OTTAWA MEN'S CENTRE
Madam Justice Lynn D. Ratushny
Ottawa Superior Court Family Division
The Honourable Madam Lynn D. Ratushny
Next to Ottawa's most bitter divorced female Judge Aitken, Justice Ratushny is perhaps the next name on the list of judges that you don't want to have, if you are a male that is.
Ratushny is Judicially Corrupt, that means she will make decisions for her friends, preferably female lawyers with female clients.
Ratushny is like Jennifer Blishen, Allan Sheffield and Denis Power in that Madam Justice Lynn D. Ratushny will "hear a motion" that has been served on short notice, previously litigated, and she will hear a motion on an emergency basis when another judge has ruled that it was not an emergency.
If that is not enough to revolt you then read this.
Ratushny will make orders for expensive assessments without a scintilla of evidence for their necessity even when other judges said it was not necessary and when even the children's lawyer refused to be involved.
Ratushny, like Allan Sheffield a judge who very coincidently appears to hear a motion when on the face of the motion material, a mentally ill violent mother does not have a hope in hell of success and provides the most incredibly deficient motion materials. The mother's motion materials are basically, I'm a woman, here is a work of fiction and here is a list of orders I want you to make.
Ratushny starts with the usual underbelly dirty tricks, that's when she knows the father is short served, or was not served, or without a lawyer, or without time to respond, proceeds to hear a motion WITHOUT giving the father any time to ask for an adjournment. If he attempts to speak, underbelly judges like Ratushny will simply tell them to sit down or leave the courtroom.
Justice Ratushny was chosen for the judiciary because she was an extreme feminist and a guaranteed sure thing to make decisions in favour of woman. She is a classic example of the woman with a pathological hatred of men and who should not be placed in any level of trust in society.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely and Ratushney is just another judge who has earned herself a high place on the list of the Underbelly of the Ontario Judiciary.
If you have had Madam Justice Lynn D. Ratushny, make a decision in your matter, would you please send us a pdf copy.
Note: On February 24, 2012 a father Peter Roscoe attempted to ask for leave when leave for the same issue had been previously denied by Justice Warkentin.
Ratushny failed to deal with the issue of his request to rescind an order of Justice Denis Power that required, he pay an impossible amount of money BEFORE he could seek leave.
Ratushny like every lawyer and judge in Ottawa knows that Justice Power makes bizarre illegal and improper decisions by way of orders requiring the payment of costs before seeking leave to bring any further application.
Roscoe was self represented and Ratushny based her decision on the fact that Roscoe failed to provide "proof" that he had paid all the amounts ordered.
The decision notes that the Respondent did not attend and it appears did not file any responding documents or in fact, deny that the amounts were paid.
Ratushny most probably was well aware that the amounts had been paid due to the notorious litigation concerning the home he owned that was taken from him in what can only be called "mortgage fraud", condoned by the Judiciary of Ottawa.
In sum, Ratushny Knew that her refusal would amount to a permanent ban of all future proceedings, "an absolute ban" until he pays the outstanding costs and support etc, that Ratushny knew that he had paid and could not pay twice.
Odds are also that it was impossible for Roscoe to provide proof that the amounts were paid. Ratushny ignored the fact that the respondent did not deny that the amounts were paid.
Ratushny like most Ottawa Judges has a record of denying fathers the most limited access and has never been known to order spousal support to be paid by a woman to a man.
Ratushny has a long reputation for injustice and of being a father hating judge who leaves a trail of destroyed lives of children and fathers.
To quote Justice Gray; ( Bank of Montreal v. Cudini, 2013 ONSC 482 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fvrz1>)
 Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act is the response of the legislature to this concern. It permits the Court to control, but not absolutely bar, access to the courts where abuse is likely to occur.
 Counsel for the Bank, in addition, requests an order prohibiting Ms. Cudini from bringing any proceedings, including proceedings requesting leave, unless and until she pays all of the outstanding costs orders against her. He relies in this respect on the decision of Lederman J. in Hainsworth, supra. The effect of such an order would be to absolutely bar any proceedings by Ms. Cudini unless and until she paid the outstanding costs orders.
 I am not prepared to make that order. In my view, the order that I have made, which requires a pre-screening of any action, application or motion by a judge on an ex parte basis, is sufficient. In this respect, I prefer the reasoning of Nordheimer J. in Chavali v. Law Society of Upper Canada,  O.J. No. 2036 (S.C.J.), at paras. 20-22.
Roscoe v. Roscoe, 2012 ONSC 1304 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fqbxg>
Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
Frederick Douglass, American anti-slavery reformer (1818-1895)