Fedchyshak v. Fedchyshak

FC-23-00000237 Retaliatory Maneouvres by spouse + lawyer-enabled circumvention of Canada’s Divorce Act 

Form 10 Reply: Errors, Omissions & Malicious Obfuscation Analysis

Main Page: Steve Fedchyshak  ||  Form 8: Kristina’s Application (pdf)  |   Steve’s Form 10: Answer (pdf)  ||  Steve’s Form 13.1: Financial Statement (pdf)  ||  Kristina’s Form 13.1: Financial Statement  ||  Steve’s Answer: EO&MO Analysis  ||  Form 14: Notice of Motion  ||  Form 14A: Affidavit #1 – Kristina Fedchyshak  ||  Form 14A: Affidavit #2 – Penny Harvey  ||  Form 14A: Affidavit #3 – Deirdre Moore  ||  Form 22: Request to Admit 

 (draft) Exhibit Book    

(A Work-in-Progress Biography (for entertainment purposes only) started  20231021 >> last updated 20231021 15:04 e.s.t.)

Para # The actual 20230922 Reply served is here. REPLY, noting type of error, omission &/or malicious obfuscation Actor/Enabler Reference Torts   Crimes   Other
  My name is Steve Fedchyshak          
01 I agree with the following claim(s) made by the applicant: (Refer to the numbers alongside the boxes of the application form.

intentionally left blank

 

 Steve agreed with zero claims; specifically, Family Law Act claims for indexed spousal support for Kristina, equalization of net family property, freezing of his assets, sale of family property, costs and prejudgement interest; as well as:

  • set aside of marriage;
  • spousal support;
  • equalization of net family properties;
  • damages in the amount of $250,000.00 for assault and battery; false imprisonment; physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse; withholding the necessities of life; and the intentional infliction of mental
    distress.
  • Punitive and aggravated damages in the amount of $100,000.00.
  • Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate.
 So far, only …

 

      
02 I do not agree with the following claim(s) made by the applicant: (Again, refer to the numbers alongside the boxes of the application form.)

10, 16, 22, 25, 26, 30, 32, and 50

  As Sharon Zaronzy accurately wrote, “Warning. As goes the marriage, so goes the divorce“.        
03 [×] I am asking that the applicant’s claim (except for the parts with which I agree) be dismissed with costs.  See #25 in “Characteristics of a Sociopath“: Pleasured by causing suffering        
04 [  ] I am making a claim of my own.  As per her Form 13.1 Financial Statement, their 25-year marriage has left Kristina with absolutely nothing: against what, exactly, would Steve (owner of multiple properties, see page 5 of his Financial Statement) bring a claim?         
05 The family history, as set out in the application

 [×] is correct      [  ] is not correct

(If it is not correct, attach your own FAMILY HISTORY page and underline those parts that are different from the applicant’s version.)

 Steve agreed with none of Kristina’s claims and stated that her FAMILY HISTORY was correct. He then commenced a 44-para. smear campaign detailed below at para. 06, sub-paragraphs 6.01-6.44.

The reliability of the contents of para. 6 should be discounted to a value of ZERO.

        
 

06

  

Important facts that form the legal basis for my position in paragraph 2 are as follows:

          
6.01

 

 The parties married on February 14, 1998 in Niagara Falls, Ontario. Despite what the Applicant wife claims, the parties did not live together prior to their marriage.

 

 

 ERROR: Also, their two children were conceived during this period of pre-marital co-habitation from approximately yyyymmdd to yyyymmdd.

Note that one of the top characteristics of an individual with “Anti-social Personality Disorder” is pathologic lying, as described in this article by David Porter.

 Tracy Engelking      

6.02

 

 There are two children of the marriage, namely Alicia Fedchyshak who was born on July 7, 1996; and Stefan Max Fedchyshak, who was born on October 10, 1997. Both children are independent adults.

Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent have any children from any other relationships.

