Found Safe Canada - O’Driscoll-Zak sisters, 2 & 5, abduction by aunt & grandmother, Cochrane, 12 Mar 2021

[Seattle1]

Bumping as a reminder of some important details:

From the two Court documents linked for this custody matter, we know that the mother was initially (2019) awarded primary care of the children with joint decision-making between the parties.

We also know that since July 2019, the mother was found in contempt for breaching at least two parenting plans, found responsible by the Court for parental alienation, and further failed to cooperate with the court-appointed therapist's plan for reunification with the father.

Most recently, Dr. Froberg's affidavit to the Court stated the following about the mother:

“Based on her comments and actions, Ms. O’Driscoll does not appear to have accepted the validity and appropriateness of the Reunification intervention and is not indicating that she is willing to cooperatively participate in the process.”

In other words, the mother here has brazenly represented to the Court (and the public) that she does not believe the family court laws apply to her, they are not valid, and she's not willing to participate in the process.

Please don't mistake the Judge's firm response to one contemptuous individual as being emotionally involved or biased. The mother already tried that --attempting to dismiss the Judge as the case manager, and that also failed.

I truly fear for the children in her care. Although I lean towards young children staying in the care of the mother, I applaud the Courts decision to remove them from this particular mother as the primary caregiver. .

It's very clear the mother has no respect for the court, her former spouse, or her children. Abducting the children screams if I can't have them you'll NEVER see them. Her children should not have to pay for the rage she has towards her former husband. She's incapable of acting in the best interest of the children.

Clearly, she was given every opportunity by the Court and failed to appreciate a case manager that was more than patient with her.

MOO

 

[everybodhi]

This is one complicated mess I don't think they left Canada the land crossings to the states were closed and if they flew there's so many records kept because of covid they'd know by now,there's so many lakes and cottages all over with help they could be gone a while with no one noticing who they are there's so many people booking cottages and camp sites with covid jmoo

I think it’s a possibility, when I lived in Maine I knew people who crossed the border regularly away from border checkpoints. There are French Canadians with families on both sides and they don’t always bother with immigration.
There is even a remote little town with homes that straddle the border, people say that they sleep with their head in the US and their feet in Canada.
I have an ex friend who was questioned after dropping her friend off in some remote area on the US side near Toronto, he then hooked up with someone who four wheeled him across. He had US warrants but she said she didn’t know anything about anything, I don’t believe her, she just gave him a ride from NYC to the middle of nowhere? She went through a lot of grief with interrogations by ICE and the FBI, he avoided arrest for years but eventually they caught up to him and he was jailed and then deported back home to France.
The US/CA border is thousands of miles, many in wilderness, people have been illegally walking or crossing on motorbikes or four wheel drives to an arranged driver for decades.
It became more difficult after 9/11 but it still happens regularly. You can pay someone to assist you, they aren’t hard to find.
I wouldn’t put anything past these ladies, they obviously don’t have many boundaries.

 

[everybodhi]

Just an opinion, but perhaps the RCMP want to hear the abductors' side of the story. If the abductors were led to believe, and did believe, correctly or not, that they were rescuing the children from danger (i.e.: their father), then perhaps they have not committed an indictable offence.

If the grandmother and/or aunt conspired to aggravate the matrimonial conflict during the past 18 months with the intent to disparage the father's reputation such that his custodial rights were compromised, then I don't think "rescue" can be argued. That is, they were rescuing the children from a situation that they, in part, manufactured.

If they want to get away with the rescue argument, they better have very clean hands, and it goes with the territory that they did not at any time make any negative remarks against the father. Again, just an opinion.

It’s just so weird to think the cops would wait to hear if you have an good excuse to commit a criminal offense, usually they leave that to the courts.
Canada is sweet.

 

[everybodhi]

Double post

 

[MistyWaters]

Recent appeal by the mother -

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=1

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta

Citation: Zak v Zak, 2021 ABCA 131

Date: 20210412

Docket: 2101-0063AC

Registry: Calgary

I. Nature of the Application
[1] The applicant, Jacqueline Louise O’Driscoll Zak [Ms O’Driscoll], seeks a stay pending her appeal of a case management judge’s interim order granted on March 12, 2021 which, inter alia, granted interim sole care of the parties’ two children, ages five and two, to the children’s father, the respondent, Colin Matthew Zak.

