GUILTY Canada - Taliyah Marsman, 5, & Sara Baillie, 34, Calgary, 11 July 2016 #2

[deugirtni]

Does anyone have the link to where global downloads entire documents? They had expired domestic document posted but I am unable to locate.

Is it possible that in the past when the original support order was made, based on the $81894, it was based on incorrect income figures for whatever reason? (ie if CM happened to be behind in filing his tax return for 2014 or something, perhaps the judge based the amount on expected income as if he worked a certain rate for a maximum number of hours, but in reality he didn't work steadily, or changed to a different rate, or something like that?) If he then went to a future court date to revisit his support obligations, and could prove that he made substantially less than what the original order was based on, wouldn't that mean the judge would rightfully have to make an adjustment to the arrears owing?

No because the original was drawn by a different Judge in 2012
Judge Mah egregious judicial conduct cost mother 40% of section 3 and penned her own interpretation section 7 and redrew boundaries to include only school/education/
Father represented himself in family court but in the court of public opinion media fail to mention how Judge Mah's imputing income and section 7 order wiped out 40% or 1/5 of moms total income.

Where are those figures and information coming from, I wasn't able to find any court or financial documents?

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=923802
43 seconds March application Judge Mah 51 seconds

There are likely at least a few reasons why the support amount could have been reduced.

- Yes and here they are
19(1) The court may impute the amount of income to a parent that
it considers appropriate in the circumstances, and those
circumstances include the following:
(a) the parent is intentionally under-employed or
unemployed, except where the under-employment or
unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the
parents or any child under the age of majority or by the
reasonable educational or health needs of the parent;
(b) the parent is exempt from paying federal or provincial
income tax;
(c) the parent lives in a country that has effective rates of
income tax that are significantly lower than those in
Canada;
(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would
affect the level of child support to be determined under
these Guidelines;
(e) the parent’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate
income;
(f) the parent has failed to provide income information when
under a legal obligation to do so;
(g) the parent unreasonably deducts expenses from income;
(h) the parent derives a significant portion of income from
dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a
lower rate than employment or business income or that are
exempt from tax;
(i) the parent is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in
receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1)(g), the reasonableness of an
expense deduction is not solely governed by whether the deduction
is permitted under the Income Tax Act (Canada).

Just because the original order was drafted by a different judge at a different time does not preclude the original figures from having been erroneous? If it was subsequently proven with documentation that the original order was based on perhaps a mistaken imputation, could it not be corrected by the judge at hand on the latter court date?

I feel confident that a female judge would not arbitrarily reduce a mother's support payment for no reason. My guess is that the income figures for CM were guessed at in the original order, and later revisited when CM had documentation to prove they were incorrect. Or perhaps he had other factors to apply against his income which would reduce the amount he would be obligated legally to pay? Or perhaps his employment/salary circumstances changed over time?

I couldn't find online documentation in regard to the support payments, but I was able to find docs filed by CTV in regard to CM's peace bond:
https://www.scribd.com/document/318211065/Marsman-Baillie-Court-Documents#download

 

[otto]

I suppose that women must declare their child support payment from their ex partner in their monthly income? And that would be the case whether or not the ex partner was actually paying the stated amount? Or would social services take that into consideration that the partner was not actually paying? And if that *was* taken into consideration and the woman received assistance, and if the partner subsequently ended up paying, would the woman have to pay back the assistance she had received?

When someone applies for low income subsidies and benefits, they must declare all income sources. If child support is unpaid, the parent must apply for Maintenance Enforcement. The government will not provide support if it is not needed, and unpaid child support is not a reason for support since there are options in place to manage child support payments.

 

[otto]

Just because the original order was drafted by a different judge at a different time does not preclude the original figures from having been erroneous? If it was subsequently proven with documentation that the original order was based on perhaps a mistaken imputation, could it not be corrected by the judge at hand on the latter court date?

I feel confident that a female judge would not arbitrarily reduce a mother's support payment for no reason. My guess is that the income figures for CM were guessed at in the original order, and later revisited when CM had documentation to prove they were incorrect. Or perhaps he had other factors to apply against his income which would reduce the amount he would be obligated legally to pay? Or perhaps his employment/salary circumstances changed over time?

