Nicole Ryan: An interesting case in Canada

Occasionally I find an interesting story because someone looking for an interesting story found me. WordPress provides all search engine terms people use to find my blog. Recently, someone found my blog by searching “Nicole Ryan Appeal.” The search engine found my blog based on the stories I’ve done on Ryan Ferguson. A bit of a stretch. I went in search of the real story.

I found this article. In March 2008, Nicole Ryan of Nova Scotia was charged with conspiracy to commit murder after hiring at hitman to kill her husband, Michael Ryan. Her father was also charged with counseling to commit murder. The “hitman” was an undercover Mountie conducting a sting.

Ryan was acquitted in March 2010 based on a duress defense. She claimed she had been controlled, abused and threatened at gunpoint by her husband. Her lawyer argued that the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) had failed to sufficiently respond to Ryan’s numerous complaints against her husband. Based on threats against herself and their daughter, Ryan decided her only choice was to take matters into her own hands.

The acquittal is being appealed. Here’s where it really gets interesting. Michael Ryan was not called to testify, but he has shared his side of the story. After columnist Stephen Kimber called Michael Ryan “a nasty piece of business” in this column about the case, Ryan replied to the accusations. I strongly encourage you to first read the news article, the column and ensuing comments, and the actual Supreme Court Decision. I went through this process, and my opinion changed several times as I continued to read.

Michael Ryan claims that the allegations of abuse were created for the defense in the trial. He said all corroborating witnesses simply testified about things Nicole had told them, therefore the only evidence against him was her word. He said she had multiple opportunities to report abuse prior to the trial and neglected to do so. He reported that it was he who had left her, that he had been granted custody of their daughter because she was an unfit mother, and that she was currently battling him for custody and for the couple’s $1 million in assets and property. He also pointed out that 3 of Nicole’s family members, including her father and sister, were found guilty of assault against Michael Ryan and his girlfriend in an earlier incident. Apparently they had attacked Ryan and his girlfriend with a pipe. It appears that since it was the Crown who prosecuted and not Michael Ryan, he was not really represented in the trial.

Does Nicole Ryan qualify for a duress argument? That’s the question of the appeal. According to the court decision, a defense of duress must be considered if it has an air of reality. To win the defense of duress it must have these four elements:

  1. The accused must act solely in response to threat of serious bodily harm or death.
  2. The threats must be of such gravity that the accused believed they would be carried out.
  3. The threats must be of such gravity that a reasonable person in similar circumstances could have reacted in the same way as the accused.
  4. The accused must not have had an obvious avenue of escape.

Did Nicole take reasonable steps to try to get away before she hired a hitman? Justice David Farrar believed she had exhausted her options.

This case is rife with things to consider.

If the allegations of abuse are true, should Nicole Ryan have been acquitted? Can violence/ the threat of violence justify murder? Self-defense is a tricky thing. It can’t be denied that a woman should be able to defend herself and her child. But if self-defense is given free reign, it can be used to justify disproportionate response and vigilante justice. Anyone can claim they felt threatened. Ideally, Nicole Ryan should have been able to seek protection from the RCMP, seek shelter with her family and  get herself out of the situation without hiring a hitman. But things might not be so easy for a victim who has been subjected to years of manipulation, psychological and physical abuse. Maybe the system failed her. Victims of abuse often believe there is no way out. How much abuse and terror would it take to push someone to such a desperate solution? Most parents would probably be willing to kill to protect their children. The court decision describes a life of misery and terror for Nicole Ryan. She didn’t feel safe anywhere, even at her job as a teacher or when staying with a friend. Her husband pursued her everywhere and she lived under a constant cloud of threats. If the court agrees that she sought help and was denied it, should the RCMP hold some culpability for failing to protect her? Not only did they fail to help her, despite multiple pleas, but they set up the sting and presented the idea of a hitman to her. Nicole Ryan didn’t seek a hitman – the undercover officer approached her at a weak moment and proposed a solution. She simply took way out offered her. What was the police’ motivation for setting up this sting?

If, on the other hand, the allegations of abuse are false, why did the legal system fail Michael Ryan? First, he tried to divorce his wife and get custody of their daughter because, frankly, his wife was a little nuts. Then his in-laws beat the crap out of him and his girlfriend with a galvanized pipe. Then his estranged wife tried to hire a hitman to kill him. To top it all off, his wife was acquitted and he got publicly portrayed as an abusive, manipulative monster who deserved to be killed anyway. Things are not going well for him. Perhaps all he’s guilty of is poor judge of character when he decided to marry this woman. The fact that he was granted custody of their daughter is notable. There is always a strong bias toward the mother in custody battles. It is naturally assumed that the mother is the better choice; the burden of proof is heavily upon a father to prove a mother unfit. I wonder what that court saw when they gave Michael Ryan custody? Surely not a dangerous, abusive man. I wonder what the court saw when it found Ryan’s in-laws guilty of assaulting him? Apparently not self-defense.

When I read Michael Ryan’s comments on Kimber’s article, I believed them. But when I read the court document, I believed the judge’s ruling in Nicole’s favor. It is certainly a hard case.

