ÿWPCI k£ßõŠ´ý†®`ôÍ3ü¦Ñ›¢'.*ßò’—Jb*’Íd©=©ŒHy?Ä{颿—³a–4£ŒQÕ&üòfš@*ÍõlZÙ &¤‹GF­vù”˜U³Â©ˆŽÓÑàÕ6ø?Õ¶š´rHÿ0ÑF|üvú'±…ÜšëÉÖRxºx‡¨jÑ'=ñÿBm DU9ã( K;µó/ éÞ¤¦"a'õPMr•œ?ÁË«ÿf øE¹Å4y…|{õDñ\ðB€š|¾_ü$5øSÁåiø@Áí°ãX«`=ÈŸámue÷“çÖýMÖ©,˜üÙwúÅWs†ìÉdÒþ`ÄÑ¡=¤èt`"&`Ø*Í̉’ÒNjpì"ÈKx9é5’Ûp6ã._ѹ Úf —óÁº`ó…R̃'ãí;•½ä‡Ä^NqUÊ}q]KÖjù‚sëó+€;œßåÇVWµg^ 2lü5u2ü*{Ê$£/h”ùÊ߀µ:çãÐ7jN#¿­ë‘È­éôÖj{j¿‘¤Y6»¹P/Zµ¡Œ‹w­š8ÛðÖGƒd±VÄÝ¿Ù$güñrr:í#BغîGBaØéZ žðίoÌÝãÇ!àh¸Æ©»Ž¶’0U>z̸ 0µ„ 0<9 0Yu 0_Î 0i- 06–ÆÌ 0Ñ’ 0(c D+‹ AM¶  0¶ #ÁÉ UNŠ %Ø MÞ (â N ^ w40 m2ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' S. H. B. v. Canada, Communication No. 192/1985 (24 March 1987), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 64Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 6"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(©2GI$££Ý ƒõÒ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XxwXXXÔÔ€XxwXXXxwÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ŽõÒ$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X{ÇXXXÔÔ€X{ÇXXX{ÇÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX2Œ<) è’.)´ëÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒõÒ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XxwXXXÔÔ€XxwXXXxwÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòS.€H.€B.€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€192/1985Ð H˜ ÐÌ24€March€1987Ð  d ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà 4 àÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Æ   Ðà 4 àÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€S.€H.€B.€(name€deleted)€on€13€August€1985€Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€author€Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€Canada€Ð ` ÐÌòòDeclared€inadmissibleóó:€24€March€1987€(twenty„ninth€session)€óóÐ Ü, ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòDecision€on€Ô_ÔAdmissiblityóóÔ_Ôó óÐ ŽÞ ÐÓhÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€of€13€August€1985€and€subsequent€lettersÐ @ Ðof€19€December€1985,€25€March€and€10€June€1986)€is€S.€H.€B.,€a€Canadian€naturalizedÐ &v Ðcitizen€born€in€Egypt€in€1942,€at€present€practicing€medicine€in€the€Province€of€Alberta.€HeÐ  \ Ðsubmits€the€communication€in€his€own€name€and€on€behalf€on€his€son€A.€B.,€born€in€AprilÐ òB Ð1976€in€Canada.€He€alleges€violations€of€articles€2,€3,€7,€8,€14,€15,€23€and€26€of€theÐ Ø( ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€by€federal€and€provincial€authorities€inÐ ¾ ÐCanada.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ2.1.€The€author€states€that€he€was€married€to€J.€M.€B.,€a€Canadian€nurse,€on€20€January€1976,Ð p!À  Ðbecause€of€her€advanced€pregnancy;€their€son€A.€was€born€less€than€three€months€later.€AsÐ V"¦! Ða€result€of€marital€disagreements€and€the€husband's€allegation€of€"mental€cruelty",€theÐ <#Œ" Ðspouses€were€separated€by€a€separation€agreement€of€December€1977,€and€divorced€in€JuneÐ "$r# Ð1982.€The€author's€communication€concerns€alleged€violations€of€his€rights€under€theÐ %X $ ÐCovenant€during€the€divorce€proceedings,€in€particular€in€connection€with€the€lower€court'sÐ î%>!% Ðdecision€to€grant€custody€of€the€child€to€the€mother€under€the€Canadian€Divorce€Act,€toÐ Ô&$"& Ðaward€her€alimony€and€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$800€per€month€and€to€divideÐ º' #' Ðmatrimonial€property€on€the€basis€of€a€retroactive€application€of€the€new€MatrimonialÐ  (ð#( ÐProperty€Act€of€the€Province€of€Alberta.