Ottawa Men's Centre

 

Peter Roscoe's Research

 

 

 

                             Gender Bias in Family Law at the

                 Court of Appeal Ontario 2007

 

      Peter Karl Roscoe

 

    Apr 2006, Revised Sept 2007

 

 

 

      Part I                  Judicial Decisions on Family Law Cases

 

 

 

 

In this section family law decisions have been evaluated for individual appellate judges. Appeal issues have been classified into 7 general family categories. A single appeal may involve more than one issue and therefore receive multiple entries. It may also involve cross appeals by the opposing spouse. Costs refers to costs of the appeal. If costs of lower court rulings are a primary appeal issue they have been included in the category of other. Since the costs of the appeal represents a secondary discretionary ruling by the court, it has been given extended analysis in both magnitude and application. Summaries of the data can be found on pages 28. A full listing of the cases and decisions are given in appendixes A1 to A26 starting on page 58.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For Justice Abella, 53 family cases were available, and 51 of them had data on cost penalties. 21 appeals were innitiated by females and 32 appeals by males. 4 cross appeals were brought by women and 3 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A1. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     2

     6

     1

     11

     12

          6

    18

    51

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      0

      1

          1

     3

     6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     5

     1

     0

     10

      6

          7

     7

     51

Number of Female Wins

     2

     1

     0

      9

      6

          5

     3

     32

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     0.0

      0.0

     8.3

       16.7

  16.7

   11.7

% Chance of Female Win

   40.0

 100.0

     NA

    90.0

   100.0

       71.4

  42.8

   62.7

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (58/87 x 100) 66.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (11/107 x 100) 10.2 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Abella on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (26/36 x 100) 72.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (5/56 x 100) 8.9 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 11.7 % in favor of men, 62.7 % in favor of females and divided 25.6 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 66.7 – 10.2 = 56.5 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 72.2 – 8.9 = 63.3 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 62.7 – 11.7 = 51.0 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 66.7 / 10.2 = 6.5

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 66.7 + 10.2) / 2 = 76.9 / 2 = 38.5 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Feldman 52 family cases were available, and 51 of them had data on cost penalties. 23 appeals  were innitiated by women and 29 by men. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A2. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     7

     5

     0

     10

      5

         11

    13

    51

Number of Male Wins

     0

     2

     0

       3

      1

          2

     4

     6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     0

     1

      8

      6

          5

     6

     51

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     1

      8

      5

          2

     4

     36

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

   40.0

     NA

    30.0

    20.0

       18.2

  30.7

   11.7

% Chance of Female Win

   50.0

    NA

   100.0

   100.0

    83.3

       40.0

  63.6

   70.5

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (57/78 x 100) 73.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (18/102 x 100) 17.6 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Feldman on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (21/27 x 100) 77.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (12/51 x 100) 23.5 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 11.6 % in favor of men, 70.5 % in favor of females and divided 17.9 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 73.0 – 17.6  = 55.4 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 77.8 – 23.5 = 54.3 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 70.5 – 11.6 = 58.9 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 73.0 / 17.6 = 4.1

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 73.0 + 17.6) / 2 = 90.6 / 2 = 45.3 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Charron, 48 family cases were available, and 44 of them had data on cost penalties. 12 appeals were innitiated by females and 36 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A3. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     3

     2

     0

     15

      9

          9

    18

    44

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      1

      0

          3

     2

     6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     0

     1

      3

      1

          2

     7

     44

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     1

      2

      1

          2

     5

     35

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     NA

      6.7

      0.0

       33.3

  11.1

   13.6

% Chance of Female Win

  100.0

    NA

   100.0

    66.7

  100.0

      100.0

  71.4

   79.5

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (50/62 x 100) 80.6 % chance of winning, and a man has a (12/99 x 100) 12.1 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Charron on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (12/15 x 100) 80.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (6/56 x 100) 10.7 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 13.6 % in favor of men, 79.5 % in favor of females and divided 6.8 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 80.6 – 12.1 = 68.5 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 80.0 – 10.7 = 69.3 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins =79.5 – 10.7 = 68.3 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 80.6 / 12.1 = 6.7

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 80.6 + 12.1) / 2 = 92.7 / 2 = 46.4 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Simmons 46 family cases were available, and all of them had data on cost penalties. 14 appeals were innitiated by females and 32 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A4. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     5

     4

     1

     12

      6

          7

    17

    46

Number of Male Wins

     0

     2

     0

      4

      3

          2

     7

     7

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     1

     2

      3

      3

          1

     9

     46

Number of Female Wins

     1

     1

     1

      1

      2

          0

     3

     21

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

   50.0

     0.0

     33.3

     33.3

        28.6

   11.8

  15.2

% Chance of Female Win

 100.0

 100.0

   50.0

     33.3

     66.7

         0.0

   33.3

  45.6

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (30/66 x 100) 45.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (25/101x 100) 24.7 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Simmons on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (9/20 x 100) 45.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (18/52 x 100) 34.6 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 15.2 % in favor of men, 45.6 % in favor of females and divided 39.1 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 45.8 – 24.7 = 20.8 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 45.0 – 34.6 = 10.4 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 45.6 – 15.2 = 30.4 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 45.8 / 24.7 = 1.9

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 45.8 + 24.7) / 2 = 70.5 / 2 = 35.3 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Lang 35 family cases were available, and 30 of them had data on cost penalties. 13 appeals were innitiated by females and 22 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A6. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     4

     2

     0

      7

      8

          6

    13

    30

Number of Male Wins

     1

     0

     0

      1

      0

          2

     3

     3

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     0

     0

      6

      3

          2

     7

     30

Number of Female Wins

     0

     0

     0

      4

      2

          2

     3

     20

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

   25.0

    0.0

     NA

    14.2

     0.0

       33.3

  23.0

   10.0

% Chance of Female Win

     0.0

    NA

     NA

    66.7

    66.7

      100.0

  52.9

   66.7

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (31/49 x 100) 63.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/70 x100) 14.7 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Lang on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (11/17 x 100) 64.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (7/40 x 100) 17.5 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 10.0 % in favor of men, 66.7 % in favor of females and divided 22.3 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 63.2 – 14.7 = 48.5 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 64.7 – 17.5 = 47.2 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 66.7 – 17.5 = 49.2 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins – 63.2 / 14.7 = 4.3