I couldn't find online documentation in regard to the support payments, but I was able to find docs filed by CTV in regard to CM's peace bond:
https://www.scribd.com/document/318211065/Marsman-Baillie-Court-Documents#download

Absolutely. If a parent applies to the court for child support and the other parent is absent, the present parent will estimate the income, and the judge will order child support on that basis. The absent parent can then apply to the court to have the amount adjusted based on actual income.

Female judges do not have a soft spot for women in the courtroom. All decisions are unbiased.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

We can all sit on our computer and judge Sara's life choices all we want, and how she 'coulda, shoulda, woulda' did things. The fact of the matter is - her nor her daughter deserved to be murdered. This is a life Sara knew and lived, unfortunately so do thousands of other women and children every day. I'm sure many get murdered and many don't.

Yes, they are living a high risk lifestyle but people have been doing it for centuries all over the world and it's very very unfair and tragic especially for the children. We are lucky to live in Canada where we have resources and "help" but leaving the only life you ever know (I'm assuming Sara was for many years involved in a certain 'clique') isn't easy especially if any emotional or physical abuse is involved.

Unless anyone here has ever been a prostitute/escort or been in an emotional or physically abusive relationship I don't think it's fair to judge. Sadly, this stuff goes on and will continue to go on and isn't an easy fix.

 

[deugirtni]

When someone applies for low income subsidies and benefits, they must declare all income sources. If child support is unpaid, the parent must apply for Maintenance Enforcement. The government will not provide support if it is not needed, and unpaid child support is not a reason for support since there are options in place to manage child support payments.

Wouldn't that put said woman between a rock and a hard place then? Just because there might be Maintenance Enforcement in place, doesn't mean they are necessarily successful at said enforcement, or that any success in enforcement is timely. I know that Enforcement has to play detective sometimes in order to discover where a deadbeat partner is working so that they can garnish his/her wages. And then even when the govt does find out where the deadbeat is working, it is a process that takes a bit of time to put into action, for the garnishment to take effect and trickle its way to the person it is owed to. It doesn't seem fair that a single mom would be disqualified from social benefits while all of that is going on?

 

[yycpaul]

"Just because the original order was drafted by a different judge at a different time does not preclude the original figures from having been erroneous? "
This is why the court requires parties to file their last 3 years of income tax documents when dealing with support issues.
" If it was subsequently proven with documentation that the original order was based on perhaps a mistaken imputation, could it not be corrected by the judge at hand on the latter court date?"
No they do not go back you apply and will either be allow or be declined your new order request.
"Mistaken Imputation" - When a judge imputes your income it is usually because you have pissed them off and they are not going to go off of all provided number and CRA facts but penalize you for wasting their time. In the vast majority (99%) of cases imputing of income by judges is used to make child supports payments higher. Worth repeating page 1 43 sec
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=923802
1. filed wrong number
2. wrong court
3. refer to plantiff as defendant
I feel confident that a female judge would not arbitrarily reduce a mother's support payment for no reason. My guess is that the income figures for CM were guessed at in the original order, and later revisited when CM had documentation to prove they were incorrect.
He represented himself with documents 2014 income of over 80K which judge chose a few months later to shave to 56K
Or perhaps he had other factors to apply against his income which would reduce the amount he would be obligated legally to pay? Debt perhaps debt to someone who was arraigned recently with no contact condition
Or perhaps his employment/salary circumstances changed over time? Perhaps then page 1 would have undue hardship

I couldn't find online documentation in regard to the support payments, Surprised any found then considering wrong court and file number but I was able to find docs filed by CTV in regard to CM's peace bond:thank again for locating. Too bad all documents waved or shown on media weren't downloaded as Judge instead of father now mother would have been in the court of public opinion
https://www.scribd.com/document/318211065/Marsman-Baillie-Court-Documents#download

Citations start around page 40
http://www.torkinmanes.com/docs/def...-a-general-test-to-determine-what-constitutes

 

[yycpaul]