Another thing that struck me about this case was a general lack of information. I found precious few news stories, and the existing coverage lacks depth. The few stories I read  contained inconsistencies. The hitman was hired for either $10,000 or $25,000. In some instances, the Ryans are described as ex’s, while in other cases it says they are still married. There is no discussion of whether the undercover sting was specifically aimed at Nicole Ryan and if so, what prompted RCMP to suspect her? I want more information. Whose fault is that? The comments on Kimber’s column include an interesting discussion on the state on journalism today. Commenter “Civil Libertarian”  called the media “little more than self-serving pseudo-literates.” And Stephen Kimber responded, blaming the shrinking newsroom and apologizing that he was only a part-time columnist without the resources to dig into the story deeper. He offered to privately refer Michael Ryan to full-time journalists who could investigate more. As I hold a journalism degree myself, I found this all quite interesting. In the media’s defense, both the CBC story and Kimber article provided the actual court decision. (I provided it, too. See 4th paragraph.) Reading it has given me far more insight than the journalism articles offered. I want to dig into this further.


About Nicole

Daughter of God, wife, mother, volunteer youth leader, substitute teacher, aspiring writer, rabbit owner, nature lover. These are some of my titles.
This entry was posted in News and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Nicole Ryan: An interesting case in Canada

  1. Nicole says:

    It also fascinates me that Michael Ryan actually responded in person to the Stephen Kimber article. It is unheard of for someone so closely involved with an ongoing trial to talk about it publicly.

  2. FoolsGold says:

    The law in the USA would never allow the police to suggest hiring a hit man and then prosecute someone who took that suggestion. Someone who had already tried to contact a hitman can be supplied by the police with an undercover officer but the initial idea should never be suggested by the police.

    The law usually does not look at how desperate a defendant is, just was there an avenue of escape other than the use of a degree of force that would otherwise be unlawful. This is generally construed to be physical escape from a confined place, not an emotional escape or an escape from inefficiencies in the police and social service agencies. The abuse was established to the satisfaction of the Judge even though some of the testimony was uncorroborated. The abuse was ongoing and no social services agency or police agency had done anything or would do anything. So the situation would be repetitive but often that does not mean inescapable. The law usually considers the fact that the local woman’s shelter was at full capacity to be irrelevant. The futility of a battered wife’s action is often not addressed, only its legal existence is deemed relevant. The Judge’s decision adds a component of an effective escape rather than a mere physical and temporary escape from the danger. Is the ability to walk into a woman’s shelter and kill a wife who has sought safety there something a court should consider? If such an act has been threatened does it mean that an avenue of escape has been foreclosed by a statement made in some prior heated moment?

    Anyway… it was an interesting diversion, but I’m sure the searcher was merely looking for your blog and was unaware of anyone actually named Nicole Ryan. The search statement if more fully set forth would have been: Find me a blog written by someone named Nicole and that contains posts about the Ryan Ferguson case and its appeal process. Glad that the inadvertent discovery of a “Nicole Ryan case” was so entertaining for you.

  3. FoolsGold says:

    >The hitman was hired for either $10,000 or $25,000.
    Okay, a journalist should get the facts straight but the law makes no distinction between hiring a hitman for a high price or a bargain price. The term “ex” is rather fluid in its use and can refer to people who have formally separated, informally separated, are still married or just about any other permutation and combination.
    We might admire the journalist who was precise in all matters but its more important to focus on the overtures about a hitman than on the specifics of the price negotiations. If the issue first arose due to comments by the police that is more significant than the price involved.

  4. Nicole says:

    I think if the person were searching for my blog, they would have typed “Ferguson” rather than “Ryan.” At any rate, I’m now getting a ton of hits from people actually searching for the Nicole Ryan case. I think the availability of an avenue of escape could go either way. It will be interesting to see how the appeal pans out.

  5. Michael Ryan says:

    I am Michael Ryan. I have not been given the opportunity to testify or give a statement. I am willing to provide factual evidence, not my opinion, the evidence that is already before the court.

    My character has been attacked and nobody has asked me about or held me accountable for these allegations.

    Nicole Doucet got herself in over her head by her own actions. She is now using me as an excuse for her actions. She needs to be held accountable for the lies.

  6. Nicole says:

    Mr. Ryan,
    I read your comments on Stephen Kimber’s article and am very interested in your side of the story. It’s so difficult for an outsider to discern the truth when even facts can be misleading. Do you know if you will be asked to testify in the appeal? Do you know where I can access court documents regarding the assault charge against Nicole’s family and the child custody case?
    Thank you for commenting.

  7. Single Man says:

    Millions of men are being persecuted by their abusive ex wives in America. They have no way of escaping. Should they be allowed to just kill their ex wives? Most abuse is committed by women and men are the ones who have no way to escape. Rulings like this could really backfire for women.

  8. michaelmryan says:

