Nanc gives to other women

Nanc Rick will be presenting a donation to Bobbi Jacobs of the Ann Davis Society on Monday, April 19 at 10am. The address is 9475 Williams St. in Chilliwack.

Ms Rick recently won a landmark family law case (Rick v Brandsema) at the Supreme Court of Canada. Rick is most commonly cited for its discussion of the importance of meaningful legal advice in spousal negotiations, its emphasis on the duty to make full and honest disclosure, and its call for deference to findings by trial judges, including conclusions about vulnerability and exploitation in the family setting.

"Another important principle established in this case," says West Coast LEAF (Legal Education And Action Fund, an intervenor in Rick) Executive Director Alison Brewin, "is a firm statement that getting legal advice does not automatically mean both parties are equal. The Supreme Court recognized that having some legal advice does not ensure a fair agreement. Too often, women in BC can only access a few hours of legal representation. If the Court of Appeal decision had stood, imagine what it might have meant for women trying to challenge an unfair agreement."

Finally, her eight year battle won, Ms Rick desires to give further assistance to women in situations like hers. She has chosen the Ann Davis Society of Chilliwack as a worthy recipient of funds that will make a real difference in some women’s lives.

Members of the public and the press are welcome to the presentation and Ms Rick will be available for comment.

Our thanks to all!

Nanc and I would like to wish everyone who has read this blog and stood by us throughout this ordeal a MERRY CHRISTMAS! (and other holidays!) We know that you are many and diverse. We thank you with all our hearts. We hope that our efforts, and those who helped us, will make life a little better for some.

Churchill WAS right when he said: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Good Luck to all those who stand up for what is right, put everything on the line, and move the stakes a little further down the road to a truly just and civilized society....

and kick some narcissistic sociopaths in the ass!

FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS ALL OVER...

This nightmare continues, but Nanc won again today. Meanwhile, the abuser bought two farms this year. Who came out ahead? Thank God for the wisdom of the Justices on the SCC, or Nanc would have had nothing but her scars.

FROM THE SCC

MOTION FOR RE-HEARING / DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE AUDITION :

32098 Nancy Rick, also known as Nanc Rick v. Berend Brandsema, also known as Ben Brandsema, and Brandy Farms Inc. - and - Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (B.C.)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

The motion for an extension of time is dismissed. Had the motion for an extension of time been granted, the respondents’ application for a rehearing on the issue of costs and for an order that the trial judge’s order on costs be restored would have been dismissed. The appellant is entitled to her costs of the motions.

IT'S A WIN!

Nanc WON!!!
We are very happy with the outcome. This does allow Nanc to close a long, dark chapter in her life. It does clearly state the duty of full disclosure (you mean it wasn’t before???). It does clearly state that one spouse cannot create vulnerabilities in their partner and then take advantage of them (again, this wasn’t clear before???).
We think, however, that the decision begs a couple of further questions:

1. OK, the husband hid money and misrepresented values to defraud his wife. His “penalty” is then to repay the amount he owed in the first place. Um, where is the disincentive to keep doing this? The SCC has just said that it is still worth trying to do these things! If you do get caught, the worst case scenario is that you will have to pay the rest of what you owe! If you pull that in a commercial negotiation (selling a product or business, etc,) you will be charged with fraud and go to jail, or at least pay hefty fines. In this case, it is more akin to ENRON, Conrad Black, etc. Nanc was a full partner in the businesses and had done more than her fair share to build it up over the years. Now the ex gets the full ongoing benefits of her efforts for a minimal one time cost. Why are the rules different when a spouse is the shareholder being defrauded rather than public shareholders or partners? Is this really the public policy message that the SCC and legislators want to send?

2. It is clear from the media reports that most reporters did not ask the questions, “what does the judge mean by ‘mental instability’? What particular ‘mental disability’ was present in this case? Where did it come from?” The answers will surprise most readers of the media stories: Nanc has PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome). Yes, the same mental instability that some soldiers suffer from following prolonged and intense life threatening combat. Her therapist (an expert in PTSD that treats police officers and other emergency personnel) called it the worst case he had ever personally seen. Where did she get it?