Otto,
I personally enjoy reading your detective solving theories.
Your analytical skills are out of the box, creative, sometimes personalized, and often more tasteful than critics give you credit.
While you continue to entertain me, I fear someone reading our comments might not seek help or not apply for help so best I remind them of the fact instead a saying free
1. Otto shared the following link which is a valuable for those who struggle in health and finance
http://www.canadabenefits.gc.ca/f.1.2c.6.3zardq.5esti.4ns@.jsp?lang=eng
2. Who benefits if they apply for subsidies? Anyone who after tax makes under 1 person $24,600.00, 2 persons $30,625.00, 3 persons $37,650.00, 4 persons $45,712.00, 5 persons $51,846.00, 6 persons $58,473.00, 7 persons $65,101.00
3. Do you have to claim child support on my taxes?
No – as of 1997, the table amount of child support does not get claimed as income by the person receiving it, and it does not get claimed as a deduction for the person paying it.
4. Why didn't SB request a waiver for school fees? No one but Judge Mah and Otto think that. Last year was the first year parents in Calgary gave 2 options
Option 1. Mail in a waiver with all required photocopied information and wait to see what % is owed or what info was missing that cause the decline
Option 2. Schedule an appointment with principals where all your kids go and request he/she to waive your fees with no paerwork.
5. In the province of Alberta there are eight accepted proofs of income
1. AISH
2. Alberta Works: Income subsidy/support
3. Alberta Works: Learners
4. Alberta Works (Alberta Health Benefit)
5. Resettlement Assistance Program
6 Independent youth letter
7 Canada Revenue Agency: Notice of Assessment (LICO) - 2015 LICO numbers Low Income Cut-Off 1 person $24,600.00, 2 persons $30,625.00, 3 persons $37,650.00, 4 persons $45,712.00, 5 persons $51,846.00, 6 persons $58,473.00, 7 persons $65,101.00
Do you have to claim child support on my taxes?
No – as of 1997, the table amount of child support does not get claimed as income by the person receiving it, and it does not get claimed as a deduction for the person paying it.
8. Letter from a Registered Social Worker (RSW)
6. In response to the posted 2011 research and 2012 report when oil was over $100 the City of Calgary launched its Fair Entry program in 2015, allowing eligible Calgarians to submit one application for all of Calgary’s subsidized programs; the Low-Income Transit Pass, Recreation, Spay and Neuter Program and Property Tax assistance.
2015 LICO numbers Low Income Cut-Off 1 person $24,600.00, 2 persons $30,625.00, 3 persons $37,650.00, 4 persons $45,712.00, 5 persons $51,846.00, 6 persons $58,473.00, 7 persons $65,101.00
1. City transit - Low-income Calgarians pay $44 to ride the bus or train every month.
2. City Recreation - City Child Day Camp $68.00/day maximum 3 days then returns to $168 per day. City Adults The maximum subsidy is $50/ year Child is $250. Fee Assistance can only be applied to the registration fee and not to pre/post care or extra fees.
3. To be eligible for the Property Tax Assistance Program the applicant must have experience an increase in 2016 property taxes. Please note: Applying for the program does not alter your property tax obligation. If you are not enrolled in the Tax Instalment Payment Plan, you must pay your taxes in full by June 30, 2016, to avoid a seven per cent penalty.
4. If you qualify, the Alberta government will pay your residential property taxes directly to your municipality on your behalf. You re-pay the loan, with interest, when you sell the home, or sooner if you wish. The current interest rate is 2.70%
5. No Cost Spay/Neuter Program Note: For the health of your pet, we recommend that he/she is vaccinated by a veterinarian at least two weeks before surgery.
http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Fee-assistance/Fee-assistance-welcome.pdf

 

[yycpaul]

Something is wrong with that information because 40% is not 1/5.