€Such€dispositions€allegedly€constituted€a€grossÐ †)Ö$) Ðabuse€of€judicial€discretion€by€the€judge€concerned€of€the€Trial€Division€of€the€Court€ofÐ l*¼%* ÐQueen's€Bench€of€Alberta.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÔ_ÔÌ2.2.Ô_Ô€In€particular,€the€author€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€of:€Ð -n(- ÐÔ_Ô‡(a)Ô_Ô€Article€2€of€the€Covenant,€because€"Canada€failed€to€ensure€that€there€is€an€effectiveÐ ° Ðremedy€to€the€violation€of€my€human€rights,€notwithstanding€that€the€violations€have€beenÐ –æ Ðcommitted€by€persons€acting€in€an€official€capacity'€';€Ð |Ì ÐÔ_ÔÌ(b)Ô_Ô€Article€3,€because€"the€Government€of€Canada€and€the€Government€of€Alberta€failed€toÐ H˜ Ðtake€appropriate€steps€to€prevent€discrimination€based€on€sex€in€the€implementation€of€lawsÐ . ~ Ðgoverning€child€custody€and€division€of€matrimonial€property";€Ð  d ÐÔ_ÔÌ(c)Ô_Ô€Article€7,€because€the€Matrimonial€Property€A€which€gives€judges€"absolute€andÐ à 0 ÐÔ_Ôunchallengeable€discretionary€powers"€exposed€him€to€"cruel,€inhuman€and€degradingÐ Æ   Ðtreatment"€by€subjecting€him€"to€t€whims€of€the€judge,€and€his€prejudices";€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ(d)€Article€8,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant,€because€"I€am,€in€effect,€held€in€servitude€for€anÐ xÈ  Ðindefinite€period€of€time€to€my€ex„spouse.€I€am€forced€to€provie€luxury€to€my€ex„spouse,Ð ^®  Ðwithout€any€provisions€whatsoever€for€the€discontinuation€of€this€state€<€servitude";€Ð D”  ÐÌ(e)€Article€14,€because€he€was€tried€"before€tribunal,€whose€competence€and€impartiality€areÐ ` Ðin€vel€grave€doubt";€Ð öF ÐÌ(f)€Article€15,€because€of€the€retroactive€application€to€him€of€the€Matrimonial€Property€Act;€Ð  ÐÌ(g)€Article€23,€paragraph€4,€because€Canada€has€failed€to€"take€appropriate€steps€to€ensureÐ ŽÞ Ðequality€of€rights€and€responsibilities€of€spouses€as€to€marriage€during€marriage,€and€at€itsÐ tÄ Ðdissolution",€as€manifested€by€a€"systematic€denial€of€fathers'€rights€by€the€courts€of€CanadaÐ Zª Ðgenerally,€and€Alberta€specially";€Ð @ ÐÌ(h)€Article€26,€because€"there€exists€in€Canada,:€present,€a€rampant€and€blatantÐ  \ Ðdiscrimination€again€men€at€the€dissolution€of€marriage".€Ð òB ÐÌ2.3.€The€author€further€argues€that€the€granting€c€unrestricted€and€unchallengeableÐ ¾ Ðdiscretionary€power€to€judges€in€matters€of€division€of€matrimonial€property€and€awardingÐ ¤ô Ðof€child€custody€goes€literally€against€the€essence€of€justice.€"If€the€purpose€of€all€laws€is€toÐ Š Ú Ðprotect€one€human€from€the€arbitrary€will€of€another,€the€idea€of€awarding€a€judgeÐ p!À  Ðunrestricted€and€unchallengeable€discretionary€powers€amounts€to€suspension€of€the€rule€ofÐ V"¦! Ðlaw€in€favour€of€the€rule€of€the€individual.€The€unrestricted€discretionary€powers€c€judgesÐ <#Œ" Ðis€literally€against€the€intent€and€the€purposes€o€the€entire€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ "$r# Ðand€Politic~€Rights,€and€is€indeed€unconstitutional€according€to€the€Canadian€Charter€ofÐ %X $ ÐRights."€In€his€own€case€he€claim€that€the€trial€judge€"has€been€sexist€and€racist"€possiblyÐ î%>!