>>>>>>>

VI. Conclusion
[46] I conclude that Ms O’Driscoll has not satisfied her burden of persuasion relating to irreparable harm or balance of convenience when viewed through the children’s best interests. The stay application is dismissed.

[47] Accordingly, the March 12, 2021 order appended hereto, remains in full force and effect.

 

[MistyWaters]

More from the Canlii link...other appeal regarding the recusal of the judge still pending.

Irreparable Harm and Balance of Convenience
[40] Since the late afternoon of March 12, 2021, the children, and their maternal grandmother and aunt have been the subject of an RCMP missing persons investigation. It is my understanding that none of them have been located. In consequence, it is a most unusual and unique circumstance that the order transitioning the children to Mr Zak’s care has been unable to take effect.

[41] However, I do not rest any aspect of my decision on this very concerning state of affairs. To be clear, Ms O’Driscoll has admitted no part in the children’s disappearance. If cogent evidence had been adduced proving otherwise, I would have considered that evidence.

[42] Having reflected on this, and having read and listened to the argument made by both counsel, on the basis of the evidence now before me, I am nonetheless satisfied that Ms O’Driscoll has not met the high evidential burden resting upon her to establish the case management judge’s March 12, 2021 interim order pending a four day hearing ought to be stayed.

[43] I am not satisfied the children will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. Nor am I satisfied that standing alone, the case management judge’s finding of contempt, or the temporary stay of child support arrears will cause the children irreparable harm if not stayed. Finally, I am not satisfied the children’s balance of convenience favours granting Ms O’Driscoll’s stay application.

[44] At the April 7, 2021 hearing of this application, I was advised the April 27-30, 2021 Queen’s Bench hearing dates have been vacated. I was also advised there is a pending motion seeking recusal of the case management judge, which I understand, is to be heard on April 30, 2021.

[45] Given the circumstances, and recognizing Ms O’Driscoll sought an expedited appeal, I have directed the appeal shall be heard by a panel of this Court on May 4, 2021. The appeal record and the appellant’s factum must be filed and served no later than April 21, 2021. The respondent’s factum must be filed and served no later than April 28, 2021.

VI. Conclusion
[46] I conclude that Ms O’Driscoll has not satisfied her burden of persuasion relating to irreparable harm or balance of convenience when viewed through the children’s best interests. The stay application is dismissed.

[47] Accordingly, the March 12, 2021 order appended hereto, remains in full force and effect.

 

[otto]

More from the Canlii link...other appeal regarding the recusal of the judge still pending.

Irreparable Harm and Balance of Convenience
[40] Since the late afternoon of March 12, 2021, the children, and their maternal grandmother and aunt have been the subject of an RCMP missing persons investigation. It is my understanding that none of them have been located. In consequence, it is a most unusual and unique circumstance that the order transitioning the children to Mr Zak’s care has been unable to take effect.

[41] However, I do not rest any aspect of my decision on this very concerning state of affairs. To be clear, Ms O’Driscoll has admitted no part in the children’s disappearance. If cogent evidence had been adduced proving otherwise, I would have considered that evidence.

[42] Having reflected on this, and having read and listened to the argument made by both counsel, on the basis of the evidence now before me, I am nonetheless satisfied that Ms O’Driscoll has not met the high evidential burden resting upon her to establish the case management judge’s March 12, 2021 interim order pending a four day hearing ought to be stayed.

[43] I am not satisfied the children will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. Nor am I satisfied that standing alone, the case management judge’s finding of contempt, or the temporary stay of child support arrears will cause the children irreparable harm if not stayed. Finally, I am not satisfied the children’s balance of convenience favours granting Ms O’Driscoll’s stay application.

[44] At the April 7, 2021 hearing of this application, I was advised the April 27-30, 2021 Queen’s Bench hearing dates have been vacated. I was also advised there is a pending motion seeking recusal of the case management judge, which I understand, is to be heard on April 30, 2021.

[45] Given the circumstances, and recognizing Ms O’Driscoll sought an expedited appeal, I have directed the appeal shall be heard by a panel of this Court on May 4, 2021. The appeal record and the appellant’s factum must be filed and served no later than April 21, 2021. The respondent’s factum must be filed and served no later than April 28, 2021.

VI. Conclusion
[46] I conclude that Ms O’Driscoll has not satisfied her burden of persuasion relating to irreparable harm or balance of convenience when viewed through the children’s best interests. The stay application is dismissed.

