File # 51436
















I, Barret Grant Kethler, of the City of Kelowna, in the Province of British Columbia, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT:

1. I am the defendant in this matter and as such have personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter deposed to, save and except where stated to be upon information and belief, and where so stated, I verily believe the same to be true.

2. After several months of trying to obtain mutual marriage counselling for the Plaintiff and I through the human resources office, where I work at Riverside Forest Products, I began seeing a councillor, Mr. Charles Law, on my own. All the while, I watched as my family situation grew more erratic. I attach and refer now, as Exhibit "a", to a letter drafted by Mr. Law, encapsulating his assessment, based on both mine and our son, Jordan's counselling sessions.

3. As the home environment further deteriorated, near the end of February, 2000, I filed with the R.C.M.P., allegations of assault, against the Plaintiff, eventually forwarded to Crown Council for prosecution. I attach and refer now, as Exhibit "b", cover letter, enclosed probation order and conditions of probation and 810 Peace Bond, filed against the Plaintiff.

4. It was directly after the initial R.C.M.P. contact with the Plaintiff, while I was at work, that the Plaintiff fled the family home and took our son, Jordan, with her. I learned several weeks later that they were staying at the Kelowna Womens' Shelter.

5. As per a Notice To File A Form 89 Financial Statement, filed on March 14th 2,000 by the solicitor for the Plaintiff, my solicitor and I did fill out and file said statement, to be used to calculate the applicable support payment, in accordance to federal regulations, designed specifically to meet the needs and requirements of each individual province. I now attach the table applicable to British Columbia as per the Federal Guidelines on child support payments and refer to said table as Exhibit "c".

6. According to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, published by the Department of Justice - Canada (May 1997 edition), page 2, under the heading "The Guidelines Are Mandatory", is the phrase, "...a court is required to apply the guidelines...".

7. On page 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, next to "Step 8" is the heading, "Undue Hardship" and within is the phrase, "In rare cases, the table amount, or the table amount plus special expenses, can cause undue hardship to either parent or to the child.".

8. Page 18 of the federal guidelines defines "Special Expenses" in "Step 7", some of which are taken care of through my payroll deductions, itemized on page 7,

Part 2-Expences, sub-title, "Compulsory Deductions", and most others, itemized on page 8, under the sub-title "Health", (also payroll deducted) in the "Form 89" Financial Statement, referred to in paragraph 5 of this affidavit.

9. On page 20 of these federal guidelines, Step 8 "Undue hardship", is further elaborated on;

"1. Would the payment actually cause undue hardship? The parent requesting the change must show that he or she is in circumstances that would make it difficult either to pay the required amount or to support the child on that amount. This could include:

* unusually high debts that resulted from supporting the family or earning an income before the parents separated;

* a legal duty to support another individual;"

Two further examples are also included.

10. A Writ of Summons was filed by the Plaintiff and I was served and the matter came before Master Bishop on the 17th day of April, 2000. Master Bishop's Order, approved as to form and content and filed on May 4th 2000, calls for $450.00 in child support payments and $1,200.00 in spousal support payments, for a total amount of $1,650.00 per month.

11. My gross annual income, as reflected on page 6 of my Financial Statement, after Union deductions, was $47,582.40. Subtract the "Compulsory Deductions" ( $17,126.65 annual) from the $47,582.40 to arrive at $30,455.75 per year. Divide this figure by 12 to arrive at a monthly figure of $2,537.81 (less M.S.P. and dental plan contributions, totalling $96.80 per month, also payroll deducted). Roughly $2,440.00, take-home pay per month.

12. Subtract $350. 00 in child support payments from previous marriages, listed on page 9 of my Financial Statement, under the sub-title, "Support payments to others", file# 500392 and file# 510948, both in the Kelowna Registry. These obligations reduce my monthly, disposable income to $2,090.00, with further financial obligations to uphold, totalling $504.55 per month, found on page 9 of my Financial Statement, under the heading of "Debt Payments", reducing my disposable monthly income to about $1,585.00. This figure is insufficient to pay the support payments that Master Bishop imposed on me.

