THE TRIAL IS OVER— NOW LET’S LOOK AT WHAT THE RECORD ACTUALLY SHOWS”

It has been quite some time since I have provided an update here, and a great deal has happened.

The Family Court trial is now over. A Decision has been issued, and I am now appealing to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal as a self-represented Appellant.

Those of you who have followed this petition from the beginning will know that my purpose has always been bigger than simply winning a property dispute.

I started this petition because I believed our legal system could itself be used as a weapon — particularly against people who do not have the financial resources to continuously hire lawyers.

What has happened since my last updates has only made me more determined that the actual record should be examined.

One of the most important developments concerns the RCMP records.

Before trial I had been trying to obtain police material that I believed was important to my case. An Order for Production was eventually made.

But those records had still not arrived when RCMP Cst. Clarke first testified during the October 2024 portion of my trial.

When the material was eventually produced, it included something I had not previously known existed:

an RCMP General Occurrence Report dated October 26, 2010.

That report became relevant to evidence involving people who later testified at my Family Court trial.

Think about the practical problem this creates.

I was representing myself.

The trial had already begun.

Witnesses had already testified.

And I was suddenly required to understand newly produced police material, compare it against earlier evidence, determine which witnesses it affected, and try to put that evidence before the Court while the trial was still underway.

That is now one of the matters I am asking the Court of Appeal to examine.

But I want to be very clear about something.

I am no longer asking anyone reading this page simply to take my word for what happened.

The trial created a record.

There are affidavits.

There are exhibits.

There are RCMP records.

There are court Orders.

And, importantly, I am now obtaining the professional trial transcripts.

Those transcripts matter enormously because they allow us to compare what witnesses actually said under oath with what was ultimately recorded and relied upon in the Decision.

Another issue involves the alleged 2003 separation agreement and handwritten 2004 “prenup.”

I denied signing these documents and challenged their authenticity.

But there is another part of the 2004 history that I believe deserves careful attention.

During that same period Cathy and I went to a professional law firm and had estate-planning documents prepared — including wills, powers of attorney and related documents.

I am not saying that the existence of those documents, standing alone, proves that another document was forged.

What I am saying is that the entire documentary history needs to be looked at together: the professionally prepared documents, the disputed documents, our testimony, the cross-examinations, and the fact that Cathy and I continued our relationship for approximately another 17 years.

There is also the January 2, 2021 incident that started so much of what followed.

I was arrested that night.

The criminal proceeding ultimately resolved by peace bond rather than an adjudication of guilt.

Yet the allegations surrounding that evening became extremely important in the Family Court proceeding and in the findings subsequently made against me.

Again, I am asking that the actual evidence be examined carefully.

There is now another important development.

I have an active public-complaint matter involving the RCMP. I recently provided the investigator with a detailed investigation brief setting out the records, disclosure history and questions I believe require investigation.

That RCMP/CRCC process is separate from my Court of Appeal case.

I don't want anyone confusing the two.

The Court of Appeal will determine whether there were reviewable errors in the Family Court proceeding.

The RCMP/CRCC process deals separately with questions concerning police conduct, records, investigation and disclosure.

WHY I AM MAKING THIS PUBLIC

When I began this Change.org petition, I wrote about the weaponization of our legal system and coercive control.

Today I can explain the problem more precisely.

Imagine being a senior citizen representing yourself in a case involving thousands of pages of documents, numerous witnesses, police evidence, competing allegations of family violence, property accumulated over a 27-year relationship, and enormously consequential credibility findings.

Then imagine important police records arriving after your trial has already begun.

How is an ordinary person supposed to manage that?

How does a self-represented litigant investigate it, understand it, cross-examine witnesses about it, locate contradictory evidence, and make the appropriate legal arguments — all while the trial clock keeps running?

That is an access-to-justice issue.

And it does not affect only me.

I AM NOW TAKING THE RECORD TO THE PUBLIC

I have begun providing responsible news organizations with a short media release and a more detailed public background document.

I am also making the underlying court materials available for independent verification where appropriate.

I don't want journalists to simply repeat my allegations.

I want them to investigate the documents.

I want them to compare the police records with the testimony.

I want them to compare the transcripts with the Decision.

I want them to examine what happens when evidence arrives late in a complicated trial involving someone who does not have a team of lawyers.

And where I have made an allegation that the evidence does not support, I expect the record to reveal that too.

That is what transparency means.

This appeal is ongoing, and I will continue updating this page as the professional transcripts arrive and as the Court of Appeal process develops.

For those who have followed this story from the beginning, thank you.

But I am asking something different from you now.

Don't simply believe me. Help me insist that the record be examined.

Share this update.

Share this petition.

Encourage journalists, lawyers, researchers and organizations concerned about access to justice and self-represented litigants to look at what happened.

Because an open justice system should be capable of withstanding something very simple:

someone reading the record.