% Ðbecause€the€author€is€of€Egyptian€origin€and€hi€ex„wife€was€born€and€raised€in€the€trialÐ Ô&$"& Ðjudge's€home€town.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ2.4.€With€regard€to€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€author€states€that€he€hasÐ †)Ö$) Ðappealed€to€the,€Supreme€Court€of€Alberta,€but€that€the€court€of€appeals€refused€toÐ l*¼%* Ðinvestigate€the€trial€judge's€use€of€discretion€and€that€no€written€reasons€were€given€forÐ R+¢&+ Ðrefusing€to€consider€the€appeal.€The€author€has€also€addressee€himself€to€the€Chief€JusticeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðof€Alberta,€the€Judicia€Council,€the€Minister€of€Justice€of€Canada,€the€Minister€of€Justice€ofÐ -n(- ÐAlberta,€and€the€Provincial€Ombudsman€of€Alberta,€without€success,€because€the€judge'sÐ ° Ðpowe€of€discretion€is€considered€beyond€challenge€and€thus€no€investigations€wereÐ –æ Ðconducted.€The€author€indicate:€that€he€could€still€make€an€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€ofÐ |Ì ÐCanada,€but€explains€that€this€would€not€be€a€practical€option€because€the€main€issue€is€theÐ b² Ðjudge's€use€of€discretion€and€the€current€law€provides€that€the€judge€has€absolute€discretionÐ H˜ Ðin€matters€of€awarding€child€custody€and€division€of€matrimonial€property,€and€thus€theÐ . ~ ÐSupreme€Court€could€not€overturn€the€lower€court's€decision€without€a€legislative€change.Ð  d ÐMoreover,€even€if€the€issue€could€be€examined€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€the€backlogÐ ú J Ðof€cases€is€such€that€review€of€his€case€would€be€impossible€within€a€reasonable€time.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ3.€By€its€decision€of€15€October€1985,€the€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ ¬ ü  Ðtransmitted€the€communication€to€the€State€party€concerned,€under€rule€91€of€theÐ ’â  ÐCommittee's€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€requesting€information€and€observationsÐ xÈ  Ðrelevant€to€the€question€of€admissibility€of€the€communication.€The€Working€Group€alsoÐ ^®  Ðrequested€the€author€to€provide€clarification€of€his€allegation€that€appeal€proceedings€beforeÐ D”  Ðthe€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€would€be€unduly€prolonged€and€not€constitute€an€effectiveÐ *z  Ðremedy.€Ð ` ÐÌ4.1.€In€his€submission€dated€19€December€1985,€the€author€refers€to€the€time€factor€andÐ Ü, Ðindicates€that€it€took€no€less€than€four€and€a€half€years€for€his€case€to€come€to€court.€ThisÐ Â Ðperiod€included€a€year€of€waiting€before€proceedings€could€start,€and€another€year€of€waitingÐ ¨ø Ðuntil€the€Amicus€Curiae€completed€his€report€which€was€handed€to€him€less€than€a€weekÐ ŽÞ Ðbefore€the€date€of€the€trial,€thus€precluding€any€effective€professional€challenge€to€theÐ tÄ Ðconclusions€of€the€report.€It€took€approximately€two€more€years€of€waiting€until€theÐ Zª ÐAppellate€Division€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Alberta€heard€his€case€and€dismissed€it,€withoutÐ @ Ðgiving€any€written€reasons.€He€further€states€that:€Ð &v ÐÌlitigants€in€Canada€do€not€have€a€right~o€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.