13. There is insufficient funds to meet the court ordered support payments and if I elect to make the monthly mortgage payment on the family home, instead, I'm left with $350.00; insufficient to meet my financial obligation to my support payments for my son, Jordan and insufficient to meet any of my personal needs, which are mounting, due to my deteriorating state of physical and mental health. I am literally overwhelmed by this relentless pursuit of funds that I do not have, not even to take care of myself.

14. My situation is such that, on my doctors advise, I have taken a disability leave from my place of employment and was trying to manage on a disability allotment of $404.00 per week until that was garnisheed by the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, FMEP Case # :44830, another relentless pursuit of money that does not exist. I now rely on the goodwill of friends and family as I try and survive.

15. My first legal counsel, Steve G. Schwartz, of Pushor Mitchell, agreed that Master Bishop had erred in calculating support payments, spousal support, specifically and recognised the critical nature of hardship that the order placed me in. Surprisingly, he filed no appeal or motion ever, to vary, stay, rescind or reverse any portion of any of the barrage of orders that became manifest, due to the relentless barrage of motions, put forward by the Plaintiff's first counsel, Gordon R. Innes, of Gordon R. Innes and Company.

16. A letter, dated March 21, 2000, drafted by Steven A. Wilson, also of Pushor Mitchell, indicates that my lawyer, Steve Schwartz was out of the country and not expected back until March 27, 2000, and also requests an adjournment until April 5, 2000. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "d".

17. Gordon Innes, solicitor for the Plaintiff, responded with a letter, dated March 24, 2000, that I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "e", explaining that his client, the Plaintiff had informed him that she had "no money and, as such, instructed us (Innes and Company) to attempt to proceed in Court on Monday, March 27, 2000.". This would appear to be an unreasonable request, considering the fact that the solicitor that my chosen firm had assigned to my case, was out of the country, as evidenced by Exhibit "e".

18. On April 17, 2000, Master Bishop also awarded occupancy of the family home to the Plaintiff, as is evidenced in the letter drafted by Mr. Innes on April 25, 2000. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "f". Mr. Innes also suggests in this letter that 17 days is reasonable time for me to find alternative accommodations for myself and the family dog. He continues by reflecting the Plaintiff's concern that the Kelowna Women's Shelter "is not the best residence for the child."

19. Given the Plaintiff's decision to flee the family home, taking our son with her, directly after the initial consultation with the constable that was conducting the investigation of my physical assault allegations, it would appear that her concerns were unreasonable. It was the Plaintiff's own actions that brought her and Jordan to the shelter.

20. Given the resulting conviction on the charges that I initiated, evidenced by Exhibit "b", it would appear that she entered and resided at the shelter under false pretences.

21. On page 2 of Exhibit "f", Mr. Innes suggests that there is no equity in the family home, based on a comparison of the value of the mortgage and the assessed value of the home. Tax assessments are generally 10 to 15 percent less that the appraised or market value. An errant and unreasonable comparison, on the part of a lawyer, to determine equity.

22. My lawyer, Steve Schwartz, wrote a reply to Mr. Innes, on April 27, 2000, informing Mr. Innes that I hoped to be able to secure accommodations & remove my possessions by May 15, 2000, explaining that my work schedule interfered with my ability to devote time to finding an appropriate residence. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "g".

23. Exhibit "g" also indicates a willingness on my part, to sell the family home and share the proceeds, equally with the Plaintiff. I anticipated that the mortgage payments would be detrimental to my ability to honour the Court ordered support payments. This appeared to be a reasonable alternative to the financial disaster that I perceived at that time.

24. A letter, dated April 28, 2000, drafted by Mr. Innes, that I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "h", reflects a further unreasonable position with regard to home equity, again, errantly based on the value of the mortgage and the tax-assessed value. He further reiterates the Plaintiffs concern for the questionable suitability of the shelter, regarding our son, Jordan.