 MALICIOUS OBFUSCATION: as noted at 6.01R above

 

        

6.03

 

 The parties separated on May 8, 2022, and they have been living separate and apart since that time. There is no possibility of reconciliation occurring between them. correct        
6.04

 

 The Respondent husband denies that he acted in an abusive fashion towards the Applicant, or that she sustained physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, sexual, or financial abuse at the hands of the Respondent. Of course he does: abusive spouses deny everything. It’s called D.A.R.V.O.: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim Order. They’ll literally say and do anything to avoid being discovered. This one has nothing on John Kiska who is equivalent to the psychological version of Paul Bernardo.        
6.05

 

 The Respondent knows nothing of the Applicant applying for any government grants related to any business or proposed business. The fact is that after the children became of school age, the Respondent encouraged the Applicant to return to work, however this is something she would often resist. EO&MO: See Affidavit #2 that will refer to, among other pieces of evidence, the  20231023 Form 22: Request to Admit

 

        
6.06

 

 The Applicant always had an estranged relationship with her mother and biological father. This was not on account of anything that the Respondent did or did not do. The suggestion that the Respondent came between the Applicant and members of her family is untrue. MALICIOUS OBFUSCATION: Orchestrate estranged relationships is exactly what narcissists do: they isolate their target from all friends and family and convert them into what is known as “flying monkeys”. The literature available on this topic is virtually unlimited. By way of evidence, consider grandmother of Sean & Cate, Kathleen Moore: she went from a ?supporter? of Sean and Cate’s mum in 2018 to an individual who didn’t even inform her of the death of her father.        
6.07

 

 The fact is that throughout the marriage the Applicant struggled with alcohol. She abused same on a regular basis, often driving while under the influence even with the children accompanying her in the vehicle. EO&MO: See Affidavit #1 re: 20231023 Notice of Motion for interim financial support, document disclosure and relief from Rule 8(1) Mandatory Information Program

 

        
6.08

 

The Applicant was in various motor vehicle accidents while impaired. One time in approximately 2010, she was reported to the authorities while picking up the  children from school in her vehicle while being intoxicated.

 EO&MO: To be addressed following release of records referenced at para. 6.07R above.        
6.09

 

 While attending at Canal Days in Port Colborne one year, the Applicant was so drunk she lost her dentures. EO&MO: To be addressed following release of records referenced at para. 6.07R above.        
6.10

 

 The children often feared for their own safety while in the care of their mother while under the influence. There were numerous times throughout the marriage when the Applicant put herself and the children in danger while abusing alcohol.  🔥 🔥 🔥   EO&MO: To be addressed following release of records referenced at para. 6.07R above. If Kristina and/or the children were ever in danger, surely Steve would have contacted Child Protection Services and/or, with his degree of wealth, attempted to seek a substance-abuse treatment program for her. 🔥 🔥 🔥 

 

        
6.11

 

 The Applicant is alleging that she was treated like a prisoner in the home. This is completely denied by the Respondent. The Respondent was often away from the home working or attending to various rental properties he owned. The Applicant could come and go as she pleased. EO&MO: See Affidavit #2 that will refer to, among other pieces of evidence, the  20231023 Form 22: Request to Admit

 

        
6.12

 

 Bars were placed on the windows of the matrimonial home, as the property had been broken into twice in the early 1990’s. This was not done in order to keep the Applicant held captive as she is alleging in her Application. EO&MO: See Affidavit #2 that will refer to, among other pieces of evidence, the  20231023 Form 22: Request to Admit

 

        
6.13

 

 They Respondent denies that he ever kept the Applicant locked in the matrimonial home while he took the children away on a camping trip, or that he can ever forcibly confined her in any fashion. EO&MO: See Affidavit #2 that will refer to, among other pieces of evidence, the  20231023 Form 22: Request to Admit

 

        
6.14

 

 The Respondent had family in the Ukraine, and the Applicant had family in British Columbia. Family members would be contacted by using cards to make long distance calls. The suggestion by the Applicant that she should not contact members of her family is a pure fabrication. EO&MO: See Affidavit #2 that will refer to, among other pieces of evidence, the  20231023 Form 22: Request to Admit

 

        
6.15

 