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 63.2 + 14.7 ) / 2 = 77.9 / 2 = 39.0 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Weiler 50 family cases were available, and 46 of them had data on cost penalties. 17 appeals were innitiated by females and 33 appeals by males. 5 cross appeals were brought by women and 3 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A6. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     5

     2

     1

     15

     13

         11

   16

    46

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      3

      3

          5

    4

     1

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     0

     2

      8

      6

          3

    7

     46

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     1

      7

      4

          3

    4

     32

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

      0.0

    20.0

    27.3

       45.4

  25.0

    2.2

% Chance of Female Win

   50.0

    NA

    50.0

   100.0

    71.4

      100.0

  57.1

   69.6

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (51/72 x 100) 70.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/143 x 100) 14.4 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Weiler on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (20/26 x 100) 76.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/63 x 100) 23.8 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 2.2 % in favor of men, 69.6 % in favor of females and divided 28.2 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 70.8 – 14.4 = 56.4 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 76.9 – 23.8 = 53.1 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 69.6 – 2.2 = 67.4 %

 

 

 

Female to Male Wins = 70.8 / 14.4 = 4.9

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 70.8 + 14.4) / 2 = 85.2 / 2 = 42.6 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice McMurtry 38 family cases were available, and 37 of them had data on cost penalties. 12 appeals were innitiated by females and 26 appeals by males. 4 cross appeals were brought by women and 1 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A7 A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     4

     5

     2

      8

      5

          7

    18

     37

Number of Male Wins

     0

     1

     1

      2

      2

          2

     7

      6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     0

     1

      8

      0

          4

     7

     37

Number of Female Wins

     0

     0

     1

      4

      0

          1

     4

     22

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

   20.0

     50.0

    20.0

    40.0

       28.5

  38.9

   16.2

% Chance of Female Win

  100.0

    NA

   100.0

    50.0

     NA

       25.0

  57.2

   59.5

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (33/58 x 100) 56.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (21/86 x 100) 24.4 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice McMurtry on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (10/21 x 100) 47.6 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/49 x 100) 30.6 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 16.2 % in favor of men, 59.5 % in favor of females and divided 16.5 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 56.9 – 24.4 = 32.5 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 47.6 – 30.6 = 17.0 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 59.5 – 16.2 = 43.4 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 56.9 / 24.4 = 2.3

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 59.6 + 24.4) / 2 = 84.0 / 2 = 42.0 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice O’Connor 27 family cases were available, and all of them had data on cost penalties. 10 appeals were innitiated by females and 17 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A8 A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     3

     1

     1

      3

     11

          5

     5

     27

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     1

      0

      4

          2

     0

      6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     0

     0

      3

      2

          2

     6

     27

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     0

      3

      2

          1

     2

     14

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

     0.0

   100.0

      0.0

    36.3

       40.0

   0.0

   22.2

% Chance of Female Win

 100.0

    NA

     NA

   100.0

   100.0

       50.0

  33.3

   51.9

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (23/41 x 100) 56.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (13/56 x 100) 23.2  % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice O’Connor on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (9/14 x 100) 64.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (7/29 x 100) 24.1 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 22.2 % in favor of men, 51.9 % in favor of females and divided 25.9 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 56.1 – 23.2 = 32.9 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 64.3 – 24.1 = 40.2 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 51.9 – 22.2 = 29.7 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 56.1 / 23.2 = 2.4

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 56.1 + 23.2) / 2 = 79.3 / 2 = 39.7 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Goudge 62 family cases were available, and 56 of them had data on cost penalties. 22 appeals were innitiated by females and 40 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A9. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     1

     1

     3

     11

     13

         11

    18

    56

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     1

      4

      5

          4

     3

     7

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     4

     2

     1

      7

      0

          5

     8

     56

Number of Female Wins

     3

     2

     1

      6

      0

          4

     6

     34

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

     0.0

     33.3

     36.4

    38.4

        36.4

   16.7

    12.5

% Chance of Female Win

   75.0

 100.0

   100.0

     85.7

     NA

        80.0

   75.0

    60.7

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (57/84 x 100) 67.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (24/114 x 100) 21.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Goudge on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (22/27 x 100) 81.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a (17/58 x 100) 29.3 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 12.5 % in favor of men, 60.7 % in favor of females and divided 26.8 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 67.9 – 21.0 = 46.9 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 81.5 – 29.3 = 52.2 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 60.7 – 12.5 = 48.2

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 67.9 / 21.0 = 3.2

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 67.9 + 21.0) / 2 = 88.9 / 2 = 44.5 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Borins 38 family cases were available, and 35 of them had data on cost penalties. 18 appeals were innitiated by females and 20 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A10. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     2

     2

     1

      6

      6

          6

    10

     35

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      3

      3

          2

     2

     5

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     0

     0

      9

      4

          1

     5

     35

Number of Female Wins

     0

     0

     0

      7

      3

          0

     1

     20

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     0.0

     50.0

     50.0

        33.3

   20.0

   14.3

% Chance of Female Win

     0.0

    NA

     NA

     77.8

     75.0

         0.0

   20.0

   57.1

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (31/56 x 100) 55.4 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/68 x 100) 22.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Borins on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (11/21 x 100) 52.4 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/33 x 100) 30.3 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 14.3 % in favor of men, 57.1 % in favor of females and divided 28.6 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 55.4 – 22.0 = 33.4 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 52.4 – 30.3 = 22.1 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 57.1 – 14.3 = 42.8 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 55.4 / 22.0 = 2.5

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 55.4 + 22.0) / 2 = 77.4 / 2 = 38.7 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Rosenbrg 60 family cases were available, and 56 of them had data on cost penalties. 27 appeals were innitiated by females and 33 appeals by males. 5 cross appeals were brought by women and 3 by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A11. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     4

     3

     2

      9

     13

          8

    16

    56

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      1

      8

          1

     6

      8

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     2

     2

     11

      7

          4

    12

     56

Number of Female Wins

     0

     2

     2

      7

      5

          2

      6

     34

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     0.0

     11.1

     61.5

        12.5

   37.5

   14.3

% Chance of Female Win

     0.0

 100.0

 100.0

     63.6

      71.4

        50.0

   50.0

   60.7

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (58/95 x 100) 61.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (23/106 x 100) 21.7 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Rosenberg on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (24/40 x 100) 60.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (16/55 x 100) 29.1 % chance of winning.  Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 14.3 % in favor of men, 60.7 % in favor of females and divided 25.0 % of the time.