DECISION TIME!!!

The decision will be posted tomorrow at 10:45am on the SCC website.

A door will close upon the past for Nanc. This has been a devastating experience for her, and less so for me, as well. There is no putting the past behind while something like this is going on. We are both ready for the end - and the beginning of a new life. Nanc's great concern at this time is that the SCC recognise the human rights issues underlying her personal story, and provide some protection for the spouses who come after her.

May there be an end to the inequity!

IT IS ALL OVER EXCEPT THE JUDGEMENT!

We have been heard!

Nanc's case was heard by seven supreme court justices on October 14, 2008. We had an hour to present, LEAF then had ten minutes for their oral submission. There was a fifteen minute break, then the other side had an hour. The justices asked questions throughout, and we adjourned at 12:30 with judgement reserved.

Our case was simple, the trial judge ( Justice Slade) found that the separation agreement was unconscionable, that Nanc was exceptionally vulnerable due to the circumstances testified to in the trial and incapable of making rational decisions during the negotiations. Additionally, her ex-husband had hidden large amounts of cash and grossly undervalued the family assets in his sworn financial statements. Now, in business law that would constitute fraud and charges would have been laid by the crown. In this case, he gets a pass because he was married to his victim, or maybe it was because she was just a woman?- go figure!?

Nanc was represented by Jack Hittrich, Philip Epstein and Janette Kovacs. Nitya Iyer and Joanna Radbord appeared for LEAF.

LEAF developed an oustanding factum that broadened the issues in Nanc's case to include everyone involved in a dissolution of marriage, particularly women, as they tend to be disproportionally victimised by our antiquated laws and process. They founded their arguments solidly on the Charter, moving the case into a human rights arena. The justices will have much to work with on this one.

The fact is that many women of modest means are victimised in much the same way as Nanc was, but none of them have had the will or the resources to fight this far. Certainly, it has taken every resource we could muster over the last 6 years to get to this point. We were fairly well off before, now we are in debt and living with relatives. A friend and coworker of mine asked me just before we left, "why don't you just settle? Take the money and call it a day?" I thought about that while we were in Ottawa, and when I saw him at work this morning, I gave him this answer:
We must each answer to the line of our ancestors, who cry out, "make my life have meaning!" We must answer to our inheritors, who cry out, "create a world that we can believe in!" We must raise our eyes from our feet, trodding this path of life, to the horizon and the sky above, and realise that we are creating the future now, today, with every choice that we make. To do, or to do nothing, these are our choices.

7 Days to Ottawa and the SCC!

It has been a while since we posted, mainly because we have just been waiting. We have our tickets to Ottawa now. By this time next week, we will be digesting the SCC proceedings with our lawyers...and it will all be over except the decision. Six years of battle for me, much longer for Nanc.
LEAF has prepared a great brief on how Nanc's case applies to all people in similar circumstances. It has a strong foundation in the Charter, and speaks to human rights and equality before the law. That is what this case is really all about.
We'll post again soon.

Hearing date changed

The SCC hearing date has moved to October 14, 2008, but is still listed as tentative.

LEAF granted leave to intervene!

LEAF has been granted leave to intervene!!! Here is what they have to say about the case:

Some of the issues of importance in Rick v. Brandsema for LEAF and West
Coast LEAF include:
􀁺 a women's consistent disadvantage and inequitable results in family
law settlement agreements - leading to barriers of women's economic
independence and survival;
􀁺 serious and unique challenges for rural farm wives;
􀁺 advancing equality analysis in an area of law which has enormous
effects on women and children;
􀁺 re-defining the understanding and reviewing the value processes of
negotiation-based resolutions in family law; and
􀁺 women, mental illness and family law
This case offers opportunity to influence and advance family law and
thereby women's economic potential.