Section 3 loss as a percentage
$707 - $425 = ($282) monthly = $3384 year
divide $282 into $707 =.3988
round up you get percentage of 40

$19272 guideline income in 2014
divided into 12 month = $1606 monthly
1/5 = 0.2
0.2 X 19272 = $3854.40 year


$707 = 44% guideline monthly income

 

[deugirtni]

"Just because the original order was drafted by a different judge at a different time does not preclude the original figures from having been erroneous? "
This is why the court requires parties to file their last 3 years of income tax documents when dealing with support issues.
" If it was subsequently proven with documentation that the original order was based on perhaps a mistaken imputation, could it not be corrected by the judge at hand on the latter court date?"
No they do not go back you apply and will either be allow or be declined your new order request.
"Mistaken Imputation" - When a judge imputes your income it is usually because you have pissed them off and they are not going to go off of all provided number and CRA facts but penalize you for wasting their time. In the vast majority (99%) of cases imputing of income by judges is used to make child supports payments higher. Worth repeating page 1 43 sec
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=923802
1. filed wrong number
2. wrong court
3. refer to plantiff as defendant
I feel confident that a female judge would not arbitrarily reduce a mother's support payment for no reason. My guess is that the income figures for CM were guessed at in the original order, and later revisited when CM had documentation to prove they were incorrect.
He represented himself with documents 2014 income of over 80K which judge chose a few months later to shave to 56K
Or perhaps he had other factors to apply against his income which would reduce the amount he would be obligated legally to pay? Debt perhaps debt to someone who was arraigned recently with no contact condition
Or perhaps his employment/salary circumstances changed over time? Perhaps then page 1 would have undue hardship

I couldn't find online documentation in regard to the support payments, Surprised any found then considering wrong court and file number but I was able to find docs filed by CTV in regard to CM's peace bond:thank again for locating. Too bad all documents waved or shown on media weren't downloaded as Judge instead of father now mother would have been in the court of public opinion
https://www.scribd.com/document/318211065/Marsman-Baillie-Court-Documents#download

Citations start around page 40
http://www.torkinmanes.com/docs/def...-a-general-test-to-determine-what-constitutes

Apparently it is possible to make changes:

....

Principles Applied when the Court is Asked to Change
Child Support
Change in circumstances
There is one basic principle that applies to applications to change
existing child support orders. Before a judge can change the amount
of an existing child support payment, there must be a significant and
long-lasting change in the circumstances of one or both parents. This
must be a change that has occurred after the original child support
order was made.
Some changes that might be considered include:
° a change in income;
° a change in the amounts paid for special expenses;
° a change in where the child resides; or
° the fact that the Guidelines have become law after the child
support order was made, or, that the Guidelines tables have
changed since the child support order was made.

Retroactive Orders
Sometimes, your circumstances or the other parent’s circumstances
changed a long time ago, and you are only now going to court to ask
for the change in child support. Can you ask the judge to back date
the order, in other words to make a retroactive order?
In some cases, you can. The judge will look at various factors in
deciding whether or not to make a retroactive order. These include:
° the reason for the delay in making your application (why you
didn’t make the application at the time the circumstances
changed);
° the conduct of the other parent;
° the past and present circumstances of the child, including the
child’s needs at the time the circumstances changed; and
° whether the retroactive award might cause hardship to either of
you.

Principles Applied when the Court is Asked to Reduce
or Cancel Arrears
There are two basic principles that apply to cancelling or reducing child
support arrears.
Change in financial circumstances
Before a judge can cancel or reduce the amount of arrears owed by
the paying parent, there must be a significant and long lasting change
in the parent’s financial situation.
The courts are generally reluctant to reduce or to cancel arrears.
Arrears will not be reduced or cancelled unless significant unfairness
would result.
....

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...sg=AFQjCNEfj4Qn7djBPWfjoHPxlxSthaTJsQ&cad=rja

 

[otto]

Wouldn't that put said woman between a rock and a hard place then? Just because there might be Maintenance Enforcement in place, doesn't mean they are necessarily successful at said enforcement, or that any success in enforcement is timely. I know that Enforcement has to play detective sometimes in order to discover where a deadbeat partner is working so that they can garnish his/her wages. And then even when the govt does find out where the deadbeat is working, it is a process that takes a bit of time to put into action, for the garnishment to take effect and trickle its way to the person it is owed to. It doesn't seem fair that a single mom would be disqualified from social benefits while all of that is going on?

Maintenance Enforcement is successful. The government doesn't ask for the money, they take it directly from the employer, the bank account, or any other source of income. Maintenance Enforcement does not "play detective". The person who is owed money provides all information (plays detective). Sara chose to not use the services provided by the government to collect child support.

 

[deugirtni]

Maintenance Enforcement is successful. The government doesn't ask for the money, they take it directly from the employer, the bank account, or any other source of income. Maintenance Enforcement does not "play detective". The person who is owed money provides all information (plays detective). Sara chose to not use the services provided by the government to collect child support.

What I'm saying is that there is a process. There are times when a deadbeat payer hides his place of employment from the partner to whom chld support is owed. When a partner might know of the employer where the deadbeat payer works, Enforcement wll contact that employer to verify, and then send them a demand to forward a percentage of the deadbeat's after-tax wages. All of these things, even though a caretaker might be involved in the Enforcement program, take time, as I'm sure you can imagine. In the meantime, while all of this might be going on in the background, is it fair that a mom be denied access to programs to assist with the child, just because the money hasn't yet trickled into her bank account? No, it isn't fair... and I would hope there is some kind of measure in place to accommodate for the timing inconsistencies that could arise.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Sara chose to not use the services provided by the government to collect child support.

As happens all too often, she may have been trying to keep the peace for the sake of the father daughter relationship ship. JMO

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[yycpaul]

I am fully aware and agree
1. of the three basic principles that apply to all child support
applications
2. granting the variation of a child support order is extremely common (fixing a mistake by a previous judge is uncommon ei. bad faith)
What is uncommon or beyond any reasonable comprehension of either Federal Child Support Guidelines or section 6.2
of the Divorce Act is
1. Page one of this specific case file
2. Rationale/ determination/ignorance - In this specific situation newly appointed judge circumvents applicable section 7 guidelines.
3. Newly appointed judge opts to impute but undermines why we created this discretion which is to safeguard against those whom circumvent
4. Based on page 1 only - imputing and order used in this specific case falls outside of the principle of this specific application request.
I applaud you in your search to educate about specifics around family law, custody, and enforcement...unfortunately, this specific case either exemplifies or illustrates all things that are broken rather than legally what is in the best interest of this child.

Apparently it is possible to make changes:


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...sg=AFQjCNEfj4Qn7djBPWfjoHPxlxSthaTJsQ&cad=rja

 

[deugirtni]

I am fully aware and agree
1. of the three basic principles that apply to all child support
applications
2. granting the variation of a child support order is extremely common (fixing a mistake by a previous judge is uncommon ei. bad faith)
What is uncommon or beyond any reasonable comprehension of either Federal Child Support Guidelines or section 6.2
of the Divorce Act is
1. Page one of this specific case file
2. Rationale/ determination/ignorance - In this specific situation newly appointed judge circumvents applicable section 7 guidelines.
3. Newly appointed judge opts to impute but undermines why we created this discretion which is to safeguard against those whom circumvent
4. Based on page 1 only - imputing and order used in this specific case falls outside of the principle of this specific application request.
I applaud you in your search to educate about specifics around family law, custody, and enforcement...unfortunately, this specific case either exemplifies or illustrates all things that are broken rather than legally what is in the best interest of this child.

Call me dense, but I am having some difficulty following your posts, is it possible to be more specific about what you're saying? ie what is uncommon about page one of this specific case file? How did newly appointed judge circumvent applicable section 7 guidelines? How did newly appointed judge undermine why we created the discretion which is to safeguard against those who circumvent? How does page 1 fall outside of the principle of imputing and order used in this specific request?

 

[otto]

Wouldn't that put said woman between a rock and a hard place then? Just because there might be Maintenance Enforcement in place, doesn't mean they are necessarily successful at said enforcement, or that any success in enforcement is timely. I know that Enforcement has to play detective sometimes in order to discover where a deadbeat partner is working so that they can garnish his/her wages. And then even when the govt does find out where the deadbeat is working, it is a process that takes a bit of time to put into action, for the garnishment to take effect and trickle its way to the person it is owed to. It doesn't seem fair that a single mom would be disqualified from social benefits while all of that is going on?

The point behind maintenance enforcement is that it solves the problem of parents who don't pay child support. Sara obviously declined the service that is available. Single parents are not "between a rock and a hard place" when the government steps in to ensure that child support is paid.