 

 

 

Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 61.0 – 21.7 = 39.3 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 60.0 – 29.1 = 30.9 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 60.7 – 14.3 = 46.4 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 61.0 / 21.7 = 2.8

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 61.0 + 21.7 ) / 2 = 82.7 / 2 = 41.4 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Armstrong 44 family cases were available, and 40 of them had data on cost penalties. 18 appeals were innitiated by females and 26 appeals by males. 1 cross appeals was brought by a woman and 1 by a man The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A12. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     4

     2

     2

      8

      9

          3

     8

    40

Number of Male Wins

     0

     1

     0

      3

      4

          1

     3

     8

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     1

     0

      6

      5

          3

     8

     40

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     0

      3

      3

          2

     4

     21

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

  50.0

     0.0

    37.5

     44.4

        33.3

   37.5

   20.0

% Chance of Female Win

   50.0

    0.0

     NA

    50.0

     60.0

        66.7

   50.0

    52.5

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (34/65 x 100) 52.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (21/76 x 100) 27.6 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Armstrong on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (13/25 x 100) 52.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (12/36 x 100) 33.3 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 13.2 % in favor of men, 52.5 % in favor of females and divided 27.5 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 52.3 – 27.6 = 24.7 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 52.0 – 33.3 = 18.7 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 52.5 – 13.2 = 39.3 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 52.3 / 27.6 = 1.9

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 52.3 + 27.6) / 2 = 79.9 / 2 = 40.0 %

 

 

 

For Justice Moldaver 51 family cases were available, and 48 of them had data on cost penalties. 22 appeals were innitiated by females and 29 appeals by males. 5 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A13. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     4

     3

     1

     11

      6

         12

    13

     48

Number of Male Wins

     0

     1

     0

      2

      1

           3

      3

      4

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     3

     2

     2

     13

      7

          2

     5

      48

Number of Female Wins

     0

     1

     2

       7

      3

          0

     2

      33

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

   33.3

      0.0

     18.2

     16.7

        25.0

   23.0

     8.3

% Chance of Female Win

     0.0

   50.0

   100.0

     53.8

     42.9

          0.0

   40.0

   68.8

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (49/82 x 100) 59.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (14/100 x 100) 14.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Moldaver on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (15/34 x 100) 44.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/50 x 100) 20.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 8.3 % in favor of men, 68.8 % in favor of females and divided 22.9 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 59.7 – 14.0 = 45.7

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 44.1 – 20.0 = 24.1 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 68.8 – 8.3 = 60.5 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 59.7 / 14.0 = 4.3

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 59.7 + 14.0) / 2 = 73.7 / 2 = 36.9 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Macpherson 55 family cases were available, and 53 of them had data on cost penalties. 15 appeals were innitiated by females and 40 appeals by males. 4 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A14. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     3

     2

     2

     14

     13

          7

    24

    53

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     1

      1

      2

          1

     6

     6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     1

     1

      6

      5

          1

    11

     53

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     1

      3

      3

          1

     5

     42

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     50.0

      7.1

     15.4

         14.3

   25.0

   11.3

% Chance of Female Win

 100.0

    0.0

   100.0

     50.0

     60.0

      10 0.0

   45.5

   79.2

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (56/79 x 100) 70.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (17/118 x 100) 14.4 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Macpherson on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (14/26 x 100) 53.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (11/65 x 100) 16.9 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 11.3 % in favor of men, 79.2 % in favor of females and divided 9.5 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 70.9 – 14.4 = 56.5 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 53.8 – 16.9 = 36.9 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 79.2 – 11.3 = 67.9 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 70.9 / 14.4 = 4.9

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 70.9 + 14.4) / 2 = 85.3 / 2 = 42.7 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Gillese 40 family cases were available, and 36 of them had data on cost penalties. 17 appeals were innitiated by females and 23 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and13 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A15. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     2

     2

     1

     10

      9

          3

    13

    36

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      4

      4

          3

      5

     6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     3

     1

      5

      6

          2

     8

     36

Number of Female Wins

     1

     3

     1

      5

      4

          2

     3

     23

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     0.0

     40.0

      0.0

       100.0

    0.0

   16.7

% Chance of Female Win

 100.0

100.0

 100.0

   100.0

     66.7

       100.0

    0.0

   63.9

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (43/63 x 100) 68.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (27/80 x 100) 27.5 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Gilese on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (19/26 x 100) 73.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (24/50 x 100) 48.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 16.7 % in favor of men, 63.9 % in favor of females and divided 19.4 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 68.3 – 27.5 = 40.8 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 73.1 – 48.0 = 25.1 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 63.9 – 16.7 = 47.2 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 68.3 / 27.5 = 2.5

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 68.3 + 27.5) / 2 = 95.8 / 2 = 47.9 %

 

 

 

For Justice Juriansz 32 family cases were available, and 31 of them had data on cost penalties. 13 appeals were innitiated by females and 19 appeals by males. 1 cross appeal was brought by a woman. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A16. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     1

     1

     0

      2

      6

          5

    10

    31

Number of Male Wins

     0

     1

     0

      0

      3

          1

     2

     6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     1

     0

      7

      4

          0

     4

     31

Number of Female Wins

     0

     1

     0

      4

      3

          0

     2

     18

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

 100.0

     NA

      0.0

     50.0

        20.0

    20.0

   19.3

% Chance of Female Win

     0.0

 100.0

     NA

     57.1

     75.0

         NA

   50.0

   58.1

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (28/48 x 100) 58.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (13/56 x 100) 23.2 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Juriansz on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (10/17 x 100) 58.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (7/25 x 100) 28.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 19.3 % in favor of men, 58.1 % in favor of females and divided 22.6 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 58.3 – 23.2 = 35.1%