    Hi Nicole,
    You are right when you say that the facts can be misleading. However, the problem with this story, the facts never made it to the judge or maybe even the prosecution’s desk. As far as I know, there was no chance of me being called for the first appeal. I’m not sure how the second appeal process works. I received call from the RCMP late last week, informing me of the decision. They mentioned that the crown’s office were going to pursue the matter again in the Supreme court. Haven’t heard anything else. If you are looking for court docs on this matter and others, they will be in the digby court system. The assault trial was held on July 23-24 2008. The decision is in the court decision’s database under Herbert boudreau, Jeanette Doucet, David Comeau. The Child custody case had a publication ban on it to protect my daughter Aimee. Just after Aimee was taken into the protection of the Agency, Nicole’s family were calling the school where I had placed Aimee. So we had to move her again. I’m not sure if you will be able to access the court tapes for the hearings where the Agency was involved, as far as the family court hearings after she was placed in my care, I’m not sure. I have records of most it.
    I have requested alot of information throught the access to information.
    If you are serious about digging into this huge mess, I will give you what you want to make people shake their head. I’m not sure if you remember my comment to Stephen Kimber in regards to my statement that I will only speak about the evidence that is in the courts and or documents that have been signed and addressed by professionals. As well, police statements I have received through the access to information. For example: I will give you only a small part of the history right now…
    In Nicole Ryan’s testimony to the Supreme Court during her criminial trial, she states that I was the cause of the estrangment between her family and herself.
    The fact is, In December 2005, after years of squabbling and arguing with her 5 sisters, her most hated sister, Peggy, called the Meteghan RCMP in Clare NS and alleged her sister Nicole Ryan just tried to run me over with her car. In statements that we received from the access to information, taken by the RCMP officers. Her Mother states that Nicole stated to her she was going to do it again. Her sister Peggy, stated to the RCMP that they have always been fighting and over stupid things like the kids and dirty diapers. Nobody states to the RCMP that Mr Ryan is an abusive violent person.
    The RCMP had no evidence to lay charges against Nicole Ryan.
    A short time after this, Nicole Ryan’s father comes to our home (Feb 2006) and threatens Nicole in front of me and our 5 year old daughter. We call the RCMP and apply for a peace Bond against her father and sister Peggy. In July 2006, we finally get to the court hearing. Nicole is on the stand and is prompted by the Judge Batiot to explain her fear of her father. She breaks down on the stand and explains how her father assaulted her many times and how her sister assaulted her.
    In August 2006, Nicole receives the RCMP statements from the access to information in regards to her sisters allegations that Nicole tried to run her over. Nicole is very upset and decides to withdraw the money from her joint account she has held with her mother since she was sixteen. According to Nicole her mother said the money was hers and she could take it whenever, however Nicole now felt that her mother was angry with her and might change her mind on that one. So in Sept 2006 Nicole goes to the bank and closes all 4 joint accounts she held with her mother. She withdraws 48000.00 and puts half in my account and the rest in her accounts.
    In December 2006 Nicole finds out that her father signed his half of our home over to her 2 sisters, whom she has been fighting with for all these years. Nicole becomes enraged and demands that we sign her interest in the property all over to me, so I can hire a lawyer and attempt civil litigation.
    At this point, I have had enough of all the family fueding and I leave. I had actually planned to leave in early december when her father signed his interest away to the two sisters. I moved away 200km to Kentville, no job, moved into a rental property we owned. I found a job in February and we began our separation. We were getting along just fine, selling off all the farm equipment I had only just recently purchased.
    In fact, by the summer of 2007, I was in a new relationship with my present wife and Nicole Ryan had met her and had many conversations with her. Nicole only thought it was a fling and did not take me seriously about the whole thing. But when I assured her that when the civil lawsuit that her mother had started against us for the joint account thing was over, so was our marriage. I was not moving back to clare to live around all the fighting with her family. That’s when she turned on me and ran back to her family.
    On November 23 2007 Nicole Ryan called the RCMP and complained that I was stalking around in the woods behind the matrimonial home in Little Brook. She said I was driving up and down the road because I was mad about the divorce. The RCMP called my cell phone immediately and I was in my home in Kentville. The new Minas RCMP physically confirmed this. The next day (Nov 24) Nicole Ryan made a 45 min video statement to Meteghan RCMP. She alleged that I threatened to burn down all three of our homes we owned. She went on and on about how much of an a-hole I am. But said nothing about any physical or sexual abuse. She said nothing about any threats against her or my daughter. She said nothing about any threats against her with the use of firearms. In fact, she was asked to fill out a Domestic Family Violence checklist (standard procedure) In this list of questions were, have ever been threatened with weapons. Any physical abuse, any sexual abuse…. she did not check those boxes. She did check the box where it asked if Ihad killed any family pets.

    When you read the Judges decision, they talk alot about how bad I apparently am, and how I controlled her and was the reasons for the estrangement between her family.
    What they don’t talk about, is the few points I’ve mentioned here. There is so much more.
    A very interesting point that the court brings up about Nicole Ryan’s testimony.
    She states that she was abused for all the years she was married to me.
    When asked if she ever thought about leaving, she said no. They asked her why she didn’t leave, she replied, ” I believe in the contract of marriage. They asked why did you marry Michael Ryan. She replied I felt sorry for him.
    What didn’t get asked, was why she left me after being posted to Trenton Ontario from Edmonton Alberta. Knowing that if she left to move home, we would live apart for 7 years and only see each other a few weekends a month and would result in me being deployed to Bosnia for 8 mnths.

    I look forward to you comments.

    In fact, after Nicole is arrested in March 2008 for hiring a hitman, The Child Protection Agency was called by the RCMP after they learned that Nicole Ryan had turned her daughter Aimee against her father Michael Ryan. Peggy is questioned by the investigator for the agency and states that the family has had problems with Nicole Ryan for years. This is all in a sworn affidavit subitted by the Agency to the court.
    Just for the record, The reason I have sole custody of our daughter, is not because Nicole Ryan was arrested for hiring a hitman. The fact is, Nicole Ryan and her siblings and parents were all turning her against me by lying to her. They told her I hated her, I wanted her to die and I killed her dog…. This was the reason she was taken from Nicole Ryan.
    Anyway, I’m really only scratching the surface here and I would sure like to get my side of the story (evidence) out on the street, and maybe the right people will read it and order a new trial. A trial that will include me.
    Just so you know, h

  9. michaelmryan says:

    Hi Nicole,
    Wow, just read my previous comments and I sure jumped around a bit. Sorry for that.
    I have to say, I was caught up in the moment reading your comments, and just started clicking away. I hope you get a little out of what I tried to explain.
    One other question you had in your comments in regards to why the RCMP targeted Nicole Ryan for the sting operation. In the Court of appeal’s 65 page decision, it mentions the fact that the RCMP were approached by another individual who was hired by Nicole Ryan to kill me, but couldn’t go through with it for whatever reason and contacted the RCMP.