€AppealsÐ òB Ðmay€be€heard€only€after€application€for€leave€to€appeal€is€made€to,€and€granted€by,€theÐ Ø( ÐSupreme€Court€of€Canada,€which€may€refuse,€without€giving€any€reasons,€to€hear€anyÐ ¾ Ðappeal.€This€is€more€likely€to€happen€when€the€Provincial€Appeal€Court€decision€is„„as€inÐ ¤ô Ðmy€case„„unanimous..€.€I€have€it€on€good€authority€that,€even€if€leave€to€appeal€is€granted€byÐ Š Ú Ðthe€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€the€waiting€would€be€no€less€than€two€years€and€very€likely,Ð p!À  Ðfour€years€or€more.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ4.2.€The€author€again€draws€attention€to€the€factual€situation,€recalling€that:€Ð "$r# ÐÌlegal€separation€between€my€ex„spouse€and€myself€occurred€when€my€son,€A.€P.€B.,€wasÐ î%>!% Ðapproximately€one€and€a€half€years€old.€At€present,€my€son€is€very€close€to€the€age€of€10Ð Ô&$"& Ðyears.€By€the€time€the€issue€comes€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€my€son€will€likely€beÐ º' #' Ðapproximately€14€years€of€age.€My€financial€loss€as€a€direct€consequence€of€a€miscarriageÐ  (ð#( Ðof€justice€can€be€measured€in€the€hundreds€of€thousands€of€dollars.€Clearly,€another€fourÐ †)Ö$) Ðyears€of€delay€is€totally€unacceptable€by€any€reasonable€standards.€Allowing€the€violationsÐ l*¼%* Ðto€my€human€rights€and€those€of€my€son€to€continue€unabated€For€another€four€years€is,€inÐ R+¢&+ Ðitself,€a€gross€travesty€of€justice.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð4.3.€The€author€also€refers€to€the€case€of€the€Alberta€Union€of€Provincial€Employees€which,Ð ° Ðafter€losing€two€court€battles€in€Alberta€with€regard€to€the€right€to€strike,€submitted€its€caseÐ –æ Ðto€the€International€Labour€Organization,€a€United€Nations€body.€The€Union€took€its€caseÐ |Ì Ðto€the€United€Nations€after€losing€two€battles€in€Alberta€and€before€reaching€the€SupremeÐ b² ÐCourt€of€Canada.€The€fact€that€the€case€was€accepted€before€it€reached€the€Supreme€CourtÐ H˜ Ðof€Canada€clearly€indicates€a€recognition€of€the€fact€that€the€delay€encountered€in€attemptingÐ . ~ Ðto€go€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€is€unacceptable.€Ð  d ÐÌ5.1.€In€its€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€25€February€1986,€the€State€party€describes€theÐ à 0 Ðfactual€situation€in€detail€and€argues€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€because€of€non„Ð Æ   Ðexhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€and€also€on€the€ground€of€non„substantiation€of€allegations.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ5.2.€With€regard€to€the€author's€claim€concerning€custody,€the€State€party€points€out€thatÐ xÈ  Ðwhile€he€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€of€Alberta€on€the€issues€of€maintenance€andÐ ^®  Ðdivision€of€matrimonial€property,€he€did€not€appeal€on€the€issue€of€custody,€although€heÐ D”  Ðcould€have€done€so€pursuant€to€the€Alberta€Judicature€Act€of€!980.€Moreover,€the€StateÐ *z  Ðcontends€that€the€author€has€not€substantiated€his€allegation€that€the€custody€ruling€entailedÐ ` Ðviolations€of€articles€7,€14,€23€and€26€of€the€Covenant.€The€fact€that€women€are€more€oftenÐ öF Ðawarded€custody€of€children€upon€divorce€is€insufficient€substantiation.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ5.3.