The Honourable Madam Justice V. Jennifer Mackinnon (Family Court Branch)


Firstly, you need to know that she very rarely makes any decision in favour of a father. 

Justice Jennifer Mackinnon of Ottawa Family Court typically resorts to doing indirectly what she cannot do directly. For example, she will "strike pleadings in their entirety" and even resort to placing the court file in her office to prevent a litigant from filing or viewing the court file. 

Justice Jennifer Mackinnon has a charismatic approach that often convincingly provides casual court visitors and first time litigants with an illusion that Justice Jennifer Mackinnon is a wise, intelligent, fair and decent judge.

Justice Jennifer Mackinnon uses her intelligence to dupe litigants, lawyers and readers of her decisions that she makes some of the best non-appealable decisions around. Yes, he reasons for decisions sound wonderful but frequently are nothing more than a complete fabrication and contracdiction of what actually happened in court.

Justice Jennifer Mackinnon will when it suits her ignore specialists reports for obscure reasons in what can only be called blatant use of the process of justification.

Justice Jennifer Mackinnon is exceptionally good at one thing, and that is, "giving a reasonable perception of impartiality". Bear in mind, its only a "perception" that has no relationship with any form of "real impartiality".

You are looking at a smiling, articulate, judge who who demonstrates a pathological hatred towards fathers and operates by flagrantly abusing the her fiduciary duty towards objectivity.

It simply does not matter what sort of evidence she is presented with, Justice Mackinnon is going to engage in the good old "process of justification" to give a woman anything she wants within the limits of ensuring that her decision is "appeal proof" which can include making sure the cost penalties impoverish a father so he can never come to court again.

If you have this judge, absent some exceptional tactics and legal skill, the odds are not good.

This is a judge with a reputation for deciding against very good evidence presented by fathers, her reputation means that informed fathers just give up and take what ever is offered.

She is best described as a professional abuser.

Read the case R. v. Lippé, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114

Lamer C.J. wrote in Lippé, supra, at p. 139:

The overall objective of guaranteeing judicial independence is to ensure a reasonable perception of impartiality; judicial independence is but a "means" to this "end". If judges could be perceived as "impartial" without judicial "independence", the requirement of "independence" would be unnecessary. However, judicial independence is critical to the public's perception of impartiality. Independence is the cornerstone, a necessary prerequisite, for judicial impartiality.