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 58.8 – 28.0 = 30.8 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 58.1 – 19.3 = 38.8 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 58.3 / 23.2 = 2.5

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 58.3 + 23.2) / 2 = 81.5 / 2 = 40.8 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Blair 35 family cases were available, and 32 of them had data on cost penalties. 13 appeals were innitiated by females and 22 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A 17. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     3

     1

     1

     11

     10

          4

    11

    32

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      2

      1

          0

     2

     5

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     1

     1

      5

      3

          1

     6

     32

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     1

      4

      2

          1

     3

     21

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     0.0

     18.2

     10.0

         0.0

   18.2

    15.6

% Chance of Female Win

    50.0

    0.0

  100.0

     80.0

     66.7

      100.0

   50.0

    65.6

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (32/50 x 100) 64.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/72 x 100) 13.9 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Blair on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (12/19 x 100) 63.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (5/41 x 100) 12.2 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 15.6 % in favor of men, 65.6 % in favor of females and divided 18.8 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 64.0 – 13.9 = 50.1 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 63.2 – 12.2 = 51.0 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 65.6 – 15.6 = 50.0 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 64.0 / 13.9 = 4.6

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 64.0 + 13.9) / 2 = 77.9 / 2 = 39.0 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Sharpe 42 family cases were available, and 39 of them had data on cost penalties. 15 appeals were innitiated by females and 27 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and 1 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A 18. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     4

     2

     3

      7

      6

          7

    13

     39

Number of Male Wins

     0

     1

     0

      2

      1

          2

      3

      6

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     2

     1

     10

      6

          2

     5

     39

Number of Female Wins

     2

     1

     1

       2

      1

          1

     3

     24

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

   50.0

     0.0

     40.0

     16.7

        28.6

   23.0

   15.4

% Chance of Female Win

 100.0

   50.0

 100.0

     20.0

     16.7

        50.0

   60.0

   61.5

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (35 / 66 x 100) 53.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/80 x 100) 18.7 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Sharpe on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (11/28 x 100) 39.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (9/42 x 100) 21.4 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 15.4 % in favor of men, 61.5 % in favor of females and divided 23.1 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 53.0 – 18.7 = 34.3 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 39.2 – 21.4 = 17.8 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 61.5 – 15.4 = 46.1 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 53.0 / 18.7 = 2.8

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 53.0 + 18.7) / 2 = 71.7 / 2 = 35.9 %

 

 

 

For Justice Catzman 48 family cases were available, and 40 of them had data on cost penalties. 15 appeals were innitiated by females and 33 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women and 1 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A19. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     3

     2

     1

    14

      8

        10

   14

   40

Number of Male Wins

     0

     1

     0

      6

      5

          6

     5

     4

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     1

     0

      8

      3

          3

     6

     40

Number of Female Wins

     2

     1

     0

      6

      2

          3

     3

     28

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

   50.0

     0.0

    42.8

      0.0

        60.0

   35.7

   10.0

% Chance of Female Win

 100.0

 100.0

     NA

    75.0

    66.7

      100.0

   50.0

   70.0

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs a woman has a (45/63 x 100) 71.4 % chance of winning, and a man has a (26/91 x 100) 28.5 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Catzman on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (17/23 x 100) 73.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (23/52 x 100) 44.2 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 10.0 % in favor of men, 70.0 % in favor of females and divided 20.0 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 71.4 – 28.5 = 42.9 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 73.9 – 44.2 = 29.7 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 70.0 – 10.0 = 60.0 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 71.4 / 28.5 = 2.5

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 71.4 + 28.5) / 2 = 99.9 / 2 = 50.0 %

 

 

 

For Justice Labrosse 42 family cases were available, and 38 of them had data on cost penalties. 17 appeals were innitiated by females and 25 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women and 5 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A 20. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     3

     3

     2

      4

      8

          8

   16

   38

Number of Male Wins

     0

     2

     1

      1

      2

          3

     2

     5

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     2

     2

      4

      2

          2

     9

    38

Number of Female Wins

     0

     1

     2

      3

      2

          2

     4

    22

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

   66.7

    50.0

     25.0

    25.0

        37.5

  12.5

   13.2

% Chance of Female Win

     0.0

   50.0

  100.0

     75.0

  100.0

      100.0

  44.4

   57.9

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (37/59 x 100) 62.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/73 x 100) 20.5 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Labrose on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (14/22 x 100) 63.6 % chance of winning, and a man has a (11/44 x 100) 25.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 13.2 % in favor of men, 57.9 % in favor of females and divided 28.9 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 62.7 – 20.5 = 42.2 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 63.6 – 25.0 = 38.6 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 57.9 – 13.2 = 44.7 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 62.7 / 20.5 = 3.1

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 62.7 + 20.5) / 2 = 83.2 / 2 = 41.6 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Cronk 58 family cases were available, and 55 of them had data on cost penalties. 20 appeals were innitiated by females and 38 appeals by males. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A 21. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     5

     3

     0

     14

     13

          12

    15

   55

Number of Male Wins

     1

     1

     0

      4

      2

           2

     5

     7

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     0

     0

     2

      6

      4

          3

    11

    55

Number of Female Wins

     0

     0

     2

      3

      2

          3

      5

    32

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

    20.0

   33.3

     NA

     28.5

    15.4

        16.7

   31.3

   12.7

% Chance of Female Win

     NA

    NA

  100.0

     50.0

     50.0

      100.0

   45.5

    58.2

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (49/80 x 100) 61.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (22/116 x 100) 18.9 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Cronk on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (15/24 x 100) 62.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/62 x 100) 24.2 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 12.7 % in favor of men, 58.2 % in favor of females and divided 29.1 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 61.3 – 18.9 = 42.4 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 62.5 – 24.2 = 38.3 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 58.2 – 12.7 = 45.5 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 61.3 / 18.9 = 3.2

