Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s Judge Julie “For Oral Reasons Given” Audet (“Audet”)

Errors, Omissions and Obfuscation Analysis

of her “Legal Decision” prepared to facilitate Fraud & multiple torts against a devoted mum and her two children


  1. Most of Audet’s crimes occurred in Family Court; essentially, it was court-enabled fraud
  2. Describe and link to attempted fraud via Ontario’s Financial Responsibility Office implicating SCJ Judge Pamela MacEachern, Bell Baker LLPs Cheryl Hess and ex John Kiska

Note that after the fraud was executed, the #TDVCA football was tossed to career-criminal Judge Tracy Engelking who executed the court-enabled parental alienation.

Audet’s Decision: —– not available on canlii.org to my knowledge >> (link to article for Twitter:  “See the Problem? Canada’s Divorce Act is Currently Useless”

Transcript of the yymmdd hearing: —–

List of citations used by Audet to support her decision: ?zero? (to be verified)


Audet’s Three Scandalous Decisions || Link back to Julie Audet Main Page

Decision #1: released the day of the hearing (2018mmdd): the skank’s actual decision is here.

Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) ERRORS
001_01 For oral reasons given [by career criminal Wade Smith of Bell Baker LLP (now retired)], the following order shall issue:

  1. On a without prejudice/temporary basis, the father shall pay monthly child support to the wife for the two children of the marriage in the amount of $1,924.
  2. This is based on the Father’s “other taxable income” of $137,000 and the mother’s “other taxable income” of $50,000 plus imputed employment income of $30,000 (for a total of $80,000).
  3. The parties are both in receipt of dividend income “other taxable income” from their company.
  4. The nature and tax treatment of those dividends is unknown to me as I do not have the parties’ Income Tax Returns before me.
  5. Should those show that proper identification of that income in the support calculation would materially affect the outcome, the matter may be brought back before me based on relevant evidence.
Skip to end of page to see the written testimony submitted.


  1. So much for protection from financial abuse for victims of domestic violence, of which Audet was fully aware.
  2. Kiska had been earning revenue as a consultant in the amount of $200-300,000/year for years: he is a pathological liar–all sociopaths are. I had zero “other taxable income”: Audet was aware of this. I hadn’t been able to earn my previous levels of income as a consultant for years: Audet was aware of this too.
  3. No, we were not. There were no dividends issued from MY company AdvisorOnTrack Inc. in 2018. The only reason I agreed to issued dividends in 2017 was due to terrible advice from career-criminal Michéle Blais of Victor Vallance Blais LLP which, coincidentally, is situated right next to Bell Baker LLP so that she and Wade Smith could conspire as to how they would ruin me without using phone or e-mail.
  4. Well, there are no dividends; so, this red herring was irrelevant
  5. Audet already had relevant evidence: she ignored it because she’s a crooked judge.


002_01 The parties shall share the children’s S. 7 expenses 60% from the father and 40% from the mother. 002_01  This is how the FRO Scam gets started. I have described it here. (In a nutshell, by registering an illegally-obtained, financially-abusive court order with the FRO, Kiska would have been able to convert me into a revenue stream … even though I had zero income due to, among other things, widespread defamation that I was severely mentally ill and false allegations of criminal harassment that led to my imprisonment, curfew, restrictions, etc. until all (but one) of the 14 bogus charges were eventually dropped by crooked Crown prosecutor Mike Boyce.
003_01 The mother is given leave to bring a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home but only after the OCL has made its recommendations known. 003_01 LOL. The OCL recommendations were that I should get sole custody! The John Kiska arranged for career-criminal Mohammed Said and multiple OPS officers to illegal abduct my children. (insert evidence & link to court-enabled TDVCA) #TDVCA
004_01 On a with prejudice basis, the mother’s claim for temporary spousal support is denied. 004_01 And this would be evidence of Fraud against Audet.
005_01 On the issue of costs, and in light of the father’s Offer to Settle which was more beneficial to the mother than the result achieved in this motion, I find that the father is entitled to $2,000 in costs.

005_02 The outcome, however, might very well be different when the nature/tax treatment of the dividends is known.

005_03 Therefore, I will give the parties, or either one of them, 30 days within which to submit to me, if they wish, further written submissions not exceeding 2 pages, in addition to brief affidavits providing me with the additional evidence confirming the nature/tax treatment of the dividends, and I will then make a final decision on the issue of temporary support.

005_04 My decision re costs may vary depending on that.

005_05 If no additional submissions are provided to me within 30 days, my cost award will stand and it shall be repaid by the mother at the rate of $200/month.

005_01  TO BE CONTINUED (20220928 16:33 e.s.t.)


Summary Omissions from Audet’s First Decision

  1. Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
  2. Inclusion of ____:

Omissions from Audet’s Closing Remarks (did she have any?)

  1. Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
  2. Inclusion of ____:

Costs sought from co-fraudsters John Kiska and Wade Smith || Link back to Julie Audet Main Page

    1. x
    2. x
    3. x
    4. x