  10. FoolsGold says:

    >the person searching for my blog, would have typed Ferguson rather than Ryan.
    Possibly. It really doesn’t matter much but as a matter of curiosity was the search performed February 17th? I think that was when I could not remember the name of this blog, but I’m not sure.

    >I’m now getting a ton of hits from people actually searching for the Nicole Ryan case.
    That is nice. I think its an interesting case. Often former spouses have different versions of events and many times each former spouse is of doubtful veracity. Society in general might like to say “a plague on both their houses” but police have to deal with the question of is there a threat rather than is the threat justified or is the threat to an admirable person. The question of self defense and escape from danger likewise does not depend upon the lifestyle or integrity of the parties involved. It appears that one of Nicole Ryan’s incidents of being stalked took place when cell phone towers and RCMP interviews established the accused was too far distant to have done what he was accused of. Such evidence is dispositive of the issues relating only to that particular accusation but it does tend to color all such accusations.

  11. Nicole says:

    Single Man has an interesting point. Suppose all the accusations Nicole Ryan made were true. Would that justify hiring a hitman? Is the verdict influenced by the fact that Michael Ryan wasn’t actually killed? Would she be more guilty if she had succeeded? We consider each case on an individual basis, but in the judicial system you have to think about precedent as well.

    It’s very significant if Nicole tried to hire a hitman before the RCMP set up this sting. I wonder if that was mentioned during the trial. Mr. Ryan, do you have your own lawyer? It seems like you could certainly benefit from one.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know if or when the mention of the first attempt to hire a hitman came out during the trial, however, it is obviously in the court evidence. The appeal Judge makes reference to this first hitman on page 30 para (52) of his decision. “It appears that, around that time, Ms Doucet made a failed attempt to hire a killer, although the record is not clear just exactly when this would have been. This came to the attention of the RCMP. They set up a sting operation. it was by then late March 2008 when, as the trial Judge concluded, Ms Doucet was “at her weakest”. An undercover police officer called her and offered to “do the job”. She took the bait. She was then arrested, charged and remanded for a mental assessment”.

    What can a lawyer do for me at this point? I am preparing a brief to answer the trial Judge’s decision and pointing out the false allegations and I will be attaching the evidence (already before the courts) with the brief. I will be sending it out to anyone that will listen. I’m going to prove Ms Doucet lied to the court and request a mistrial/new trial.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Housewife with a wandering mind, please do me a favour and read some case law. Understand the common law defence of duress. Understand battered woman’s syndrome and how it factors into her duress. Further, understand the psychological impacts that affect a woman’s decision on whether to leave her abusive husband. Understand why there was no avenue of escape. I have done a tremendous amount of research on this case and I truly feel for this woman. Her husband was a weak, sick, damaged individual who sought to take out is childhood drama on his wife. I feel for her and I hope the court acquits her.

  14. Nicole says:

    Anonymous, I did discuss the elements of duress and the psychological factors. As I stated in the post and subsequent comments, it is a complex case. I had no intention of taking a side and hope that it doesn’t appear as if I have done so. The case interested me so much because the information I found was enough for me to want justice, but not enough for me to conclude what the just outcome would be. Due to your tremendous amount of research on the case, you likely have more reason than me to have reached a conclusion. As it stands, I could not determine what was truth and what were lies.

    If you have any of that research you’d like to share here, you are more than welcome to do so. I haven’t looked at this case in quite a while, but I like to keep an open forum for any commentors to share their feedback and knowledge. Thanks for posting.

  15. michaelmryan says:

    Anonymous, please do everyone a favour and speak only of facts. You are just another that throws statements around like “case law”. The problem with this case is obvious. This person has followed case law and has tailered her testimony so it fits the elements of duress, because it’s easy to so. Again I urge everyone to investigate the truth. Court documents and tapes are the right to all. The truth is there for you. Anonymous, If you have done so much research, then out with it. Don’t sit back making desparaging comments about people and claims that you know everything. You are the sick individual that we read about in newspapers everyday.

  16. michaelmryan says:

    Anonymous, further to my last, the statement below is an example of the amount of actual knowledge you have with this case. It is a well known fact and well documented in the courts, that it was I who left this woman over a year before she was arrested.
    ‘psychological impacts that affect a woman’s decision on whether to leave her abusive husband. Understand why there was no avenue of escape. ‘

  17. michaelmryan says:

    Nicole, the fact that the Nova Scotia prosecution office is taking this to the Suptreme Court of Canada is a good indication that some people have the truth.