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 61.3 + 18.9) / 2 = 79.9 / 2 = 40.0 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Laskin 77 family cases were available, and 65 of them had data on cost penalties. 24 appeals were innitiated by females and 53 appeals by males. 5 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A22. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     4

     6

     1

     18

     22

         12

    23

    65

Number of Male Wins

     1

     3

     1

      3

      9

          3

    11

    15

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     3

     1

     2

      4

      7

          6

     9

     65

Number of Female Wins

     0

     0

     0

      2

      5

          3

     4

     26

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

   25.0

  50.0

 100.0

     16.7

     40.9

        25.0

   47.8

    23.1

% Chance of Female Win

     0.0

    0.0

     0.0

     50.0

     71.4

        50.0

   44.4

    40.0

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (41/97 x 100) 42.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (47/151 x 100) 31.1 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Laskin on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (15/32 x 100) 46.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (32/86 x 100) 37.2 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 23.1 % in favor of men, 40.0 % in favor of females and divided 36.9 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 42.2 – 31.1 = 11.1 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 46.9 – 37.2 = 9.7 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 40.0 – 23.1 = 16.9 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 61.3 / 18.9 = 3.2

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 61.3 + 18.9) / 2 = 79.9 / 2 = 40.0 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Doherty 44 family cases were available, and 43 of them had data on cost penalties. 17 appeals were innitiated by females and 27 appeals by males. 1 cross appeal was brought by a woman. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A23 A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     3

     1

     0

     10

      7

          8

     14

    43

Number of Male Wins

     0

     1

     0

      5

      1

          2

      2

     8

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     3

     0

     0

      11

      6

          1

     6

     43

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     0

       6

      3

          1

     2

     26

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

 100.0

     NA

    50.0

      0.0

        25.0

   15.4

   18.6

% Chance of Female Win

    33.3

    NA

     NA

    54.5

      0.0

      100.0

   33.3

   60.5

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (39/70 x 100) 55.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (17/85 x 100) 20.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Doherty on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (13/27 x 100) 48.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (11/43 x 100) 25.6 % chance of winning.  Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 18.6 % in favor of men, 60.5 % in favor of females and divided 20.9 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 55.7 – 20.0 = 35.7 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 48.1 – 25.6 = 22.5 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 60.5 – 18.6 = 41.9 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 55.7 / 20.0 = 2.8

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 55.7 + 20.0 ) / 2 = 75.7 / 2 = 37.9 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Carthy 36 family cases were available, and 34 of them had data on cost penalties. 14 appeals were innitiated by females and 22 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and 1 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A24. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     2

     0

     0

      9

      8

          5

     12

    34

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      2

      3

          3

      1

     5

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     1

     0

     0

      5

      4

          2

     6

     34

Number of Female Wins

     1

     0

     0

      4

      4

          1

     2

     21

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    NA

     NA

    22.2

    37.5

        60.0

    8.3

   14.7

% Chance of Female Win

 100.0

    NA

     NA

     80.0

  100.0

        50.0

  33.3

   61.8

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (33/52 x 100) 63.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a (13/70 x 100) 18.6 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Carthy on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (11/18 x 100) 61.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (9/36 x 100) 25.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 14.7 % in favor of men, 61.8 % in favor of females and divided 23.5 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 63.5 – 18.6 = 44.9 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 61.1 – 25.0 = 36.1 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 61.8 – 14.7 = 47.1 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 63.5 / 18.6 = 3.4

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 63.5 + 18.6 ) / 2 = 82.1 / 2 = 41.1 %

 

 

 

For Justice Macfarland 22 family cases were available, and 19 of them had data on cost penalties. 4 appeals were innitiated by females and 18 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A25. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     2

     2

     0

      5

      6

          3

   10

   19

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      2

      2

          2

     4

     4

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     0

     0

     1

      2

      2

          1

     2

    19

Number of Female Wins

     0

     0

     0

      1

      2

          1

     1

    12

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     NA

    40.0

    33.3

        66.6

  40.0

   21.0

% Chance of Female Win

     NA

    NA

     0.0

    50.0

  100.0

      100.0

  50.0

   63.2

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (17/27 x 100) 63.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (13/45 x 100) 28.9 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Macfarland on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (5/8 x 100) 62.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/28 x 100) 35.7 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 21.0 % in favor of men, 63.2 % in favor of females and divided 15.8 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 63.0 – 28.9 = 34.1 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 62.5 – 35.7 = 26.8 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 63.2 – 21.0 = 41.4 %

 

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 63.0 / 28.9 = 2.2

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 63.0 + 28.9 ) / 2 = 91.9 / 2 = 46.0 %

 

 

 

 

For Justice Rouleau 20 family cases were available, and 19 of them had data on cost penalties. 8 appeals were innitiated by females and 12 appeals by males. 1 cross appeal was brought by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A26. A summary of the decisions is as follows

 

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

 Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Males

     2

     1

     0

      3

      3

          0

     7

    19

Number of Male Wins

     0

     0

     0

      1

      0

          0

     1

      4

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

Number of Females

     2

     1

     0

      2

      1

          0

     6

     19

Number of Female Wins

     2

     0

     0

      0

      0

          0

     2

     12

 

 

 

Summarized in percentage terms

 

 

Appellant

Custody

 Access

Mobility

 Spousal

 Support

  Child

 Support

Equalization

Other

Costs

% Chance of Male Win

     0.0

    0.0

     NA

    33.3

      0.0

         NA

   14.3

    21.0

% Chance of Female Win

 100.0

    0.0

     NA

      0.0

      0.0

         NA

   33.3

    63.2

 

 

 

It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (16/31 x 100) 51.6 % chance of winning, and a man has a (6/35 x 100) 17.1 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Rouleau on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (4/12 x 100) 33.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (2/16 x 100) 12.5 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 21.0 % in favor of men, 63.2 % in favor of females and divided 15.7 % of the time.