25. In fact I was very concerned for the state of our son's well-being, from the moment that I arrived home from work that day, to discover that they had left our home, with no indication as to where they might have gone and no idea as to when or if I'd ever see our son again. I was actually relieved and somewhat comforted to find out that they were at the Kelowna Womens' Shelter. At least he was in the company of others.

26. Mr. Innes, still errantly persistent as to the question of equity in the family home, took the liberty of hiring an appraiser and expressed his dissatisfaction that I had dismissed the appraiser. I had already arranged for an appraisal to be conducted and did not want to have to burden the cost of an additional appraisal. Mr. Innes expressed said dissatisfaction in a letter that he drafted to my solicitor, dated May 1, 2000. I now attach and refer to this letter as exhibit "i". Exhibit "i" also further evidences Mr. Innes's errant, now, somewhat vexatious, attempts to suggest that there is no equity in the family home, based on his skewed formula of tax assessment against mortgage value. Relentless in his unreasonable speculation.

27. A letter, drafted by Mr. Schwartz, dated May 2, 2000 and addressed to myself, indicates that the position that Mr. Innes was errantly attempting to maintain, regarding the question of equity, was also the position of the Plaintiff. I now attach this letter and refer to it as Exhibit "j".

28. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "k", a copy of a letter, drafted by Rick Dowding, of Mortgage Connection, the lender and holder of the home mortgage. This letter is addressed to me and verifies the completion of the appraisal report that I had requested. Further, the letter verifies the market value of the family home to be $199,000.00, suggesting a $37,000.00 equity value and also assured me that they would provide me with a new mortgage, providing me with approximately $17,000.00, before fees, that I could use to offer the Plaintiff a reasonable cash settlement to this matter, worth about half of the appraised equity, as was speculated at the time of the conduct of the appraisal and what I suspected, all along.

29. A letter, drafted by Steve Schwartz on May 9, 2000, and addressed to Mr. Innes, verifies the fact that the appraisal information was passed on to counsel for the Plaintiff, in a reasonable and timely fashion. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "l".

30. On May 17, 2000, Mr. Innes wrote a letter to Mr. Schwartz, enclosing a copy of the appraisal prepared by G.E. Attree & Associates, reflecting a lesser value to the family home of about $7,000.00. I now attach that cover letter and refer to it as Exhibit "m".

31. Good money after bad. Bad for the Plaintiff in that it reflects a lower figure to her, assuming she (the Plaintiff) decides to accept a 50/50, buy-out, proposition.

32. But I mean no malice; my offer still stands at $17,000.00, even if I now have to find a co-signer to approve the assurance of the Lender, who's position is evidenced by Exhibit "k". Certainly my credibility with the Lender has diminished along with my situation, given the delinquency of the payments and their (the Lender's) looming Petition that brings us all here together, today.

33. On May 25, 2000 Mr. Innes wrote another letter to Mr. Schwartz, requesting confirmation as to terms of access. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "n" . What was proposed was that I have Jordan on alternate weekends, from 9:00 a.m. Saturday until Sunday at 4:00 p.m. and Wednesday evenings from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. The Plaintiff knows from 15 years of living with me that I work alternatively, 2 weeks of day shifts and 2 weeks of afternoon shifts. Further, she also knows that any opportunity for overtime shifts, fall on the week-ends.

34. Exhibit "n" also addresses an issue regarding the state of the family home and an excessive phone bill that she (the Plaintiff) "came home to". For these things, I regret. The facts, herein are:

a) I managed to move out of the family home by Monday, May 8, 2000, ahead of the imposed deadline, reflected by the tone of the Motion that Counsel for the Plaintiff filed on May 1, 2000, asking for an order to have me out of the family home by May 9 by way of R.C.M.P and permission to "use all reasonable force in evicting the Defendant".

b) I did this, in spite of the fact that I had not found suitable accommodations, ending up sharing a basement with my oldest son, Jeffery Kethler, who, at the time was given permission to stay out of kindness and a hope that Jeffery could provide some of the groceries; help out where he could. I was offered a similar deal. I had no more time to be choosey and little money to work with.