    For you Anonymous, you should continue your research into some simple facts. i’ll give you a few.
    -Jan 2006 Nicole is questioned by RCMP in regards to a complaint from her sister that Nicole Ryan tried to run her over with her car while she was out walking.
    – Feb 2006 Nicole Ryan requests a peace bond against her father and sister based on abuse
    – March 2008 Nicole Ryan is charged by RCMP with 2 counts of trying to hire a hitman
    -July 2008 Nicole Ryan’s father is found guilty of assaulting Michael Ryan with a galvanized pipe on Dec 17, 2007 March 2008

    This is again, just scratching the surface. Answer these points and why the RCMP have not pursued me in all this. The RCMP , who I am sure have more access rights then you to investigate. I cannot believe the courts and public have slammed the RCMP in this case. Maybe the attention should be on the courts.
    As for your comments about how sick and weak I am. I am still in the same relationship that I was in, a year before Nicole Ryan was arrested.
    I don’t think I am the sick one here…

  18. michaelmryan says:

    Nicole, it appears Anonymous is just that. Nothing to say about the facts. Only a statement from someone who claims to know the psychological impact of life on people, based on what they have read. What is truly didsturbing, is the individual (Anonymous) is of the opinion that I am living out some drama from my childhood.
    Anonymous, is your statement based on something you read, or are you qualified to comment on my childhoood, because you lived it?
    You see, unlike you and others in this, I have nothing to hide, therefore I put my name on it.

  19. Marlene says:

    Does this guy still live in NS or did the Canadian Forces move and protect him?

  20. Mike says:

    Marlene, are you saying the police would not help Nicole Ryan, nobody would help Nicole Ryan, and now the government (military) is protecting “this guy”.

  21. interested girl says:

    just wondering where the “galvanized pipe” assault took place.

  22. michaelmryan says:

    I moved out of the matrimonial home in Jan 2007. Nicole Ryan moved out in Nov 2007 and left the home empty. I returned to the empty place to pick up building supplies and my tools left in the basement garage. Nicole’s father, brother-in-law and sister show up with a “galvanized pipe” and beat the hell out of me with it.

  23. lee says:

    they obviously didnt beat the hell out of you hard enough…..

  24. michaelmryan says:

    I guess what needs to be said in reply to Lee is, who is the violent one here?

    I’m hoping the SCOC orders a new trial to get the truth out. It seems some people like to hide behind their computer screens looking for blood…. Take a good look in the mirror Lee !!

  25. lee says:

    oh i look in the mirror every day!!! have no complaints either!! have you ever looked in the mirror?? dont think so…..i have known you for a very long time, and the only truth that is left to come out, is that you are one of the most vile, and pathetic people to walk the face of this earth….embarrassment to the canadian military.

  26. michaelmryan says:

    Pretty harsh words coming from someone who states they have no problem looking in the miiror, however, must still hide behind the box in front of them. You are either so caught up in your own anger, or just throwing your own pathetic opinion out there, that quite frankly means nothing to anyone without a name on it. What is the “truth that is left to come out”. You see, I have nothing to hide, but you do….obviously.

  27. Anonymous says:

    oh sunshine…’re so funny…..
    must be killing ya wondering who i am….actually, my opinion is shared by MANY PEOPLE….im not posting my name, because you are a complete headcase, and god only knows what you would do if you knew who i am…remember…i have known you for a very long time….

  28. Nicole says:

    I’m all for an open discussion and sharing of information. These comments are becoming more of a personal, name-calling battle than anything that is useful to anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and has been given a chance to express it. Now I ask that all comments be limited to a discussion of FACTS related to the case, otherwise I will no longer allow comments on this post. Thank you to all involved.

  29. michaelmryan says:

    Well put Nicole. I had hoped that there would be more of an effort from your respondents towards inquiring about the facts in this case. I understand most people’s response is based on the Judge’s decision that is available on line. However, people do not take the time to understand that the crown did not feel I was needed to testify at the trial considering the facts against her. After reading the decision, as you stated yourself, you feel for Nicole Ryan in all this. But had I been called to testify, we wouldn’t be here right now. When Nicole testified, she went on and on about how nobody would help her. The fact is, there is a pile of evidence that wasn’t heard in front of the Nova Scotia Courts. The problem is, not the Nova Scotia Supreme Court where she was on trial. The criminial trial was the last court appearance for N Ryan. Throughout the divorce and assault trials, Nicole Ryan gave different versions of her life with me. There was no mention of physical abuse and threats with guns against her and our daughter.
    What is not stated in the Judge’s decision, is the fact that our daughter was not taken away from her mother because she was arrested for trying to have me killed, but rather because it was a court decision to remove her from her mother’s care and in to my care, as social services reports indicated mental and physical abuse. While Nicole was running around trying to find somebody to do “the job” we were actively going through court proceedings to finalize our divorce and child custody. At the time I was living 200kms away (one way)! Her extended family was denied any temporary custody as well. Nicole Ryan hired a lawyer and we went to family court many times. The court ordered an assessment of the parties by professionals and the conclusion by all, was that our daughter be in my care and sole custody and primary care. Nicole Ryan did not even show up to the last three Family court appearances. She sent her lawyer with the position that she was no longer contesting my application for sole custody and primary care. This was 6 months before her criminal trial. Nicole Ryan was ordered to pay child support in November 2009. She refused to pay child support and her Nova Scotia teachers union wages had to be garnished. I did not receive any support until August 2011.

    This is what people should be looking at, the evidence is all in the court records. Nicole Ryan screamed out during her criminal trial that she is afraid for her daughters life, but it was our daughter who was screaming out to be with her father.
    Someday I hope someone will listen to me.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Michael, like many other men, is a victim of the feminist ideologically driven family courts that infest our country. (all men are bad, all women are innocent victims)

    This is why you didn’t get your say in court. They dont want to hear it. Anything you say will be regarded as a lie, so there is no point in taking a statement from you and wasting the courts time.