 

 

 

Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 51.6 – 17.1 = 34.5 %

 

Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 33.3 – 12.5 = 20.8 %

 

Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins - % Male Wins = 63.2 – 21.0 = 42.2 %

 

 

Female / Male Wins = 51.6 / 17.1 = 3.0

 

Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 51.6 + 17.1) / 2 = 68.7 / 2 = 34.4 %

 

 

Appendix B3 — 1997 Cases

 

 

 

Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing)

Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant)

 

 

Sex.  of appellant

 Grounds of Appeal             .    ( Win/Lose )

Cross. Appeal.  (Win / Lose )

 

 

F v m

(m)

1997

Munro v. Munro (October 17)

   M

 (W) SS

 

F v m

(w)

1997

Politi v Politi (April 18)

   M

 (L) CS, EQ, O

 

 

 

1997

Layzell v. Layzell (December 8)

   M

 (L) C

 

M v f

(w)

1997

Best v. Best (October 3)

   M

 (L) SS, EQ, O

 

F v m

(w)

1997

Rarie v Rarie

   M

(W) EQ

 

F v f

(w)

1997

Therrien – Clichι v Clichι (April 1)

   M

 (L) O

 

F v f

nc

1997

Davidson v Davidson (March 4)

   M

 (W) EQ

(W) CS

M v m

(m)

1997

Van Bork v Van Bork (June 27)

   M

(W) EQ   (L) SS, O

 

F v m

(w)

1997

Tureck v. Tureck (November 9)

  M

(L) O

 

M v f

(w)

1997

Forler v Forler (April 7)

   W

(W) SS

 

M v f

(m)

1997

Roach v Roach (December 12)

   W

 (L) EQ, O

 

M v m

nc

1997

Crawford v Crawford

   W

(L) SS, EQ

 

M v f

(w)

1997

Forler v Forler (April 7)

   W

(W) SS

 

M v m

nc

1997

Sagoo v Sagoo (March 18)

   W

 (W) O

 

 

(w)

1997

Halliday v Halliday (December 24)

   W

(W)SS, O,   (L)EQ

 

M v m

(w)

1997

Trewin v Jones (February 7)

   W

  (W) SS

 

M v m

(m)

1997

Ligate v Richardson ( Jan 27)

  W

 (W) M

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B4 — 1998 Cases

 

 

Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing)

Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant)

 

 

Sex.  of appellant

 Grounds of Appeal             .    ( Win/Lose )

Cross. Appeal.  (Win / Lose )

 

 

F v m

(w)

1998

Daoust v Leboeuf (January 14)

   M

 (L) C

(W)CS, O  (L)SS

M v m

(w)

1998

Francis v. Baker (March 10)

   M

 (L) CS, SS, O

 

F v m

(w)

1998

McCallum v McCallum (March 23)

   M

(W) O

 

M v m

(w)

1998

Valenti v. Valenti (May 22)

  M

(L) CS, SS, EQ, O

 

M v m

(w)

1998

Luckhurst v Luckhurst (June 4)

   M

 (L) M

 

Sr v m (m)

nc

1998

Melzack v. Germain (June 9)

  M

(L) CS

 

M v m

nc

1998

Brooks v. Brooks (June 25)

  M

(W) O

 

F v m

(w)

1998

Choquette v. Choquette (July 28)

   M

 (L) SS

 

 

(w) 5000

1998

Irwin v. Irwin (September 10)

   M

 (L) C, A

 

M v m

(w)

1998

Trotter v Trotter (October 29)

   M

 (L) EQ

 

 

(w)

1998

Cole v Cole (November 10)

   M

(L) EQ

 

M v m

(w)

1998

Rachiele v. Rachiele (December 1)

  M

(L) EQ

 

F v m (f)

nc

1998

Pivacet v Paul (Mach 13)

   W

(W) O      (L) SS

 

M v m

(w) 1500

1998

Burnett v Burnett (March 12)

   W

  (L) O

 

 

nc

1998

Walsh v. Walsh (July 20)

   W

 (L) C

 

F v f

(m)

1998

Follows v Follows (September 10)

   W

  (L) O

 

M v f (w)

(m)

1998

Appleyard v Appleyard (September 14)

   W

(W) EQ

 

M v m

(m)

1998

Debora v Debora (October 22)

   W

(L) EQ

 

F v m

nc

1998

Wood v Robertson (November 9)

   W

(W) O     (L) EQ

(L) O

F v f

 

1998

Pollastro v Pollastro (November 16)

   W

(W) M

 

F v m

(w)

1998

Bezanson v Falle (December 23)

   W

 (W) CS O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B5 — 1999 Cases

 

 

 

Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing)

Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant)

 

 

Sex.  of appellant

 Grounds of Appeal             .    ( Win/Lose )

Cross. Appeal.  (Win / Lose )

 

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Mozzarello v Mazzarello (January 21)

M

(L) EQ

 

M v f

def

1999

Murphy v Murphy (January 29)

M

(W) EQ

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Pope v. Pope (February 3)

M

 (L) SS, EQ

 

F v m (m)

nc

1999

Gerstner v Borg (February 10)

M

 (W) O

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Chinneck v Chinneck (February 12)

 M

 (L)EQ, O

 

F v m

(w)

1999

Swanson v Swanson (February 16)

M

 (W) O

 

F v m

(w)

1999

Appiah v Appiah (February 22)

M

  (L) C, M

 

Sr v sr

nc

1999

Likeda v Jarrel (March 15)

M

(L) A

 

 

(w)

1999

Merikallio v. Merikallio (March 22)

M

 (L) CS

 

M v m

(m)

1999

Nahatchewitz v Natatchewitz (May 27)

M

(W) EQ      (L) O

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Dunlop v Dunlop (May 27)

M

(L) O

 

 

(m)

1999

Leopold v Leopold (June 14)

M

(W) SS

 

F v sr

(w)

1999

Bennet v Bennet (June 16)

 M

(L) O

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Losereit v Losereit (June 21)

M

  (W) SS

 

F v f

nc

1999

Doe v Doe (June 29)

M

(W) SS

 

Sr v m (m)

nc

1999

Lee v. Lee (August 5)

M

 (L) CS

 

M v f

(w) 4000

1999

Shortman v Shortman (Aug 6)

M

(L) SS EQ O

 

M v m

nc

1999

Vandepas v. Stephens (September 2)

