In the 19th Century, English Philosopher Jeremy Bentham warned against secrecy in the administration of justice: “Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.” Those words still ring true today. In countries sharing the common law tradition, the open courts principle is a fundamental, indeed a constitutional principle. Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C. |
The Consent order contained a single paragraph:
Both parties are at liberty to serve on each other all documents arising out of this action by delivering true copy of same by email to januttl@gmail.com and anne.rensonnet@gmail.com respectively, and by sending the documents by regular mail.
It was sent to Ms. Christopher, the case management counsel, twice. Justice Horner should have seen this order at least twice. Here is how she reacted:
35 MR. UTTL: I just want to bring to your attention that I sent 36 that consent order to Ms. Rensonnet a couple of months ago -- 37 38 THE COURT: Okay and I’m sure you did, but I’m sure it 39 included a million other clauses that were objected to. Never mind Mr. Uttl, that doesn’t 40 require a response. Thank you. We’ll see you on June 16th. We’re adjourned.The order of Justice Horner granting service by email was practically identical.
Part of Ms. Rensonnet's strategy was to fuel the "high conflict", because the court is less likely to order shared parenting. Ms. Rensonnet decided to utilize the fact that I had served her with court documents, that is given her a plain manila envelope. The short story is, Ms. Rensonnet gave me an envelope at the children exchange, I took it and thought nothing of it. So when I needed to give Rensonnet some documents, I did the same. Rensonnet wrote a letter to the case management counsel, Ms. Christopher, that she does not want to be served at front of the children. I sent a single paragraph consent order to serve each other by email both to Ms. Rensonnet and Ms Christopher on March 20, 2015, again to both Ms. Christopher and Ms. Rensonnet on March 30, 2015, and to Ms. Rensonnet again on May 28, 2015, day before the hearing. Rensonnet never executed the consent order, which, before this hearing, she received total of 3 times.
Note that in the transcript, my argument proceeds about half sentence at the time, being constantly interrupted by Justice Horner. Transcript, October 9, 2014, starting at page 22 follows:
18 MS. RENSONNET: And one small matter, yesterday again -- when 19 Mr. Uttl picked up the children in the morning, he once again served me documents 20 ostentatiously in front of the children, with a camera suction cup to the car window, the 21 whole bit. Can I please have an order that he can’t serve me with the children present? I 22 know my address for service is my house, but there are so many other ways to serve than 23 in front of the children, please? 24 25 THE COURT: Can there possibly be a concern with that, 26 Mr. Uttl? 27 28 MR. UTTL: Yes there is. Ms. Rensonnet -- 29 30 THE COURT: You need to serve Ms. Rensonnet with legal 31 documents in front of your children? 32 33 MR. UTTL: No (INDISCERNIBLE) -- 34 35 Order (Service in Front of Children) 36 37 THE COURT: Okay. Then that’s fine. Then there will be an 38 order that you not serve Ms. Rensonnet in front of the children. 39 40 MR. UTTL: My Lady, I (INDISCERNIBLE) the consent 41 order, this has been done three times. 1 2 THE COURT: What has been done three times? 3 4 MR. UTTL: I served Ms. -- I have to drive there, to 5 Ms. Rensonnet’s residence so it’s a convenient time to give her envelope with papers. 6 7 THE COURT: Okay, well it isn’t anymore. You’re not 8 serving Ms. Rensonnet with legal documents or any documents in front of your children. 9 It’s harmful to your children Mr. Uttl. They do not need any further confirmation that 10 their parents are fighting. 11 12 MR. UTTL: My Lady, Ms. Rensonnet served -- gave me an 13 envelope, this is a year ago, in front of the children, was a non-issue. She gave me -- 14 15 THE COURT: Mr. Uttl, I don’t -- this isn’t a tit-for-tac court 16 hearing -- 17 18 MR. UTTL: I know -- 19 20 THE COURT: -- you just did it last week, correct? 21 22 MR. UTTL: No? 23 24 THE COURT: No, you did not serve Ms. Rensonnet with 25 documents in front of your children this week or last week? Sorry when was it? 26 27 MS. RENSONNET: Yesterday. 28 29 THE COURT: Yesterday? 30 31 MR. UTTL: Two weeks ago I -- 32 33 THE COURT: Yesterday, yesterday Mr. Uttl, did you serve 34 Ms. Rensonnet with documents in front of your children yesterday? 35 36 MR. UTTL: I gave Ms. Rensonnet an envelope with 37 documents -- 38 39 THE COURT: M-hm -- 40 41 MR. UTTL: -- and asked her to take it and she took the 1 envelope and that was the end of it. 2 3 THE COURT: And did you videotape that or record it in some 4 way? 5 6 MR. UTTL: Both parties are recording every child exchange 7 -- 8 9 THE COURT: No, did you -- Mr. Uttl, did you -- 10 11 MR. UTTL: I did. 12 13 THE COURT: You did, okay. No more. Ms. Rensonnet, I 14 don’t know if you’ve ever served Mr. Uttl, but please do not. So there will be a mutual 15 clause, Mr. Uttl, no service documents on either biological parent of any kind in front of 16 the children for any reason. 