 Throughout the marriage the Applicant had many relationships with other individuals. The Respondent did keep a lot of the important documents for the family which would include pieces of identification in the safe in the matrimonial home. This was on account of the past robberies which had occurred, not as some attempt by the Respondent to keep this documentation away from the Applicant. EO&MO: See Affidavit #2 that will refer to, among other pieces of evidence, the  20231023 Form 22: Request to Admit

 

        
6.16

 

 The suggestion by the Applicant that the Respondent limited her access to the children and controlled their relationship with her is false. EO&MO: See Affidavit #2 that will refer to, among other pieces of evidence, the  20231023 Form 22: Request to Admit        
6.17

 

 The fact is that both children who are now adults, became estranged from the Applicant mother due to her excessive consumption of alcohol and her various mental health issues which included suffering from schizophrenia and a bipolar disorder.

Since the Applicant left the matrimonial home both children have had minimal contact with her.

 LOL. Oh look, another one accusing the mum of being bi-polar AND schizophrenic! Just like John Kiska’s false testimony regarding Moore’s non-existent mental illness made to Dr. Daniel Saul, Dr. Paule Kemgni and OPSB Detective Daniel Gervais provided to:

  • create a false history of mental illness,
  • have her declared NCR for a crime she didn’t commit and
  • arrange for her arrest and detention

all to avoid a fair divorce. Gosh, did Steve Fedchyshak buy Kiska’s “How to Dispose of your Wife” how-to manual?

        
6.18

 

 The Respondent denies that he physically and sexually abused the Applicant as she is alleging in paragraphs 27 and 28 of her Application. Of course he does: THEY ALL DENY SEXUAL ASSAULT. Nobody’s suggesting that sociopaths are zero IQ stupid.        
6.19

 

 In fact, for some time prior to the separation of the parties, the Applicant started making allegations against the Respondent saying he was abusing her and she would thus be leaving him. After the parties did separate, she did attend several times at the local police station trying to get the Respondent charged with various criminal offences. EO&MO: To be addressed following release of records referenced at para. 6.07R above.        
6.20

 

 After the separation, the police met members of the Respondent’s family, and various other individuals, presumably to determine if there was any merit to the claims being put forward by the Applicant of abusive behaviour on the part of the Respondent. This was sometime in December of 2022. It is noteworthy that the police never charged the Respondent with any criminal offences whatsoever. LOL. It’s also noteworthy that a significant portion of law enforcement is complicit in the cover up of domestic violence, child abuse and much, much more as evidenced at #Mummygate.        
6.21

 

 The fact is that the Applicant was and may still be suffering from various mental health ailments which likely has impacted in her in some significant way. It would seem that here, Steve is admitting that being married to him has in fact cause mental harm. Note that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional suffering and mental harm is missing from the Application, as is negligent infliction of emotional suffering and mental harm. Beyond a sloppy oversight on the part of McCartney, not including this common tort was, likely, intentional in order to assist Steve.        
6.22

 

 As already referred to above, the parties separated on May 8, 2022. On that particular day a number of police officers attended at the matrimonial home, presumably to assist the Applicant in leaving the Respondent and matrimonial home. The Respondent recalls that there were 10 police officers in 6 cruisers that attended at the home at that time. The Respondent was advised that there was this
heavy police presence due to the Applicant’s allegation that he would not let her leave the home. The Respondent was cooperative with the police and he was not charged with any criminal offences. There likely was an incident report made by the Niagara Regional Police regarding this particular matter.		 EO&MO: To be addressed following release of records referenced at para. 6.07R above.

Relevance?

        
6.23

 

 After the Applicant and Respondent separated, the Applicant resided at Gillian’s Place, a local woman’s shelter for approximately a month, but she was then kicked out of that facility. This is also meaningless. Anyone aware of how many bail houses and women’s shelters operate would question Gillian’s Place management (see 20231021 PPPS. to Gillian’s Place management) and not its clients.

Relevance?

