Know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the used false accusations in civil justice.
Honourable Senator Ann Cools
BILL S-9 - Legal Reform Awakens
The Honourable Senator Ann Cools, a pioneering voice for justice, exposed a troubling trend in family law: the use of false allegations, often of sexual abuse by mothers during custody battles to alienate fathers, frequently with the complicity of their lawyers. To address this abuse of the legal system, she introduced Bill S-9, which proposed Criminal Code amendments to hold lawyers accountable for knowingly making false statements, pursuing malicious litigation, or submitting deceptive court documents. The bill aims to restore integrity, truth, and honour to court proceedings by demanding higher ethical standards from legal professionals.
The parallels between the FatherFactor.AI Founder's current family law case and Senator Cools' historic crusade on Bill S-9 aren't just striking, they're nearly indistinguishable. Both expose a brutal truth: false allegations are not random acts of desperation, but precision-engineered weapons. Deployed to seize sole custody, dismantle the targeted parent, and institutionalize fatherlessness.
Furthermore, Senator Ann Cools never trafficked in speculation. She armed her Senate debate with the gold standard of credibility. A stack of adjudicated cases where judges had already ruled the allegations entirely false or baseless. Near the top sat a standout from the British Columbia Supreme Court, Metzner v. Metzner. The divorce of none other than my ex-wife’s own counsel, Martha Metzner. The irony is so rich it needs no garnish. It plates itself.
In February 2024, as a self-represented father, I reached a pivotal point in my case by filing an application supported by a detailed affidavit exposing a calculated pattern of deceit. I presented clear evidence that my ex-wife knowingly misled police and, alongside her lawyer Martha Metzner, engaged in sustained bad faith conduct that meets the legal threshold for wilfully deceiving the court with false and inflammatory material.
Less than 12 hours after I filed, I received an email from attorney Martha Metzner that read: "For the purpose of this application, I am not acting for Ms. M. You are to deal with her directly until further notice." Whether it was an ethical withdrawal or a calculated vanishing act to dodge the fallout of my affidavit, I'll let you decide. But let's not pretend lawyers don't know how to step aside just far enough to avoid getting scorched by the truth.
What I do know, beyond any doubt, is that it's the court's duty to scrutinize and call out questionable conduct. But only if the lawyer has the spine to stay in the courtroom long enough to be accountable. When my application landed before the bench not once, not twice, but three times, opposing counsel was conveniently absent. In her place stood the client, mute, and mechanical. The judge was left with no target and, apparently, no obligation to enforce the very standards they claim to uphold. And let's just say my application wasn't welcomed with judicial warmth.
It was met with bias, resistance, and a quiet but deliberate form of punishment. The kind reserved for the blacklisted, for those who dare to speak truths that threaten to unravel the malicious fictions the court has long embraced as fact. It was penalty for being a self-represented underdog who had the audacity to speak plainly in Supreme Court. An arena where respect isn't earned through evidence or courage, but granted to those with law degrees, bar numbers, and loyalty to the very society tasked with regulating itself.
Did the judge dismiss my request for a full section 211 report because there was "no evidence," as claimed? Maybe. Depends on the lens used that day. Truth, or institutional filters. Because any psychologist appointed to prepare a S. 211 Report, reading the same stack of police reports I did, would spot the red flags: bad faith, contradictions, and lies.
But here's the catch. Granting that report would force the courts to confront an uncomfortable possibility. That it may have swallowed fiction as fact. And in family law, preserving the status quo often outweighs protecting the child. It's far more convenient to sideline the father with a troubled past than to unravel the system's own complicity in enabling parental alienation.
The message couldn't have been clearer; in this courtroom, justice has hierarchy and my daughter and I weren't on the guest list. So let's set aside the irony, the bad actors, and all the inconvenient truths, and let the facts recalibrate us. Because what comes next isn't conjecture. It's documented, deliberate, and damning.
During a February 17, 2000 Senate debate on Bill-S9, Senator Cools declared: Honourable senators, my third repeat quotation is from B.C.'s Justice Preston's judgment in Metzner v. Metzner, a case of false allegations by a mother against a father, not of child sexual abuse but of child physical abuse. Justice Preston stated:
- "Mrs. Metzner was interviewed by West Vancouver Police. His notes also contain the entry: 'Martha said lawyer told her that this would be enough to get him out of the house because he wouldn't leave.'"
In 1997, the judge in Metzner v. Metzner (CanLII 3722), delivered this pointed observation in paragraph 9.2:
- "Mrs. Metzner has inappropriately used her control over K and J to gain her own ends in this litigation. This was most marked in the K incident, when she concocted an allegation of physical abuse of K as a basis to have Dr. Metzner removed from the matrimonial home, but it also emerges from Dr. Elterman's interviews with the children. For the most part, I accept Dr. Metzner's evidence in preference to hers concerning the nature and cause of the difficulties surrounding access since separation.
This judgment echoed what Senator Cools had been warning Parliament about for years.
Furthermore, in paragraph 10 of the same judgement, the court underscored the depth of manipulation involved:
- "He was struck by the lengths she would go to demean the husband... The most obvious manifestation of this attitude on the part of the wife was the K incident mentioned by the trial judge when she persuaded K to make false, and later recanted allegations of physical abuse against her father to the police."
Together, these findings paint a clear and disturbing picture of a legal system that, far too often, lets such tactics slide under the radar.
A Father's Worst Nightmare
Metzner v. Metzner, is a textbook case of why urgent reform in family law is not just necessary, it's long overdue. It stands as a damning testament to how easily the legal system can be weaponized. Martha Metzner wasn't just following bad advice when her lawyer told her to call the police on her husband to get him out of the house. She took it further and crossed a line that should never be crossed. Coercing her own child into fabricating abuse allegations against their father was cruelty masked as legal maneuvering. The system allowed it then and continues to allow this kind of blatant legal thuggery today.
If a person is willing to weaponize their own flesh and blood, then there is no ethical line they won't cross. No life they won't burn to the ground. No truth they won't twist into a weapon of war. That kind of person isn't seeking justice, they're serving power. That's spiritual rot dressed in a suit, parading through courtrooms under the banner of law, while dragging the soul of justice behind like roadkill.
This is the malignancy at the core of family law and the Law Society offers no remedy. Just as our healthcare system often profits more from treatment than cure, the family law system flourishes in the chaos of conflict. As long as dysfunction drives profit, the system will continue to reward those most willing to exploit it. In this courtroom economy, truth is the disease, and integrity a liability.
What unites Senator Cools and FatherFactorAI is a shared resolve; to amend the Criminal Code and bring accountability where it's been deliberately avoided. Where her mission was stonewalled by politics and self-preservation, ours will press forward with courage and purpose to finish what she started.
Starting to feel me now? Because what comes next isn't just a connection, it's a collision. A timeline folding in on itself, revealing that yesterday's warning is today's reality.