c) In the latter part of my time in the family home, I became saddled with the responsibility of assisting a younger cousin of mine, who had recently arrived from Saskatchewan, looking for handouts, it would appear. It turns out, he's a lazy, shifty, irresponsible slob. Those were his phone calls to Saskatchewan and various places, abroad and those were his dishes in the sink and his beer bottles on the floor. I had no time for that nonsense, I was busy working, looking for a new home and then hastily, moving what I could of my personal possessions, until my allotted basement space was filled.

d) At least $ 140.00 of those calls were made by the Plaintiff, prior to the Plaintiff, fleeing the family home, in effect, kidnapping my son, especially when one reflects on the implications associated with Exhibit "b". As to proof of the phone account, that bill was, and was the only bill that was in the Plaintiff's name. As such, the Plaintiff would have that record of account.

35. On May 31st, 2000, Mr. Schwartz drafted a letter to Mr. Innes, making reference to the unpaid phone bill and my stated position that $142.47 was incurred by the Plaintiff, herself, prior to her (the Plaintiff's) flight. I now attach this letter and refer to it as Exhibit "o".

36. Exhibit "o" also makes reference to a list of my personal possessions that i have failed, to this day, to retrieve from the family home. I now attach this list and refer to it as Exhibit "p". Also, a letter drafted by Gordon Innes on June 2, 2000 expressing that they (Gordon R. Innes & Company) forwarded my list to their client, the Plaintiff. I refer to this letter now, as Exhibit "q" and attach it to this, my affidavit.

37. A letter drafted by Steve Schwartz on June 9, 2000, that I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "r", evidences a concern for abusive behaviour on the part of the Plaintiff, regarding her treatment of myself, while I attempted to facilitate a scheduled visit with my son, as was so ordered by the Court. The concern for this behaviour, expressed by the writer, is also in regard to the well-being of Jordan. The writer goes on to state that "...any further problems with respect to Ms. Martin frustrating access we will bring forth an application to have Ms. Martin found in contempt of court." Exhibit "r" is addressed to the Plaintiff's counsel.

38. On June 13, 2000, Gordon Innes wrote a letter to my solicitor, that I now attach and refer to as exhibit "s", stating that he had "no idea what happened on June 7, 2000, as I have not spoken to my client in that regard. I have, however, advised her that she should be complying with Court Orders." If Mr. Innes had not spoken to his client (the Plaintiff) how could he have advised her to comply with Court Orders? If he had spoken about the compliance to Court Orders with the Plaintiff, how could he have not spoken of the incident with her (the Plaintiff)?

39. June 15, 2000, Mr. Schwartz writes another letter to Mr. Innes, expressing the same concerns over the Plaintiff's continual display of unreasonable behaviour regarding compliance with a Court Order regarding my access to our son, Jordan. I now attach this letter and refer to as Exhibit "t".

40. In Exhibit "t", the writer also expresses concern over the Plaintiff's further difficult behaviour regarding my mail that she (the Plaintiff) had collected since my departure and refused to forward on to me. And makes further mention of my belongings that I have still not been able to collect. Mr. Schwartz ends the letter with a firm commitment to set this matter down for trial as early as September or October, suggesting that he (Mr. Schwartz) would be hearing from Mr. Innes within 7 days of the receipt of the letter, regarding available trial dates.

41. On June 19, 2000, Mr. Innes responds to Mr. Schwartz in writing, stating that he (Mr. Innes) would not be available for trial in either September or October. I now attach this letter and refer to it as Exhibit "u" to this, my affidavit. Mr. Inness also wrote, "...I understand your desire to to have this matter set down for trial as soon as possible.", and, "...I know that you will not want to wait for my availability. I am, therefore, contacting my client to advise her that she should perhaps obtain other counsel since this matter appears to be going to trial quite quickly.".