€With€regard€to€the€claim€that€article€2,€paragraphs€1€to€3,€and€article€3€of€the€CovenantÐ ¨ø Ðhave€been€violated,€the€State€party€submits€that€although€these€provisions€are€relevant€to€aÐ ŽÞ Ðdetermination€of€whether€other€articles€of€the€Covenant€have€been€violated,€they€are€notÐ tÄ Ðcapable€of€independent€violation€in€their€own€right.€.„€Ð Zª ÐÌ5.4.€With€regard€to€maintenance€and€division€of€property,€the€State€party€notes€that€theÐ &v Ðauthor€has€failed€to€seek€leave€to€appeal€the€judgement€of€the€Alberta€Court€of€Appeal€to€theÐ  \ ÐSupreme€Court€of€Canada.€It€is€submitted€that€leave€to€appeal€in€at€least€18€maintenanceÐ òB Ðand/or€matrimonial€property€cases€has€been€granted€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€sinceÐ Ø( Ð1975€and€that€in€eight€of€these€cases€the€appeal€was€allowed.€Thus,€"leave€to€appeal€to€theÐ ¾ ÐSupreme€Court€of€Canada€on€these€matters€is€an€effective€and€sufficient€domestic€remedy,Ð ¤ô Ðalthough€of€course€the€relative€merits€of€the€case€will€affect€the€likelihood€of€relief€beingÐ Š Ú Ðgranted.€Certain€delays€are€inevitably€involved€in€invoking€the€appellate€jurisdiction€'of€theÐ p!À  Ðhighest€court€of€any€country,€but€Canada€submits€that€the€time€periods€involved€inÐ V"¦! Ðproceedings€before€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€are€not€untoward€in€this€regard,€and€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðthey€are€least€prejudicial€in€matters€such€as€the€present,€involving€solely€financial€andÐ "$r# Ðproperty€interests."€Ð %X $ ÐÌ5.5.€The€State€party€also€contends€that€the€author€has€not€substantiated€his€allegationsÐ Ô&$"& Ðconcerning€violations€by€Canada€of€the€following€provisions€of€the€Covenant:€Ð º' #' ÐÌòò(a)€Article€7:€óóIt€is€submitted€that€the€author€has€not€provided€any€substantiation€of€his€claimÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€have€been€subjected€to€torture€or€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€contrary€to€articleÐ l*¼%* Ð7€of€the€Covenant.€In€particular,€it€is€contended€that€in€order€to€substantiate€this€claim,€it€isÐ R+¢&+ Ðnot€sufficient€for€the€author€to€allege€that€he€has€been€required€to€pay€a€total€of€$800€a€monthÐ 8,ˆ', Ðmaintenance€to€his€former€wife€and€child,€or€that€he€was€required€to€pay€the€lump€sum€ofÐ -n(- Ð$37,066€to€his€former€wife€upon€divorce;€Ð ° ÐÌòò(b)€Article€8:€óóIt€is€similarly€submitted€that€the€above€allegation€provides€no€substantiationÐ |Ì Ðof€the€claim€that€his€right€not€to€be€held€in€servitude€pursuant€to€article€8,€paragraph€2,€of€theÐ b² ÐCovenant€has€been€violated;€Ð H˜ ÐÌòò(c)€Article€14:€óóIt€is€submitted€that€there€has€been€no€substantiation€of€the€claim€by€the€authorÐ  d Ðthat€the€trial€judge€was€biased€or€incompetent€in€awarding€$800€a€month€in€maintenance€toÐ ú J Ðhis€former€wife€and€child,€or€in€granting€his€former€wife€a€lump€sum€payment€of€$37,066Ð à 0 Ðupon€divorce.€It€is€insufficient€to€allege€that€an€unfavourable€decision€has€been€reached€inÐ Æ   Ðorder€to€substantiate€a€claim€of€bias€or€incompetence€upon€the€part€of€a€tribunal;€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌòò(d)€Article€15:€óóIt€is€submitted€that€there€has€been€no€substantiation€of€the€claim€by€the€authorÐ xÈ  Ðthat€the€application€of€the€Matrimonial€Property€Act€resulted€in€a€violation€of€article€15€ofÐ ^®  Ðthe€Covenant.