17 18 MR. UTTL: My Lady, Ms. Rensonnet, has a order she can 19 send by email. Can I get the same order, serve Ms. Rensonnet by email -- 20 21 THE COURT: Yes? 22 23 MR. UTTL: -- she already agreed in some writing of hers 24 that she wants to be served any other way -- 25 26 THE COURT: Sorry, is there any concern with Mr. Uttl 27 serving you by email, Ms. Rensonnet? 28 29 MS. RENSONNET: No I’ve already told him he can. 30 31 THE COURT: Yes -- 32 33 MS. RENSONNET: He just wants an order and I said just go ahead. 34 35 MR. UTTL: There wasn’t an order -- 36 37 THE COURT: Fine, we’ll put it in the order Mr. Uttl. 38 39 MR. UTTL: -- that both parties can serve each other by 40 email. 41 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 3 MR. UTTL: Ms. Rensonnet never consented. I sent the 4 orders three times. 5 6 THE COURT: Okay, don’t serve documents and involve your 7 children in this litigation in any way Mr. Uttl, it’s harmful to them. You’re a very bright 8 man, I can tell that, you’re very articulate. Do some research online, what this kind of 9 fight does to children, is now sociologically and psychologically documented. It’s 10 harmful. This isn’t -- I’m not a psychologist, I’m not a social worker, it’s not my place 11 to --I can’t give you all the verbiage, but please do some research on your own. They 12 will have long lasting effects from what is going on here. Exerting your rights is one 13 thing, but dragging your children into it, is quite another. 14 15 MR. UTTL: I never drag my children into it. 16 17 THE COURT: Okay. We’ll don’t -- 18 19 MR. UTTL: I’d -- 20 21 THE COURT: -- I’m going to believe you Mr. Uttl, don’t then. 22 23 MR. UTTL: So can you put a clause in the order that I can 24 serve Ms. Rensonnet by email? 25 26 THE COURT: Yes, yes. 27 28 MR. UTTL: Thank you. 29 30 Order (Email Service) 31 32 THE COURT: You will both be allowed to serve each other 33 by email from this day forward. Okay. 34 35 MR. UTTL: I just want to bring to your attention that I sent 36 that consent order to Ms. Rensonnet a couple of months ago -- 37 38 THE COURT: Okay and I’m sure you did, but I’m sure it 39 included a million other clauses that were objected to. Never mind Mr. Uttl, that doesn’t 40 require a response. Thank you. We’ll see you on June 16th. We’re adjourned.
(a) Ms. Christopher, the case management counsel, concealed from Justice Horner my letters and never gave a copy of the consent order to Justice Horner, even though she received it two times. Justice Horner, not having read it, was so prejudiced as to be "sure it included a million other clauses that were objected to".
(b) Ms. Christopher did give the copies of the letters she received to Justice Horner, and Justice Horner did read the single paragraph consent order for mutual service by email the two times I have sent it. Her bias and prejudice did not allow her to agree that I made the effort to settle the service issue amicably, and she made up the nonsense about "million other clauses".
Whatever had taken place between Ms. Christopher and Justice Horner, at this point, I was acutely aware how biased Justice Horner is, but had to grin and bear it to get to the trial, so the children have reasonable access to their father. The option to appeal any of Justice Horner decisions was hollow, as it would have delayed the trial, and extended the status quo which Rensonnet established unilaterally and surreptitiously.
However, I was too slow realizing what Rensonnet was up to -- sending letters to the case management counsel complaining bitterly about service "at front of the children", yet completely ignoring the three consent orders I prepared and sent her, which would allow us to serve each other by email. I was also too slow in realizing that Justice Horner probably never got the consent order from Ms. Christopher. On the other hand, Justice Horner ended up the hearing rather abruptly, obviously not wanting to know what I was trying to bring to her attention.
When you suspect or know your ex-partner is borderline or a sociopath, expect the unexpected. Record everything, preferably on video. One of the reasons Rensonnet never made any accusations of violence at the exchanges was that she knew the exchanges are recorded, by both parties.
Note: There are some judges who believe recording your interaction with your ex-parther is harmful, increases the conflict, etc. While this belief is incredible, they sometimes make orders that the parties do not record. In that case, your best option is to interact with your ex-partner only in presence of reliable witnesses, e.g., at a police station, and ask the police person to take notes.