42. It is clear from the tone of this letter that has become Exhibit "u", that Mr. Innes has become entirely aware of his client's (the Plaintiff's) vexatious nature. I'm surprised that it appears to have taken him that long, given the degree of unreasonability reflected in the nature of the events thus far, to which he was a party to, in his professional capacity.

43. On June 23, 2000, Mr. Innes files his Notice of Intention to Withdraw as Solicitor for the Plaintiff. I now attach this withdrawal form and refer to it as Exhibit "v" to this, my affidavit.

44. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "w", an Appointment to Examine for Discovery, drafted by my solicitor, Mr. Schwartz, on July 4, 2000, to be served on the Plaintiff. By this time, the Probationary Order, with conditions and Peace Bond attached, as is evidenced by Exhibit "b", has come into force.

45. On July the 5th, 2000, Mr. Schwartz drafted a letter to me, informing me of the Appointment for Discovery but indicating that the Plaintiff had not yet been served and that she (the Plaintiff) was no longer represented by counsel. The letter also informed me that a trial date had been set for 3 days, commencing on October 23, 2000. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "x".

46. Exhibit "x" also contained a further requirement that I pay "all accounts" and that a further $4,000.00 retainer be paid to be "earmarked specifically for the trial of this matter and accounts rendered between now and the trial must be kept up to date."

47. Throughout the history of my professional relationship with Mr. Schwartz, he has filed for me:

a) my appearance;

b) A Notice of Motion requesting for me, interim custody of Jordan and interim exclusive occupancy of the family home. Motion denied in it's entirety.

c) A Notice of Motion requesting specified access to my son, Jordan, reasonable and generous telephone access to my son, Jordan and a current telephone number with which to make contact.

48. An order for specified access was granted, as was reasonable and generous telephone access. Specified access was granted; reasonable and generous telephone access was granted but the current phone number with which to facilitate reasonable and generous telephone access, was denied.

49. Any and all access has been frustrated by the Plaintiff, even in contravention to the specific Orders of the Court and I haven't seen my son since the middle of last August.

50. Exhibit "r" evidences Mr. Schwartz's attempt at what amounts to be no more than an idle threat, to pursue an Order for Contempt of Court, given the nature of Mr. Schwartz' next letter, Exhibit "t". Indeed, no Motion for Contempt was ever filed as Mr. Schwartz suggested, as reflected in Exhibit "r". Nor any Motion to extrapolate me from the further burden of financial hardship, placed on me by Master Bishop's orders for support.

51. Add to that, my hasty eviction so aggressively pursued by Gordon Innes, counsel for the Plaintiff, culminating in a motion, filed May 1, 2000, to have me forcibly evicted, not 22 days from the day of Master Bishop's Order for me to vacate the family home.

52. Mr. Schwartz waited 4 months before scheduling an Examination for Discovery of the Plaintiff. I have read that Examinations for Discovery are to be conducted at the early stages of a legal matter, because of the vast amounts of information that are obtained through Discovery. I now attach and refer to Chapter 1(I), "Objects of Discovery" and Chapter 1(III) "Steps in the Discovery Process", extracts from "Discovery Practice in British Columbia", a publication of Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, and refer to these extractions as Exhibit "y".

53. On July 31, 2000, Mr. Schwartz drafted a letter to me, advising that the Examination for Discovery of the Plaintiff, had been cancelled. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "z" to this, my affidavit.

54. On August 1, 2000, Mr. Schwartz drafted another letter to me, evidencing another $2,896.97 still owing against the balance of my account with them. The letter also evidences my decision to terminate the solicitor client relationship that had existed between us. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "aa" to this, my affidavit.

55. On August 16, 2000, Mr. Schwartz drafted another letter to me, indicating a further indebtedness to my account with him, an additional $636.37, bringing the balance owing on account to $3,533.34. I now attach and refer to this letter as Exhibit "bb" to this, my affidavit.

