accepted and mine denied? I have a far more impressive resumé and work history than he. Plus, he is being PAID to ASSIST the abusive spouse! He should be arrested. Perhaps, you could recommend to Ottawa Police Service that that occur—it would be a good start.

Evidence? Here is some:

  1. ____________.
    • My materials ____________.
    • Kiska’s materials ____________.
    • 20180322 transcript is here.
    • 20180322 Endorsement setting x at a and y at b is here.
    • Analysis/Summary of Violations ____________.
  2. ____________.
  3. ____________.
  4. ____________.