M

(L) SS, CS

(L) SS, CS

M v m

(m)

1999

Sefton v Brasg (September 11) 

M

 (W) CS

 

F v m

(w)

1999

Andrews v. Andrews (September 29)

 M

 (L) CS, SS

 

F v f

 

1999

Finizio v Scoppio – Finizio (September 29)

M

 (W) M

 

 

 

1999

Irmie v Irmie (October 18)

M

 (W) SS

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Davids v Davids (October 22)

M

 (L) CS, SS, O

 

M v f

 

1999

Denis v Wilson (November 6)

M

  (W) CS

 

F v m

(w)

1999

Bogue v Bogue (November 16)

M

 (L) SS, O

 

Sr v m (m)

nc

1999

Kincartz v Kincartz

W

(W) SS

 

 M v m

(w) 2000 c

1999

Kardish v Kardish (Mar 1 1999)

W

(W) O

 

M v m

(w)

1999

 Bildy v Bildy (February 22)

W

  (W) CS, SS

 

F v m

(w)

1999

Pollastro v Pollastro (February 25)

 W

(W) C

 

Sr v m

(w)

1999

Gordon v Gordon (March 9)

W

(W) SS

 

F v sr

(w)

1999

Munn v Munn (March 11)

W

(W) CS, SS

 

 

(w)

1999

Babij v Babij (March 19)

 W

 (W) SS, EQ, O

 

M v M

nc

1999

McCord v Holek (March 26)

W

 (W) C, A

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Sherman v. Sherman (April 16)

W

 (W) CS, SS

 

M v m

(m)

1999

Brett v Brett (April 28)

W

  (L) CS, EQ, O

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Grundl v Lehner (May 6)

W

(L) O

(L) O

M v m

(m) 3500

1999

Brans v Brans (May 14)

   W

 (L) CS, O

 

M v m

nc

1999

Circelli v Circelli (May 19)

   W

 (W) C

 

M v m

(m) 1500

1999

Kraft v Kraft (June 7)

   W

 (W) EQ

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Miller v. Miller (June 9)

  W

(W) C

 

Sr v sr

nc

1999

Tremblay v Tremblay (July 6)

   W

(W) SS

 

 

(w) 2000

1999

Otterbein v Otterbein (Aug 6)

  W

(W) SS

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Novosel Novosel (September 21)

  W

(W) EQ

 

M v sr

(w)

1999

Teeple v Teeple (September 24)

  W

(W) SS

 

M v m

(m)

1999

Cole v Martin (September 30)

  W

(L) O

 

M v f

nc

1999

Giles v Villeneuve (October 5)

  W

  (L) CS

 

F v f

nc

1999

Rechsteiner v Kendall (October 25)

  W

 (W) M

 

F v m

(w)

1999

Hall v. Hall (October 28)

  W

 (W) SS   (L) CS

(L) O

M v f

(w) 1500

1999

Boston v Boston (November 3)

  W

(W) SS

 

M v m

(w)

1999

Simon v Simon (December 1)

  W

  (W) CS, SS, O

 

M v m

(m)

1999

Behrens v Stoodly (December 17)

  W

(L) SS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B6 — 2000 Cases

 

 

 

Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing)

Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant)

 

 

Sex.  of appellant

 Grounds of Appeal             .    ( Win/Lose )

Cross. Appeal.  (Win / Lose )

 

 

F v m

(w) 6000

2000

Leavoy v Leavoy (September 13)

  M

(L) O

 

F v m

(w)

2000

Tauber v Tauber (June 12)

  M

 (W) CS   (L) C, O

(W) SS, O

F v m (m)

nc

2000

Bates v Bates (June 19)

  M

(W) CS

 

F v m (m)

nc

2000

Nasser v Mayer Nasser (February 29)

  M

  (L) EQ

  (L) EQ

M v m

(w) 10000

2000

Johnson v Johnson (March 15)

  M

(L) O

(L) O

M v m

(w)

2000

Yackobeck v Hartwig (Aug 17)

M

(L) SS, EQ

 

M v m

nc

2000

Wasney v Wasney (April 27)

M

 (W) CS

 

M v m

(w) 3500

2000

Davignon v Davignon (February 25)

M

 (W) SS

 

M v m

 

2000

Krisko v Krisko (October 26)

  M

  (L) O

 

M v sr

(w)

2000

Lachapelle v. Lachapelle (November 15)

   M

. (L) C, CS, EQ, O

 

Sr v sr

nc

2000

Wheeler v Wheeler (December 20)

M

  (W) CS    (L) CS

 

M v m

(w)

2000

Lay v Lay ( Mar 17)

 W

(W) EQ

 

M v m

 

2000

Rhys – Jones v Rhys – Jones (April 20)

 W

(W) SS

 

M v m

(m) 11000

2000

Baldwin v Funston (May 3)

W

(L) SS

 

M v m

nc

2000

Rothgiesser v Rothgiesser (January 12)

W

 (W) SS

 

F (m) v m

nc

2000

Radcliffe v Radcliffe (June 2)

W

(L) SS

 

M (f) v sr

 

2000

Hurwitz v Barber (May 9)

W

  (L) A, O

(L) O

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B7 — 2001Cases

 

 

 

Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing)

Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant)

 

 

Sex.  of appellant

 Grounds of Appeal             .    ( Win/Lose )

Cross. Appeal.  (Win / Lose )

 

 

M v sr

(w) 4000

2001

Aristocrat v. Aristocrat (July 3)

  M

(L) O

 

F v m

(w)

2001

Manis v Manis (September 18)

   M

 (L) O

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Miglin v. Miglin (April 26)

   M

 (L) A, SS

(w) SS

M v m

(w)

2001

Milla v Milla (Mar 19)

   M

(L) O

 

F v m

(w) 3000

2001

Miranda v. Bossio (June 18)

   M

 (L) SS

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Stone v Stone (August 10)

  M

(L) EQ, O

 

M v m

(m)

2001

Wamsley v Wamsley (February 14)

  M

(W) EQ

 

M v m

nc

2001

Wreggitt v Belanger (December 10)

  M

 (W) A    (L) C

 

F v m

(w)

