Barbara Sawatsky who testified during the first half of our Trial in 2024, was a “hostile witness”.  She is not a credible person, and this can be determined not only in her testimony under oath (see below), but in other aspects of her life.

The photo above shows Barbara Sawatsky being interviewed for a CBC article concerning discrimination against women fire fighters (article here), that quotes her as saying: 

Sawatsky said she was also the subject of a staff complaint that ended up before the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission -- a process that didn't go well. She said she was eventually terminated by the fire service.

She was also interviewed by CTV (article here)she is quoted as saying: 

In retaliation, male firefighters created complaints against her, Sawatsky said. 

So she went from one article stating: “a staff complaint”, to the other article where she is quoted as stating:  “male firefighters created complaints” that had her terminated from the Fire Department.  Note, she does not name the individuals who complained, and so leaving all other men in the Department suspect to her allegations.  This is who Ms. Sawatsky’s is— an opportunist who rides on the coattails of other women who had been wronged!

During Trial: May Ocean vs. Cathy Bennett, Barb Sawatsky’s  testimony while under oath, exposes her contradictions that clearly indicates her allegations of abuse as false.  Ms. Sawatsky first testified that she saw me “boot” Cathy Bennett.  I  then question Ms. Sawatsky as to the validity of her statement, by specifically asking her if she had then called the police, to which Barb responded with “No”.  I then asked Ms.Sawatsky why she hadn’t called the police, to which she then testified with: 

 “Because it has happened to Cathy so many times, and you’ve told us so many times, don’t worry about Cathy, Cathy can handle me”.  

Later while Ms. Sawatsky was still under oath and while undergoing cross examined by Ms. Jennifer Reid (lawyer for Cathy Bennett), she asks Ms. Sawatsky if there were any other incidences where she saw Ms. Ocean (me) be physically violent with Ms. Bennett, to which Ms. Sawatsky replied with: 

 “No”.

This is no little matter.  Barb Sawatsky goes from testifying that I abused Cathy “so many times”, to then stating “No” when asked by Ms. Reid if she had witnessed any other abuse by me against Ms. Bennett.  Barb Sawatsky is a liar who cannot get her story straight.  

In the hands of ruthless individuals, our very LAWS can be distorted and used as weapons, and this has gone on so long, that “WEAPONIZING OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM”, has become a common catch-phrase?

In the case of Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303, the Supreme Court of Ontario created a novel tort of family violence to compensate the victim for violence suffered during the relationship, whereby Ms. Ahluwalia was awarded $150,000.00 (this was Appealed, resulting in the award being reduced to $100,000.00 based on existing Tort Laws already fully in place).  

As can be seen by the amount allotted—$100,000.00 (after Appeal), this provides motive for perpetrators of violence to enlist co-conspirator(s) who will help “set the stage” to extort money from the victim— what is being done to me NOW! Over the 27 years of our relationship, Cathy and I accumulated about $1,700,000.00 worth of property and assets, and so the play is being made to gain unlawful leverage to deny me my fair portion in property settlement.  It should be noted as well, that most of our property gain occurred during the time I had a striving business that employed up to 25 people, while Cathy and her son had been living in poverty before I came into the picture.  

Cathy has brought forward the Tort of Family Violence based on lies.  

In Family Court, the Judge does not have the same strict guidelines as a Criminal Trial Judge when it comes to determining criminal intent.  The Family Court judge only needs to feel it reasonable that violence had occurred.  

Credible Witnesses then are integral to the Decision process. 

Also, keep in mind that Judges are human and so can be biased— this was proved in Nova Scotia’s hot debate over the biased Decision of Justice Sparks, who although I happen to agree with her biased decision in her case, it still remains to be said that Judges can and do make biased Decisions that higher courts uphold.  The question then becomes, is the Judges bias truly just.  

BY THE WAY, ANYONE CAN COME TO THE FAMILY COURTHOUSE ON DEVONSHIRE AVENUE TO ORDER A COMPLETE AUDIO RECORDING OF THE TRIAL (FOR ABOUT $25.00).  THIS WOULD BE ONE WAY TO NOT ONLY VERIFY WHAT I  SAY, BUT IF ENOUGH PEOPLE DO THIS, IT WILL SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE .