A dramatic turn of events took place in Room #308 of the Canadian Board of Immigration Office at 10010 - 106 St. in Edmonton at the deportation hearing in Erwin Sillipp's case.  Due to a motion by Douglas Christie, the lawyer acting on behalf of Erwin Sillipp, the case is held over until later this summer.  Erwin Sillipp, his two sons, and his friends and supporters left the court room in reasonably good spirit.

Erwin Sillipp is the first man who was prosecuted under Alberta's then-brand-new stalking law.  It appears that the Judge in the case needed to set an example and did so.  Since then, Erwin's case has been used as a precedent in a number of cases involving allegations of stalking.  After Erwin's ex-wife had accused him of stalking her and her lesbian lover cum patient, Erwin served five months in the Fort Saskatchewan Remand Centre before his case came to trial.  Then, in the absence of any proof that he had ever been violent to anyone in his life, in the absence of any medical evidence that he had caused any physical harm to his ex-wife or her lover, and simply based on the claim by his ex-wife -- that she feared him -- Erwin was sentenced to a five-year term of incarceration, of which he subsequently served eighteen months before being released under a restraining order that prevents him from entering Alberta.

One of the aggravating factors in his sentencing was that he had violated a prior restraining order, by entering his place of business -- the entrance of which was a short distance from the entrance to his ex-wife's psychotherapy clinic, unfortunately well within the safe limits specified in the restraining order in force against him at the time.

Erwin Sillipp became too pre-occupied with the consequences of his ex-wife's marital transgressions -- she acquired her lesbian lover during her marriage with Erwin Sillipp, after she opened her psychotherapy praxis subsequently to acquiring her Ph.D. in Psychology, for which Erwin Sillipp had provided the educational funding.  That pre-occupation prevented Erwin Sillipp from acquiring the Canadian citizenship after his immigration to Canada in 1988, establishing his jewelry manufacturing business and setting up the praxis of his ex-wife.  The ensuing events prevented him from qualifying within the required time.  By then he had a criminal record.  That is not all.  On account of the term of Erwin Sillipp's sentence, the Canadian Board of Immigration issued an order for Erwin Sillipp's deportation from Canada.  Erwin Sillipp thus became one more statistic in the many divorce cases where the wrath of the ex-wife results in the deportation of her ex-husband and father of their children, a common practice -- given the opportunity -- that men are often being subjected to in Germany and the US.

Today's hearing took place to hear an appeal of the deportation decision by the Board of Immigration.  Erwin Sillipp received permission to enter Alberta for the purpose of attending the hearing, provided he visits no places in Alberta other than the Board of Immigration Hearing and the Edmonton Sheraton Hotel or en route between the two locations; provided that while in Edmonton he is in the company of one or both his two sons, aged 19 and 21; and provided that he leaves Edmonton en route to Vancouver by the evening of the day of the hearing.

The motion made by Douglas Christie was that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias by the judge hearing the appeal.  The judge, like all such judges, had been appointed at the discretion of the immigration minister.  The motion is based on a Supreme Court ruling in a similar motion by Bell-Canada with respect to the reasonable apprehension of bias in a case involving Bell-Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.  The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is also comprised of judges who are political appointees and subject to possible recall or failure to have their terms of appointment renewed, in case they don't rule as expected.

The judge at Erwin Sillipp's hearing called for a short recess after the motion by Douglas Christie.  After the recess, the judge announced a schedule for submissions of briefs relating to the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias in the case -- to be made by the lawyers for both sides -- and subsequent reviews of these briefs, which was to culminate in a hearing tentatively scheduled for June 11, 1998 -- subject to mutual arrangements by all parties involved with respect to existing priorities on their calendars.

What is at stake at Erwin Sillipp's hearing is not just his future and that of his business -- which is precarious and uncertain if he returns to his native Austria at age 51 after an absence of about twenty years -- but also that of his two sons who are studying in Edmonton.  Erwin Sillipp's deportation would make their status of semi-orphans permanent.  It appears that both sons obviously love their father.  Both attended the hearing and were looking forward to spending the rest of the day in one of their extremely rare visits with their father.  Erwin's deportation would make continuing even the tenuous contact with their father a virtual impossibility.

—Walter H. Schneider  

The total cash loss in his ordeal is estimated by Erwin Sillipp to be in the order of $500,000.  No business takes kindly to the incarceration of its owner/operator.  That doesn't take into account the repercussions of the setback that will make themselves felt well into the future.  It will take many years to remake the reputation and customer base.  I estimate that if future shortfall of income is taken into account at present value for future dollars earned, the losses could be well in excess of a million dollars.  To that must be added the fact the Erwin Sillipp's ex is the house keeper.

The cost to society is substantial as well.  There is the cost of the trial and that of the incarceration -- with the cost of the incarceration alone being in excess of $100,000.  Considering the numerous cases like it in Canada, is it any wonder that our country is approaching bankruptcy?

All of it is being done in the name of women, but women who were lured into the fallacy of being single mothers are on average the most empoverished sector of our nation -- increasingly so, while the mostly childless and family-hostile heterophobes who are driving the destruction of our families make a killing-of-a-living by "caring" for the exploding number of single mothers and by providing the services that will alleviate the plight of these poor deceived people.  Nothing much has changed since the Victorian age, except that there are now more impoverished mothers and children than ever before, and that women's average life expectancy has advanced to be almost seven years more than that of men.

Is it all "in the best interest of the children?"  --WHS  

Update: Erwin Sillipp's hearing is now scheduled for November 2, 1998.  It appears that he can't be contacted anywhere.  Let's hope that he is still alive and that his new life will be a good one. --WHS

TOP     The Original Trial     Advice to Men

Back to Divorce Issues: Main Page