[47] Accordingly, the March 12, 2021 order appended hereto, remains in full force and effect.

There it is in the appeal documents, as I suspected. The mother, so concerned that her 2 year old daughter was sexually abused, neglected to take the child to the doctor. Conveniently, the allegation only applies to the child who is too young to be reliable.

I also suspect that this complaint was made to RCMP on advise from lawyer Diann Castle - the lawyer with 30+ years experience and ample knowledge of introducing sexual abuse allegations during custody dispute.

"On February 11, 2021, Ms O’Driscoll contacted the RCMP alleging the two year old child made a statement that Mr Zak had sexually abused the child. Ms O’Driscoll did not deliver the two year old child to the February 11, 2021 parenting time with Mr Zak. Mr Zak brought an application against Ms O’Driscoll for contempt of the February 8, 2021 order."
​

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=1

 

[Seattle1]

To be clear, this is one more appeal by JOZ that was not decided in her favor.

And not because the Courts are corrupt -- but because JOZ's request was not in the best interest of the children.

Bogus claims by an unstable parent. MOO

 

[Lexiintoronto]

The two abductors are going to have found out about this development somehow, and possibly will hold out until the ruling for the appeal on May 4th. (Speculation on my part, I’m hoping that I’m wrong.)

If that appeal fails, which seems likely, can she then take the case to the SCC? I don’t know what options are available to her after that hearing.

 

[Seattle1]

To be clear, this is one more appeal by JOZ that was not decided in her favor.

And not because the Courts are corrupt -- but because JOZ's request was not in the best interest of the children.

Bogus claims by an unstable parent. MOO

ETA: From the Appeal decision (stay order):

[11] On February 18 and 25, 2021, further case management meetings were held to address Mr Zak’s contempt application and the ongoing RCMP investigation. Ultimately, all issues were adjourned to a case management meeting on March 12, 2021.

[12] Included in the materials filed by the parties on the within application, is Exhibit “M” attached to Ms O’Driscoll’s March 16, 2021 affidavit, described as correspondence from an RCMP police officer (dated March 10, 2021) stating, in part: “In this case no information was provided by either child to indicate any forms of abuse. With no additional corroborative information we do not have any concerns at this time for the childrens [sic] safety with the father”. Exhibit “F” attached to Mr Zak’s March 30, 2021 affidavit, appears to be a communication dated March 11, 2021 from the same police officer to Mr Zak, stating in part: “A letter was forward [sic] to the courts at this time as both interviews have been done and no concerns at this time around safety. At no time during the statements did [the children] disclose any concerns or physical or sexual abuse”.


[31] Once again, I will not repeat in detail Mr Zak’s evidence or argument. In brief, Mr Zak opposes the stay application on the basis it would be an inappropriate equitable remedy as “it is clear that Ms. O’Driscoll does not appear before this court with clean hands”, has a history of interfering with his parenting time and engaging in parental alienation, and has been found in contempt on prior occasions. Mr Zak stresses the children’s whereabouts continue to be unknown; thus, “[t]he application for a stay, while the children’s whereabout are unknown, raises the question of whether Ms. O’Driscoll is seeking a stay prior to the children being returned from the ‘abduction’”.

 

[otto]

To be clear, this is one more appeal by JOZ that was not decided in her favor.

And not because the Courts are corrupt -- but because JOZ's request was not in the best interest of the children.

Bogus claims by an unstable parent. MOO

Exactly, which again raises the question of whether the grandmother and aunt could realistically hold the belief that they were rescuing the children. The abductors ought to be aware of documented interference by the mother regarding the rights of the children. It is not their right to disobey court orders on the basis that they do not like the rulings. I suspect that abduction on the basis of "rescuing" the children will not be entertained by the prosecutor.

 

[otto]

Interesting choice of words: "excuse." The lawyer was providing an "excuse" rather than an "explanation."

"Ms O’Driscoll’s counsel submitted the sexual misconduct allegation was a reasonable excuse for Ms O’Driscoll not to comply with the February 8, 2021 order."
​

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=1

"There is a difference between an excuse and an explanation. An explanation is designed to give someone all of the facts, and lay out the cause for something. An excuse is designed to push the fault for that thing away from oneself."(link)​

 

[MistyWaters]

The two abductors are going to have found out about this development somehow, and possibly will hold out until the ruling for the appeal on May 4th. (Speculation on my part, I’m hoping that I’m wrong.)