        
6.24

 

 Thereafter, she stayed at a facility run by the Canadian Mental Health Association. Then she resided at a motel on Lundy’s Lane in Niagara Falls and later a motel in Chippawa. While at this motel in Chippawa, she got into a fight a male individual there, punching him in the face. Thereafter, she called the police and advised them of what she had done. The Respondent is not aware of what the ultimate outcome of all this was. The Applicant stayed at various other residences as well. MALICIOUS OBFUSCATION: The facility to which Steve is referring is called “Safe Beds”: narcissistic abuse impacts mental fortitude and resilience as detailed in “The Effects of Gaslighting in Narcissistic Victim Syndrome“.

EO&MO: To be addressed following release of records referenced at para. 6.07R above.

Relevance?

        
6.25

 

 After the parties children were born and prior to getting married they entered into a Prenuptial Agreement. The Respondent wanted to enter into this Agreement prior to the marriage as he was advised by various individuals that this was something he should do. Both the Applicant and the Respondent had retained legal counsel. The Applicant had Paul Wintemute as her lawyer, and the Respondent retained Michael Maddalena. ?Did Paul Wintemute secure Steve’s best interests instead of Kristina’s much like Michéle Blais secured John Kiska’s instead of Deirdre Moore’s by advising her to sign a scandalous Interim Shared Parenting Agreement that spoke not to spousal support, child support or the sharing of children’s expenses and instead for Moore to deplete her own corporate savings to survive??        
6.26

 

 Prior to signing this Agreement the Respondent provided full and frank financial disclosure, as to the assets that he owned. This even included obtaining an appraisal report of 57 Margery Street, a property he owned, and which would become the matrimonial home after the marriage of the parties. Relevance? Marriage contracts should prevent financial abuse, not enable it.        
6.27

 

 Prior to each party executing the Agreement they had discussed the same. The Applicant drove to her appointment with her lawyer herself. The Respondent of course was not privy to the nature and extent of the discussions the Applicant had with her legal counsel, however he presumes that same was explained to her by her lawyer prior to her signing same. Relevance? Marriage contracts should prevent financial abuse, not enable it.        
6.28

 

 The Respondent denies that the Applicant did not have the opportunity to obtain, and more importantly, did not have meaningful independent legal advice in relation to the Prenuptial Agreement they entered into. This Agreement did and does make provision for the Applicant in the event of a separation of the parties. If so, why is Kristina living in a shelter why Steve boasts $4M+ in residential property after 25 years of marriage. What are the details of those “provisions” Steve?        
6.29

 

 The Respondent submits and the fact is that the Marriage Contract that the Applicant and he entered into was reviewed by each party prior to signing same at first without, and then with the benefit of legal counsel. “Legal Counsel“, huh? That statement doesn’t have quite the credibility you think it does, Steve. Marriage contracts are to prevent financial abuse, not enable it. Let’s test the federal paramountcy of Canada’s Divorce Act over Ontario’s contract law, shall we?        
6.30

 

 In the Marriage Contract the Respondent provided full and frank financial disclosure, and neither party was under any type of duress or undue influence at the time they each signed the Agreement. Each party received a copy of the Agreement after they signed same. Mind forward to Kristina another copy of the Agreement, Steve? Her copy appears to have gone missing.        
6.31

 

 The Respondent submits that the Marriage Contract entered into between the parties is a valid and binding legal agreement between the two of them, and all of the terms contain therein should be upheld by the Court. That goes without saying, Steve. (TO DO: batch the reply to all of Steve’s irrelevant, self-serving statements into one sub-titled paragraph eg. Steve’s Self-serving Rhetoric: paras. x-y, etc. are irrelevant.        
6.32

 

 During the course of the marriage, the Applicant did sign certain documentation whereby she waived all rights to the survivor benefit on the Respondent’s pension. At the time the Respondent was an employee at General Motors. The parties discussed this in detail prior. The reason this was done was so the Respondent could receive greater payments when the pension was in pay, which would be a
benefit to the entire family including the Applicant. The Respondent retired from General Motors in 2007. Instead, in the event of the Respondent’s passing, provision was made for the Applicant by way of a policy of insurance on the Respondent’s life.		 What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China, Steve? You’re .. still .. here.