56. I had to borrow money to pay the balance of my account with Mr. Schwartz, bringing the final total of monies paid on account to Mr. Schwartz, to $6,633.34, to the best of my calculations. A huge sum of money to be paid out to obtain no relief of the hardships that these matters have put me in.

57. I now attach and refer to invoice # 81768, dated April 20, 2000, from Pushor Mitchell, Mr. Schwartz's law firm. This invoice evidences double billing for services, charging me on March 27, 2000 for attendance in Court regarding an adjournment and again on March 29, 2000, attendance in Court regarding the same adjournment. I now refer to this invoice as Exhibit "cc". While I have not had the opportunity to scrutinize these invoices in detail, this error was quite obvious to me.

58. In late September, I received a Notice of Filing, from Family Maintenance Enforcement, indicating that I was $6,150.00 in arrears on the support payments that I had been ordered to pay. Money that I used to pay out Mr. Schwartz, in order to retain my file in these matters. I now attach and refer to this Notice as Exhibit "dd", to this, my affidavit.

59. I signed on as a member of a legal referral group, "PPL Legal Care of Canada Corporation" in a further effort to retain effective legal counsel. I now attach a facsimile of my membership card and refer to this facsimile as Exhibit "ee", to this, my affidavit.

60. "Pre-Paid Legal referred me to Mr. Mark A. Koochin, of Porter Ramsay, Barristers and Solicitors. I now attach and refer to a letter, drafted by Mr. Koochin, dated October 25, 2000, evidencing my further difficulty regarding access with my son. I refer to this letter as Exhibit "ff".

61. This letter (Exhibit "ff") also refers to the filing of a Statement of Defence or Counterclaim, stating further, that this form would be filed "shortly". It was never done until now as I personally attach and serve the necessary forms, including my Notice of Intention to Act In Person.

62. Exhibit "ff" also evidences my anticipation of pending action on the part of my Mortgager, putting the family home into foreclosure as is now evidenced by this Petition to which I now address, making joinder of these matters. I do so, on my own, with no legal counsel for guidance.

I can no longer afford extravegant legal fees, to be paid out for more letters.

63. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "gg", a letter, dated November 27, 2000, drafted by Mr. Koochin, further evidencing the Plaintiff's blatant refusal to uphold the Order of the Court, regarding child access and detailing several occasions that would indicate that the father-son relationship has deteriorated to a large degree, also suggesting that the Plaintiff has gone so far as to poison the relationship.

64. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "hh", a letter, dated November 22, 2000, drafted by Mr. G.R. LeClair, successor to G. Innes, counsel for the Plaintiff. Exhibit "hh" suggests that I had not obeyed the Order of Master Bishop, to renew the mortgage, pertaining to the family home. The fact is, that I made such an attempt and was refused by the Mortgagor, due to the financial burden that has been imposed upon me, disqualifying my application for the mortgage renewal.

65. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "ii", a letter, dated November 29, 2000, drafted by Mr. Koochin, reflecting a balance owing on account, in the amount of $ 412.87. This amount would be beyond the $ 2,200.00 that I have already paid on account.

66. Services rendered against my account with Porter Ramsay, include billing for the drafting of a Motion and affidavit on October 11, 2000 and revision of the same on October 12, 2000, as is evidenced by invoice # 75654, dated October 18, 2000. I now attach and refer to this invoice as Exhibit "jj".

67. Contrary to the above mentioned services, as evidenced by Exhibit "jj", the Affidavit in question was drafted and filed by myself on October 2, 2000, prior to my referal and retainer to and of Mark A. Koochin, of Porter Ramsay.

68. The Motion, drafted by Mark A. Koochin, referred to and evidenced by Exhibit "jj", fails to address the concern that I've laboured over, regarding visitation and access with my son, Jordan. This concern is also evidenced within my Affidavit, filed on October 2, 2000, paragraph 12, specifically asking the Master to "reconsider the terms and conditions of child custody, reflecting the difficulties regarding my right to visitation.".