The government is not the detective regarding job information. The single parent and lawyer provide all the information at the time that the child support order is granted. Two parties in court fight about child support and custody. An order is signed and everyone including the courts have all the required information at the time the order is granted.

 

[otto]

As happens all too often, she may have been trying to keep the peace for the sake of the father daughter relationship ship. JMO

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Perhaps she didn't like the idea of the money being paid to the government first ,and then to her a few days after the first of the month. Regardless of the reasons, she declined the service. It seems that there was also some disagreement about how much money was due, which may explain why the money wasn't paid. Perhaps the father wanted the courts to re-assess.

I'm still inclined to believe that no money was borrowed, and that the debt was work related. Sara collected money from clients and would pay her pimp (the suspect) a percentage of the income. If she didn't pay, then she owed him money - and that may be why she lost her life.

 

[deugirtni]

The point behind maintenance enforcement is that it solves the problem of parents who don't pay child support. Sara obviously declined the service that is available. Single parents are not "between a rock and a hard place" when the government steps in to ensure that child support is paid.

The government is not the detective regarding job information. The single parent and lawyer provide all the information at the time that the child support order is granted. Two parties in court fight about child support and custody. An order is signed and everyone including the courts have all the required information at the time the order is granted.

Single parents are between a rock and a hard place if on the one hand, they must declare they have a court order saying they are to receive x amount each month in child support payments, but yet those payments aren't really received until much later, if ever. That means the single parent would be disqualified from programs due to income, even though they aren't really receiving the stated income. I hope that is clearer? The single parent and lawyer can provide all the information at the time that they want and have all the orders granted, but as soon as the payer changes jobs, the government no longer has a garnishment order in place. In order to get a new garnishment order, the government has to find out somehow (usually through the parent to whom the support payments are owed) where the new place of employment is. Once that is verified, that employer is sent paperwork, and they have a set amount of time in which to start garnisheeing the wages of the payer. Things are not always automatic, or on schedule like they should be. The difference in timing can disqualify a custodial parent from qualifying for services based on income, but not really be in receipt of the income which disqualifies her/him. There is also a problem if the payer happens to be self employed. Black and white is not reality.

 

[otto]

Anyone who applies for government handouts has to prove that the benefit is needed. The gov't will require the involvement of maintenance enforcement if child support is not voluntarily paid. Maintenance enforcement does not do detective work - they take the money that is owed without asking. There are no hard places and rocks. It is an effective solution to a well known problem.

As I said, I don't believe that Sara borrowed money. I believe she neglected to pay her pimp what he believed he was owed.

 

[MsMarple]

I'm still inclined to believe that no money was borrowed, and that the debt was work related. Sara collected money from clients and would pay her pimp (the suspect) a percentage of the income. If she didn't pay, then she owed him money - and that may be why she lost her life.

RSBM

The whole "debt" thing has me really confused. If Sara owed ED money what was the point of him killing her and Taliyah? If he actually was her pimp then he was getting a steady stream of income even if she was holding some back. Why throw that away? And if SB was trying to buy her way out of the arrangement (which apparently happens with members of North Preston's Finest - women buy out of sex trafficking for amounts like 5k or more) then why kill her before she had a chance to start paying?

And, according to CM he paid SB a lump payment of about 5k just weeks before her death. If she was trying to get out of the escort business then surely she would have turned that money over to ED. So... some possibilities. Maybe she didn't give ED the 5k and he got mad. Or maybe CM lied to media and didn't really pay that amount. Or maybe I'm just overthinking LE's comment about "debt." I dunno.

One other thing that did cross my mind was the possibility of CM owing a debt to ED, not SB. What better way to send a message to CM that says ED meant business than killing CM's child and her mother? However, LE also said SB was the target, not Taliyah, plus it sounds like there was no love lost between SB and CM. And CM claims not to know ED. So, one final thought is that SB's pimp was not ED but rather CM but I don't think I'm allowed to explore that possibility right now so I'll just call it some wild speculation.

Anyway, maybe more will come out to help explain what happened. I'm so sorry Taliyah was involved in this mess of adult behavior. :tears: RIP Sara and Taliyah.

 

[matou]

Has the autopsy report been completed on Taliyah? TIA