If that appeal fails, which seems likely, can she then take the case to the SCC? I don’t know what options are available to her after that hearing.

Just my opinion.....prior to March 12th the temporary custody order had expired so technically nobody had legal custody of the two children. So if the stay of the March 12th order giving the father full custody had been granted the grandmother and aunt might’ve avoided abduction charges. The next appeal to attempt to recuse the Judge would seem insignificant to me. Just because a Judge is removed from future proceedings doesn’t mean all their prior rulings get tossed.

Even if was taken to the SCC on a technicality, the fact remains neither the grandmother and aunt, nor the mother legally have custody at this time, reaffirmed by the Appeal Court, therefore there can be no legal doubt of the status of the present and ongoing abduction.

The mother claims she doesn’t know where her children are. What a joke. It seems too much of a coincidence JOZ just happened to have planned to continue her battle against her ex in court, her presence required, while her mother and sister were available to hide the children.

JMO

 

[otto]

I find this interesting, but not surprising : lawyer Diann Castle is the lawyer who was acting for the mother at the moment that sole custody was granted to the father. The mother was represented by a different lawyer at the recent hearing.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=1

 

[otto]

It’s just so weird to think the cops would wait to hear if you have an good excuse to commit a criminal offense, usually they leave that to the courts.
Canada is sweet.

The prosecutor will make the decision regarding what charges will be filed, and when they are filed. Given the sensitive nature of child abduction by family members, it's perhaps best that nothing is done to aggravate the situation.

The RCMP Major Crimes unit is looking for the children across Canada. The absence of arrest warrants at this time does not mean that the courts will decide whether charges will be filed. It doesn't work like that in Canada.

 

[Seattle1]

I find this interesting, but not surprising : lawyer Diann Castle is the lawyer who was acting for the mother at the moment that sole custody was granted to the father. The mother was represented by a different lawyer at the recent hearing.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=1

Yes, JOZ terminated her attorney in December-- hiring Pritchett Ms. Miller that insinuated false information about the case manager well knowing the facts!

Not surprised Castle noted as acting counsel on stay order.

 

[otto]

I suspect that it was obvious to everyone here that this (bold below) was nothing more than lawyers stuffing their pockets while telling the mother whatever she wanted to hear. The mother had another day in court, and nothing has changed.

Similarly, the eleventh-hour sexual abuse allegation against the father, reported only to RCMP, was nothing more than a familiar, decades old, custody-dispute mudslinging tactic.

"Castle said the case is one of the most unique she’s seen in her 32-year career, noting “everything on this file stinks.” The girls’ mother is requesting a stay of the March 12 custody decision and recusal of the judge who rendered the judgment, stating “due process has not been followed.”
​

04/02/2021
'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance

 

[MistyWaters]

I find this interesting, but not surprising : lawyer Diann Castle is the lawyer who was acting for the mother at the moment that sole custody was granted to the father. The mother was represented by a different lawyer at the recent hearing.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca131/2021abca131.html?resultIndex=1

Very interesting, good eye. Yes indeed according to the recent appeal document a different lawyer appeared on Apr 7th on behalf of the “Applicant”.

For some odd reason I can’t find that lawyer’s name - T.J. Klem - listed within the Law Society of Alberta.

Law Society of Alberta

 

[otto]

Yes, JOZ terminated her attorney in December-- hiring Pritchett that insinuated false information about the case manager well knowing the facts!

Not surprised Castle noted as acting counsel on stay order.

I feel for the mother, as it seems that she lacked competent legal advice during the past year. My impression, and it's just an opinion, is that she was sucked into drama-queen emotional dysfunction that some lawyer enjoys. For all we know, the lawyer has some history in a psychiatric ward - perhaps the mother should ask each of her lawyers for an honest answer to that question, and choose wisely regarding legal counsel going forward.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, JOZ terminated her attorney in December-- hiring Pritchett that insinuated false information about the case manager well knowing the facts!

Not surprised Castle noted as acting counsel on stay order.

I think it’s Pritchett who has represented the father throughout but how the names are listed depends on who’s the Respondent and who’s the Applicant during the various hearings.

The mother is the Applicant in the April appeal.