But, since you brought it up, let’s see a copy of said life insurance policy. Is it paid-up? You’re not claiming to pay any premiums. Is there a cash surrender value? Cough up the details, shyster.

PS. Your Form 13.1 is LAUGHABLE. What, Paul Bauerle at Protomanni Law doesn’t own a calculator or know how to use MS Excel?

        
6.33

 

 The Respondent acknowledges that during the marriage the parties opened up a joint bank account. There is nothing particularly unusual about this. The Applicant always had access to this account and all the funds therein. In fact, after the parties separated, the Applicant took all of the money from this joint account. Who cares?        
6.34

 

 The Respondent disputes that the Applicant never had access to money during the marriage. As already noted, and acknowledged by the Applicant in her pleadings, the parties held a joint bank account. MALICIOUS OBFUSCATION: Do you mean her acknowledgement at para. 39 of her Application?        
6.35

 

 The Respondent does acknowledge that the parties did engage in an income splitting scheme as provided for under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. By doing so, the Respondent paid less in income tax thereby increasing available monies to him and the family, which of course was a benefit to the Applicant.          
6.36

 

 The Respondent denies that he ever forced the Applicant to apply for her CPP benefits at the age of 60. This was something she did on her own volition with little or no influence from the Respondent.          
6.37 The Applicant often attended for various appointments including visits with her physician, Dr. Prince, alone.          
6.38

 

 The Respondent denies that he ever withheld medication from the Applicant. She would often cancel or miss appointments with her doctor claiming that she did not feel like going to see him. On account of the Applicant often skipping out or cancelling her appointments, the Respondent acknowledges that he did often accompany her to various appointments. This was in order to ensure that she kept her appointments, rather than having some desire to control her as the Applicant is
claiming in her Application.		          
6.39

 

 The Respondent did not in any way restrict the Applicant from seeing or visiting with her family in British Columbia. The fact is that the Applicant was estranged from her family and they did not want to have much to do with her.          
6.40

 

 Due to the Applicant’s mental health issues and alcoholism she had become estranged from many people, including members of her own family. Note to self: without prejudice or admission of any chronic problem with substance abuse, increase amount sought for damages to pay for several years of a quality psychologist and attendance at a reputable rehabilitation centre.         
6.41

 

 In regards to the Applicant’s claim for spousal support, the Respondent submits that both parties are bound by the terms of the prenuptial agreement they entered into, and as such, her claims in this regard should be dismissed in their entirety. See comment a 6.29R above.        
6.42

 

 The Respondent submits that according to the terms of the Prenuptial Agreement, the Applicant is not entitled to an equalization of the net family property of the parties. If the Court sets aside this Agreement, then the Applicant is seeking an Order for an unequal equalization of the parties’ net family property pursuant to the provisions of section 5 (6) of the Family Law Act. What the heck is an unequal equalization of the net family property? Is that where Kristina is automatically entitled to half and then is awarded the other half as damages (framed as spousal support so it survives Steve’s attempts to bankrupt himself before Kristina ever sees a dime)?        
6.43

 

 The Respondent denies that the Applicant has suffered any physical, mental, or emotional harm on account of anything he did or did not do. Of course, throughout the marriage the parties had arguments and disagreements not unlike many other couples, however the Respondent adamantly denies he acted towards the Applicant in the abusive fashion as she has described in her Application. The Respondent further denies that she has any claims whatsoever against him for any type of damages, including punitive and aggravated damages. Steve is still abusing this woman by denying her any spousal support, just like Kiska. Yet, he would like us all to believe that he was some responsible husband, just like Kiska.

A sociopath has insatiable greed and is devoid of any human emotions: no compassion, no empathy, not even any sympathy. Simply lust, hunger and the fight/flight/freeze fear that all wild animals have.

        
6.44

 

 The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s claim in its entirety be dismissed with costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Kristina is protected by Canada’s Divorce Act, you schmuck.        
 

07

  

 

  

 

        

Why? Because it’s been  Years in the Making!