2001

Scanlon v Standish (Oct 12)

  M

(L) EQ

 

F v m (m)

nc

2001

Cole v Kew (Mar 6)

  M

 (L) C

 (L) EQ

M v m

(w)

2001

Coathup v Coathup (May 18)

   M

 (L) O

 

F v m

(m)

2001

Chertow v Chertow (May 10)

   M

(L) O

 

F v f

(w)

2001

Marson v. Marson (May 15)

   M

 (L) CS, O

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Stanghi v. Stanghi (May 24)

   M

 (L) CS, SS

 

F v m

(w)

2001

Bolt v Bolt (April 4)

   M

(L) O

(W) O

M v m

(w) 1000

2001

Hagen v Hagen (February 5)

   M

(L) O

 

F v m

(w)

2001

Lamarche v Crevier (November 9)

   M

(W)EQ   (L)CS, SS

 

M v m

nc

2001

Arvai v Arvai (February 20)

  M

 (W) EQ      (L( SS)

 

 

(w)

2001

Palombi v Palombi (March 19)

  M

 (L) CS, SS

 

F vm

(w) 17680

2001

Jones v Jones (Aug 16)

M

(L) EQ

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Birce v Birce ( October 10)

M

  (L) EQ, O

 

F vm

(w)

2001

Meiklejohn v Meiklejohn (October 10)

M

 (L) SS, EQ

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Adams v Adams (April 30)

  M

(W) O     (L)CS, SS, EQ

 

F v m

(w)

2001

Hauer v. Hauer (December 19)

 M

(L) SS

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Hutchinson v Hutchinson ( January 15)

 W

(W) EQ

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Scheel v Henkleman (January 16)

W

 (W) SS

 

F v m (m)

nc

2001

Maurici v Maurici (February 20)

W

 (W) SS    (L) EQ

 (L) SS

M v f

(m)

2001

Katsigiannis v Kottick Katsigiannis (April 3)

W

 (L) C

 

M v m

(m)

2001

Rosien v. McCulloch (May 8)

 W

.(L) O

 

F v m (m)

nc

2001

Ursano v Rochon (May 31)

W

 (L) C

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Difrancesco v Coutu (September 4)

W

(W) CS

 

M v m

nc

2001

Leeson v Leeson (September 24)

 W

(L) SS

 

M v f

(w)

2001

Maharaj v Maharaj (October 4)

W

  (W) O

 

F v m

(w)

2001

Cho v Cho (October 5)

W

 (W) CS

 

F v f

nc

2001

Wolf v Wales (December 13)

W

 (L) M

 

M v m

(w)

2001

Arnold v Washburn (December 19)

W

  (W) CS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B8 — 2002 Cases

 

 

 

Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing)

Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant)

 

 

Sex.  of appellant

 Grounds of Appeal             .    ( Win/Lose )

Cross. Appeal.  (Win / Lose )

 

 

M v m

 

2002

Drygala v Pauli (   )

M

(W) CS       (L) CS

 

M v m

nc

2002

Scott v. McKinley ( January 16)

M

(W) A

 

M v m

(w)

2002

Brown v Brown (February 27 )

M

 (W) O   (L) C, A, CS, SS, EQ

(W) CS

M v f

(w) 10000

2002

JS v TB (February 27)

M

(L) M

 

F v m

(w)

2002

Wright v Zavier (March 26)

M

 (L) CS

 

M v m

nc

2002

Kopaniak v McLellan (April 29)

M

  (W) O

  (L) CS

M v m

(w) 4500

2002

Sleiman v. Sleiman (May 7)

   M

 (W) O

 

M v m

(w) 6411

2002

Ball v Ball (May 7 )

   M

(L) O

 

 

 

2002

Slieman v Slieman (May 14)

   M

 (W) O

 

M v m

(w) 9000

2002

Klerides v Klerides (May 30)

M

 (W) CS, SS    (L) EQ

 

M v m

nc

2002

Hooper v Hooper (May 31)

M

 (W) O    (L) CS

 

F v f

(w) 3000

2002

Boucher v Boucher (June 9)

   M

(L) O

 

M v m

(w) 2500 c

2002

Collier v Tobar (June 19 )

M

(L) EQ

 

M v m

(w) 12000

2002

Sodhi v. Sodhi (June 19)

   M

  (L) CS, SS

(W) M

F v m

(w) 5000

2002

Kazdan v Kazdan (June 24)

M

  (L) M

 

M v m

(w) 22500

2002

Taylor v Taylor (July 8) 

   M

 (W) O

(W) CS

F v m

nc

2002

Louie v Lastman (September 17)

M

  (W) CS

 

M v f

nc

2002

Eager v Graves (October 15)

M

 (W) CS

 

M v m

(w) 4000

2002

Tennant v Tennant (November 15)

M

 (W) O       (L) O

 

M v m

(w) 24000

2002

Roseneck v Gowling (December 24)

   M

 (W) O

(L) SS

M v m

(w) 4500

2002

Scherer v Scherer (February 18)

   W

 (W) O

 

M v f

(w) 20000

2002

Johnson v Cleroux (February 25)

W

 (W) M, O

(L) C

M v m

(m) 4000

2002

Wright v Wright (February 28)

W

(L) O

 

F v m

nc

2002

Parks v. Barnes (March 7)

 W

 (W) C

 

M v m

(w)

2002

R v R (March 25)

W

  (W) CS

 

F v m

(w)

2002

Chan v Lam (March 26)

 W

 (W) EQ, O

 

F v sr

nc

2002

Turner v Viau (April 8)

W

 (L) O

 

Sr v sr

(m) 7500

2002

Goldenberg v. Wolf (May 22)

 W

 (L) C

 

M v m

(m) 7500

2002

Latcham v Latcham (May 29)

 W

 (L) O

 

M v m

(w) 4000

2002

Rushinko v Rushinko (June 21)

 W

  (W) M

 

M v m

(m)

2002

Butler v Kronby (July 3)

W

 (L) SS

 

M v m

(w) 2500

2002

Collier v Tobar (July 25)

W

  (W) EQ

 

M v m

(w) 10000

2002