    And by simply keeping you out of the hearings, your evidence will never be seen or heard.

    this is the family court playbook

  31. michaelmryan says:

    I now believe this is true. I have never been interviewed by police or lawyers through all of this. Not even a statement. I sat in the parking lot during the trial, waiting to be called, I never was. I have never been given the opprotunity to answer to Nicole Ryan’s false allegations of abuse.

  32. Chris says:

    Michael, you should sue her for slander, her allegations are ruining your name, and you are now subject to the abuse of others because of the lies she told about you.

  33. Pingback: Canada Abused woman who hired hit man awaits Supreme Court ruling

  34. truthseeker says:

    Michael. I am curious on a few things. What is behind the story that you killed your and the neighbour’s dog? After you broke up, it says you were sitting in HER car outside her school, and that the story was corroborated by witnesses from the school – what was this all about? If you had not done anything to this woman, why did her father beat you with the pipe?

  35. ex coelis says:

    I noticed you mentioned that the RCMP were from the useless New Minas detachment..They wont go after you because they to lazy to bother doing a proper investigation…if they did you wouldn’t be blathering on here…Honestly if I had know you lived in Kentville she wouldn’t have had to hire a hit man…..

  36. JusticeWatchdog says:

    I have nothing but sympathy for you after reading what legal documents I can find pertaining to your case. Those people who have never been through the legal system in Canada have no idea how little care is taken to get to the truth. The Supreme Court decision today is just another example of how little the rights of men are valued in this country. I agree with you that the police did an exceptional job on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia. The crown attorney’s office did a poor job, in that they choose not to dispute the claims made in court by your ex-wife. The judge had only to consider one side of the issue, with the crown, by omission of rebuttal evidence, essentially endorsing her claims. The same thing almost happened to me, but I was lucky as I had friends who were lawyers who advised me (which was somehow against the rules of the law society) to get a new lawyer. I did and I got treated fairly. Reading through the claims of your ex-wife brought back chilling memories. A lot of people have a problem believing that women can lie about such things. The ability to lie without remorse is a personal attribute, not a gender attribute. Our laws and justice system has not grasped that concept. There is much more to your story that the media is reporting, as anyone who has been through these things know all to well. There is a lot of us out there. You are not alone.

  37. Ryan A. Fox says:

    Michael Ryan. I have lived in a fairly similar situation for the last 5 years.

    My Financial resources are limited, but what I have I will share with you to pursue defamation and libel suits against the CBC, the National Post, Duhaime Law, and several other news organizations.

    My former spouse, after seperation, began to make ever more serious allegations of abuse in order to influence the custody process.

    The Police only stopped listening to her complaints after she was proven to have lied while alleging child sexual abuse. I have my children four nights a week, and they are still with their mother three nights a week despite her actions and a 23 year history of mental illness and treatment with psychotropic medication.

    The Supreme court, in typical fashion for an activist judiciary with no accountability mechanisms, has basically acted out their misandric bias in this decision.

    However, that does not allow the media to convict you, and you should seek legal action against those organizations that have openly attacked your character in the news.

  38. Ryan A. Fox says:

    ex coelis, you have just uttered a threat.

    Will the moderator please report this user to the relevant authorities.

    A death threat in Canada is a criminal offence.

    Please post when you have notified the RCMP, I will be filing a parallel complaint immediately with my local detachment.

  39. Ryan A. Fox says:

    Ironically, while your chances of a successful defamation suit against your former spouse are slim in our court system. At least this is what I have been told both by the police and a lawyer specializing in defamation.

    The same biased, activist, and unaccountable judicary love to beat up the media.

    Those organizations who have chosen to defame your character, to state allegations as fact, and to convict you in abcense of due process have harmed you and your daughter and they should compensate you for that harm.

  40. pete smith says:

    Truthseeker-I’ve been interested in this case as well, but those comments from Mike Ryan are over a year old and I doubt he follows the subject here, particularly since the poor girl who runs the blog has nothing to do with the case but just gets traffic because there is so little of substance on this case.

    I can answer one of your questions, in that the court records state that the vehicle in question was registered in HIS name, not hers. That’s why the police couldn’t do anything, however, I had read variously that he informed the RCMP he was coming there and had a tow truck to tow the vehicle away, and the police wouldn’t permit that.

    As for the dogs, I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it was here that Mr. Ryan admitted that Nicole put on one of her forms early on that she believed he shot the family dog, but I think I read somewhere that she didn’t actually witness it.

    If Mr. Ryan ever returns, or can be tracked down, the other incident from the trial is the testimony of two teachers who said he fought with them in the parking lot and broke a rear view mirror. And from this article he references the court case with the assault by his father in law, and having read that as well, he certainly doesn’t come off squeeky clean.

    And for the posters above damning our biased court system, keep in mind that the Supreme Court of Canada DID throw out her defence. They simply said that the time already served was plenty and no further trial would be allowed.

    The only final thought I have is of the complete abdication of responsibility by journalists and media. Namely, IF Michael Ryan is such a horrible person (and I”ve read all the court transcripts and still have no idea), then for the love of God why isn’t there media all over the fact that he currently has custody of the child he is purported to have threatened?