€Indeed,€it€is€clear€that€the€facts€of€this€case€fall€outside€the€ambit€of€article€15,Ð D”  Ðsince€it€applies€to€the€criminal€rather€than€the€civil€process;€Ð *z  ÐÌòò(e)€Article€23,€paragraph€4:€óóIt€is€submitted€that€there€has€been€no€substantiation€of€theÐ öF Ðauthor's€claim€that€the€maintenance€and€division€of€property€awards€violate€article€23,Ð Ü, Ðparagraph€4,€of€the€Covenant.€In€particular,€it€is€submitted€that€it€is€necessary€in€theseÐ Â Ðmatters€for€judges€to€be€granted€a€certain€discretion,€and€that€in€any€event€the€discretion€isÐ ¨ø Ðnot€an€unfettered€one€in€Canada;€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌòò(f)€Article€26:€óóIt€is€submitted€that€there€has€been€no€substantiation€of€the€allegation€by€theÐ Zª Ðauthor€that€the€maintenance€and€division€of€property€award€of€the€trial€judge€violated€articleÐ @ Ð26€of€the€Covenant.€In€particular,€no€evidence€has€been€provided€of€any€discrimination€onÐ &v Ðthe€basis€of€race€or€sex€in€the€particular€circumstances€of€the€author's€case.€Ð  \ ÐÌ6.1.€In€his€comments€of€25€March€and€10€June€1986,€the€author€states€that€if€the€CommitteeÐ Ø( Ðrequires€additional€documentary€substantiation,€he€will€undertake€to€provide€it.€But,€in€theÐ ¾ Ðlight€of€the€extensive€submissions€and€exhibits€already€presented,€the€author€believes€thatÐ ¤ô Ðsufficient€substantiation€has€been€provided€to€have€the€case€declared€admissible€and€toÐ Š Ú Ðwarrant€further€examination€on€the€merits€by€the€Committee.€In€particular,€he€argues€thatÐ p!À  Ð"the€best€substantiation€of€the€allegations€lies€in€the€full€text€of€the€trial€transcript,€as€wellÐ V"¦! Ðas€other€official€documents,€including€the€text€of€examination€for€discovery€and€fourÐ <#Œ" Ðaffidavits€submitted€to€the€Court€of€Queen's€Bench€of€Alberta€over€the€course€of€severalÐ "$r# Ðyears."€Ð %X $ ÐÌ6.2.€With€regard€to€the€allegations€of€violations€by€Canada€of€article€23,€paragraph€4,€Ô_ÔandÐ Ô&$"& Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant,€the€author€states€that,€in€addition€to€the€evidence€alreadyÐ º' #' Ðprovided,€"there€are€numerous€expert€witnesses€who€would€readily€testify€to€the€existenceÐ  (ð#( Ðof€rampant€sexism,€in€my€own€case€specifically,€and€in€the€implementation€of€child€custodyÐ †)Ö$) Ðand€division€of€matrimonial€property€laws,€generally."€Besides€reiterating€his€allegations€ofÐ l*¼%* Ð"sexism€and€racism",€the€author€submits€'€'that€judges€in€Canada€are€protected€from€legalÐ R+¢&+ Ðaccountability,€contrary€to€article€26."€In€this€connection€he€cites€a€recent€attempt€to€sueÐ 8,ˆ', Ðmembers€of€the€Court€of€Appeal.€The€Master€in€Chambers€dismissed€the€claim€on€the€basisÐ -n(- Ðthat€"judicial€negligence€does€not€constitute€a€cause€of€action€at€the€common€law".€Ð ° ÐÌ6.3.€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€contention€that€he€has€not€exhausted€domestic€remediesÐ |Ì Ðwith€respect€to€the€issue€of€custody,€the€author€submits€that€"it€has€been€the€unanimousÐ b² Ðadvice€of€several€legal€experts€that€the€awarding€of€child€custody€is€entirely€within€theÐ H˜ Ðdiscretion€of€the€judge"€and€that€therefore€an€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€would€be€totallyÐ . ~ Ðfutile.