69. I can find no evidence of my concern, other than as I stated in paragraph 12 of my October 2, 2000, Affidavit. I now attach and refer to this Affidavit as Exhibit "kk", to this my Affidavit. Master Bishop arbitrarily dismissed my request without reflection as to the continual and ongoing breaches by the Plaintiff, regarding his Orders of access and visitation. Master Bishop denied my right to access to the law, based on his arbitrary dismissal.

70. In paragraphs 16 to 18 of the Plaintiff's Affidavit, filed September 21, 2000, the Plaintiff voices her concerns regarding medical and dental insurance coverage, stating further, in paragraph 17 of the same affidavit, both hers and Jordans significant need for dental care. I have addressed these concerns in paragraph 11 of my Affidavit, filed on October 2, 2000. They have and still are included in the medical/dental package, provided by my employer.

71. With regard to the Plaintiff's admission of "significant need of dental care", this has been an issue, throughout our entire relationship. Whenever I suggested that I make a dental appointment for the Plaintiff, while I made one for myself and/or Jordan, the Plaintiff would respond by stating, "I can make my own dental appointments!" This issue was a sensitive issue that, over time, I became less inclined to broach, due to the continual aggravated responses of the Plaintiff.

72. The fact remains that the Plaintiff is in need of significant dental work and has been in need of said work, since the day that I met her. Her teeth are extremely decayed and have been for more that the 15 years that we have been together.

73. I have recently learned that advanced tooth decay can promote and harbour low grade infections which, continued over a long term, can cause mental depression, escalating beyond depression, to all manner of erratic, even schizophrenic symptoms. It is my firm belief that this is at the root of these legal proceedings that have escalated to the extent that brings us here, today.

74. I have harboured these concerns since December of 1999, first discussing the matter with my family doctor as of December 9, 1999, booking counselling appointments as evidenced by Exhibit "a" and also discussing the matter with the Plaintiff's family doctor on February 2 and February 7, 2000. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "ll", a letter, written by Dr. Paul Nickerson, of the Lake Country Family Practice Associates, the Plaintiff's medical clinic, evidencing both, my concerns and my attendance to the Plaintiff's medical clinic on these occasions on February the 2nd and 7th, 2000.

75. I now attach and refer to as Exhibit "mm", to this, my affidavit, a copy of the notes that were taken by the Plaintiff's doctor, at the time of these visits.

76. It is with these specific concerns that I request of this Court, as per paragraph 4 of my Notice of Motion, filed with this Affidavit, requesting an Order for a Physical Examination and Inspection of the Plaintiff, as no Discovery has yet been conducted.

77. I make these facts known, as well as these requests of this Honourable Court, in an effort to salvage whatever can be restored of what was my family and our home.

78. I will do my utmost to uphold my commitments with all of the above, provided that this Honourable Court can and does mitigate the circumstances that have brought about this undue hardship, granting me the necessary needs to uphold these commitments.

79. Once restored to such a position that I am able to focus, clearly on the tasks at hand, I would gladly return to work, accepting any and all overtime hours that my employer is willing to offer to me, as a part of my effort to uphold the financial obligations that I face and readily accept, wherever physically possible.

80. I have recently been assured by Edith Hooper, my mother-in-law, that Ms. Hooper is still willing and happy to provide all necessary secondary care to the child, Jordan Glen Kethler.

81. I am also willing to rent out the self-contained basement suite that exists at the family home at 2350 Davidson Road, Winfield, to further facilitate my upholding my financial commitments.

82. My offer still stands to buy out the Plaintiff's half of the equity in the afore-mentioned family home, pending the co-operation and approval of the Mortgagor, through the Order and effort of a Settlement Conference as is reflected in paragraph 6 of my Motion, that this Affidavit is filed in support of.


SWORN BEFORE ME at the City )

of Kelowna, in the Province )

of British Columbia, this )

04 day of January, 2001 )                                            ________________________

                                       )                                                   Barret Grant Kethler


_____________________________ )

A commissioner for taking

Affidavits in British Columbia

View Accompanying Notice of Motion

Back to Barry's introduction