  41. michaelmryan says:

    I am Michael Ryan the alleged abusive husband. I have nothing to hide and only wish I had been given the opprotunity to testify in regards to Nicole Ryan’s false allegations. You all have just heard Nicole and her lawyer speak at their press conference. The truth, Nicole does not mention she sent her lawyer to the Family court in July 2009 and instructed him not to contest my request to the court for sole custody. She does not mention that the Family Court ordered that she have no contact or visitation after the results of a court ordered pyschologist assessment were presented to the court. Nicole does not mention during her press conference that she was permitted to write our daughter letters but stopped writing after her criminal trial was finished in March 2010. She does not mention that she was ordered to pay child support and refused to pay support. Nicole does not mention that the Child Support enforcement had to garnish her wages. Nicole and her lawyer do not mention in this press conference I informed them I re-enroled back into the military and was stationed in Ontario and sent her lawyer my new address so she could communicate with her daughter. Nicole leads the press conference to believe that she has been denied any communication with her daughter, however she refused to do so and without so much as a birthday card or Christmas wish during the holidays for the past 4 years. These are examples of how Nicole Ryan has misled the courts and made false allegations against me. Nicole refuses to talk about her allegation that the RCMP did nothing to help her. The truth is, the RCMP had always been investigating Nicole and I after she began making allegations in Nov 2007. The evidence will show the RCMP and social services investigated Nicole’s abuse of our daughter and that is why she lost custody. I don’t understand how Mr Joel Pink does not mention that his firm represented Nicole Ryan in regards to custody and access before she was arrested and during this period she claims she was under duress. Someone should ask Mr Pink what his firm was doing for Nicole Ryan during this period she claims she was under duress, they were representing her. It is very disturbing to watch Nicole Ryan use a courtroom platform and state in her defence that she is afraid for her daughters safety and that I have threatened my daughters life. Nicole Ryan knows as well as her counsell that she lost custody of her daughter because she was abusive, not because she was arrested for hiring a hitman. This is all in the court evidence and is avaiable to the public.

  42. michaelmryan says:

    Ex Coelis… ex airborne type im thinking…put your name on your threats

  43. Anonymous says:

    Mr Ryan,

    I can only hope you undertake defamation suits against the slanderous articles currently running on CBC, National Post, Duhaime Family Law, and others.

    It is disgusting how our society reacts to the allegations of a mentall ill woman as if you have been tried and convicted of each.

    As far as Ex Coelis, his boldness ends at pretending he is airborne. If he actually is, his anonymous cowardice does a disservice to those who serve.

    I have never been as disappointed in the Canadian Justice System as I am today.

    Best Regards,

    Ryan A. Fox

  44. pete smith says:

    That’s all well and good Mr. Ryan, but you didn’t address the points I mention. The point is, that the court painted out a scenario where you ‘controlled’ her. This is why in the courts eyes, her behaviour becomes ‘explainable’. A woman can actually be terrified of her husband even if there is NO physical assault. The point is, if you MAKE somebody crazy, you can’t be surprised at their crazy behaviour. That is not my opinion, but the opinion of the initial court judge-and I agree, it was nonsensical to not have you testify. I’m surprised a judge can’t FORCE somebody to testify when most cases are ‘he said…she said’, and then to say “well, I didn’t even hear HIM, but I think she sounds honest”. Various transcripts described her as ‘naive’, I’d apply that to the judge as well.

    Just keep that in mind when you criticize how ‘bad’ she is-that in the eyes of people that followed the story in the media, its YOU who made her that way (whether thats true or not we have no way of knowing).

    So OK, your point is that SHE is crazy. Fair enough. But most of your comments in your defence seem to indicate you did NOTHING wrong, and you don’t answer the remaining charges above. In court the judge didn’t just hear Nicole Ryan, but those teachers who said you attacked them and broke a rear view mirror. So the judge DID have some corrorborating testimony of at least violent tendencies. So I’m not really surprised he would tend to lean the way he did.

    Personally, I think she WAS under duress-but maybe it was ‘self inflicted’. But again, to the NEW poster above, as far as justice goes, people who attempt murder themselves are often out in as little as a year.

  45. truthseeker says:

    Hi Michael,

    Just wondering if you had a response to my questions above?

    By the way, how is your daughter doing? Although you both have moved, does she see much of her/your extended family?

  46. pete smith says:

    These are from the various court transcripts, unfortunately, most of it comes down to ‘he said…she said’ because we have no access to any of the divorce or family court documents. I’m not making any judgements, again except to say that IF M. Ryan is so awful, then there really needs to be some followup as to why he has custody of the child. During the trial though, one social worker claims that she thinks it was Mr. Ryan who called family services to report Nicole. I’m really not sure what the relevance of that is.

    “26] Michael Ryan and Shannon Huntley, together in an intimate relationship, have discussed their respective testimony before the trial and there are indications Mr. Ryan will tailor his testimony to the context or deny facts proven by an independent witness.”

    “Indeed to all appearances he was committing a waste upon the property by removing fixtures without the consent of the other co-tenants, surreptitiously and in breach of an earlier agreement not to be on the property without the other co-tenant, a date having been set up for the following day by Constable Poitras. ”

    “Michael Ryan appeared to get the better of Herbert Boudreau, as one would expect, given their age and physical differences….He clearly, by that time, had the upper hand, having forced both men down that long driveway. That blow was excessive force. ”

    “With respect to Mr. Hannan, he gave evidence of a fight he was involved in with Mr. Ryan in December 1996. He described the attack as completely random and on provoked. The significance of Mr. Hanna’s evidence is to show the longstanding history of violence with respect to Mr. Ryan.”