€He€could€not,€he€argues,€obtain€a€new€evaluation€of€the€facts€by€the€Court€of€Appeal,Ð  d Ðand€the€only€possibility€of€challenging€the€lower€court's€decision€would€be€by€establishingÐ ú J Ðbias€or€misconduct€on€the€part€of€the€judge€or€of€the€Amicus€Curiae.€In€pursuing€thisÐ à 0 Ð"unconventional€means",€he€requested€the€Provincial€Ombudsman€in€Alberta€to€conduct€anÐ Æ   Ðinvestigation€into€the€way€the€department€of€Amicus€Curiae€in€Alberta€is€run.€However,€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðauthor€alleges€that€the€Attorney„General€of€Alberta€invoked€technical€objections,€thusÐ ’â  Ðdenying€the€ombudsman€the€opportunity€to€investigate€the€matter€and€to€establish€theÐ xÈ  Ðauthor's€allegations.€He€also€reported€the€lower€court€judge€to€the€Chief€Justice€of€AlbertaÐ ^®  Ðand€to€the€Judicial€Council.€However,€"the€Judicial€Council€refused€to€conduct€anÐ D”  Ðinvestigation,€thus€effectively€denying€me€the€opportunity€to€prove€my€allegations€of€biasÐ *z  Ðand€denying€me€the€means€to€ask€for€a€new€trial€on€the€issue€of€custody."€The€author€alsoÐ ` Ðforwards€press€reports€showing€that€recently€many€other€divorced€fathers€haveÐ öF Ðunsuccessfully€attempted€to€sue€the€Amicus€Curiae,€but€that€the€Master€in€Chambers€(whoÐ Ü, Ðis€not€a€judge)€has€blocked€the€legal€action,€"thus€denying€citizens€of€this€province€theÐ Â Ðfundamental€constitutional€right€of€having€their€cases€determined€in€court."€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ6.4.€The€author€concludes€that€domestic€remedies,€to€the€extent€that€they€can€be€consideredÐ tÄ Ðeffective,€have€been€exhausted.€He€further€emphasizes€the€time€factor€"since€the€harm€to€myÐ Zª Ðson€continues€until€a€solution€is€reached.'€'€Ð @ ÐÌ7.1.€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ  \ ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ òB Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ7.2€The€Committee€observes€in€this€respect,€on€the€basis€of€the€information€available€to€it,Ð ¤ô Ðthat€the€author€has€failed€to€pursue€remedies€which€the€State€party€has€submitted€wereÐ Š Ú Ðavailable€to€him,€namely,€an€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€on€the€issue€of€custody€and€anÐ p!À  Ðapplication€for€leave€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€on€the€issues€of€maintenanceÐ V"¦! Ðand€division€of€matrimonial€property.€The€Committee€has€noted€the€author's€belief€that€aÐ <#Œ" Ðfurther€appeal€on€the€issue€of€custody€would€be€futile€and€that€a€procedure€before€theÐ "$r# ÐSupreme€Court€of€Canada€would€entail€a€further€delay.€The€Committee€finds,€however,€that,Ð %X $ Ðin€the€particular€circumstances€disclosed€by€the€communication,€the€author's€doubts€aboutÐ î%>!% Ðthe€effectiveness€of€these€remedies€are€not€warranted€and€do€not€absolve€him€fromÐ Ô&$"& Ðexhausting€them,€as€required€by€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€TheÐ º' #' ÐCommittee€accordingly€concludes€that€domestic€remedies€have€not€been€exhausted.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ8.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ(1)€The€communication€is€inadmissible;€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð(2)€This€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€author€and€to€the€State€party.€Ð ° ÐÓßÓ