    “141] The long standing history is also corroborated by ex. 3, the medical records which were introduced by consent which indicates that Mr. Ryan, as of 2002, had longstanding issues with anger, awareness and management.”

    [134] The defence also called Alan Green. Mr. Green was involved with a road rage incident on March 26, 2007, with Mr. Ryan. [135] The incident culminated in Mr. Ryan attempting to hit Mr. Green, instead he hit the back window of Mr. Green’s vehicle smashing it. He also smashed the left mirror on the vehicle.”

    Unfortunately, the public has no access to most of these documents, so its pretty hard to ‘take sides’. I definitely agree that there are two sides of this story, whether either one comes out looking good is a good question.

  47. Shannon says:

    Mike provides a response to Nicole’s allegations on YouTube.

    On another note, Mike and I have been together for a long time now. I know both him and Nicole and I was around before things got “ugly” and before the “hitman”. It is extremely difficult to read the things that some people post about him. Especially the things involving his daughter. Mike is a loving husband and father. Mike and I have a son together. I could not ask for a better father for my son. Mike has never done any of the things Nicole has accused him of. I think back to a conversation I had with Nicole at two in the morning in the summer of 2007. Nicole was confiding in me and in the discussion she told me “you won’t find a better love than Mikes”. That has always stuck with me, and you know what she was right! Nicole has caused a world of hurt, not only to Mike, but to herself and thejr daughter. Nicole tried to take her child’s father away from her. That can not be forgotten. Their daughter has only pleasant memories of her father, she has suffered no abuse at he hand of her Father. It is unfortunate that Nicole has stooped so low to save her own butt. Please don’t believe everything that you see on be Internet. There is always more than one side to a story, including this one. Take care.

  48. pete smith says:

    It doesn’t look good when he avoids the ‘tough questions’. Those quotes were from objective evidence stating he at least HAD an anger problem, and although I can’t find the court case, the road rage case shows a pretty clear disposition.

    Not being able to find ANY fault in oneself is usually a sign of psychosis, and in the video Michael states that Nicole’s ‘depression’ has only to do with her family, and nothing to do with the fact that he was in the process of leaving her. To the outsider, that sounds like denial to the extreme, and paints him out as crazy or manipulative. Mr. Ryan is trying to convince the public that he has NOTHING to do with the fact that a person he’s been married to since 1992 is now a certifiable lunatic. That MAY be true,but dude, that’s a tough row to hoe!

    It’s also unfortunate that his CTV interview isn’t longer, he essentially only says one line (that’s not his decision I know). Going on Youtube is the the last resort of the lunatic fringe. Saying you are going on youtube to defend yourself puts you on par with UFO sightings and conspiracy theorists.

    The court calls Mr. Ryan ‘manipulative’, and although I’m just a guy at a keyboard who is interested in hearing all sides of a story which really has nothing to do with me, I get that impression as well from his comments I see online. The usual claim is that ‘its in the evidence which will come out at trial’ followed by ‘I know there will probably be no trial’. One would think Mr. Ryan would have access to his own transcripts from his own family and divorce proceedings, if not, I urge him to get them. If he has letters to Nicole about seeing her child, I hope at least he had the foresight to send them registered mail so that they have a date imprinted on them and urge him to release them-and they aren’t just some hastily scribbled notes.

    That’s IF he is interested in pursuing this. Fact is, if he hadn’t gone on Youtube his face would be pretty anonymous, and his name is fairly common so he should count his lucky stars that he has a new life intact and custody of Aimee and the love of a good woman. Knowing a little about media, nobody is going to come looking for a story from you. Learn how to write a press release and find all the contacts you can. Write letters to the editor of every newspaper. Start a website with some objective evidence and send press releases out to every editor you can. Contact every reporter you can to get an in depth video interview. Media is VERY lazy, as you’ve noticed. If all you have is YOU controlling all the edits and comments, then nobody is going to take you seriously, and the fact that you are ducking some questions here don’t help. It’s true that the media already has a bias against you, and really doesn’t like talking about domestic issues PERIOD, but do what you can. Write a book. Hire somebody to write a book. Launch a lawsuit or at least talk to a lawyer about launching one and send out that press release (consultations are usually free). The fact that the only place anybody can find comments from you are on obscure blogs (sorry to the owner of this one) doesn’t paint a good picture.

    We don’t really know whether you are manipulating us online just like you say Nicole did during the trial. My suspicion as an objective observer is that there was violence in your past and you want to avoid any associations with it in order to come across as the ‘victim’. Personally, I think even IF allegations were true, that the military and Bosnia factor into that equation, but that’s another issue. If you won’t ‘come clean’ and at least address the OBJECTIVE evidence of the court, then I don’t see why the mainstream press-or anybody, would believe you without SOME evidence. You tell a good story, but Nicole’s is ‘better’-and she at least has had SOME corroborating evidence and third party testimony. Start talking to the police that you say you dealt with, and get some EVIDENCE on your side.

    You may want to just forget about this and deal with it later when Aimee is older, and thats understandable. The fact is, if you want the public to believe you, you need more than a fireside chat on youtube where you basically call her a liar.

  49. Anonymous says:

    Mr Smith, you should read over your comment and then read everything that I have written on these blogs over the last few years. I’m not going to go on repeating myself, but Ill refresh your memory and then I suggest you request the complete transcript of all the court proceedings you are referring to. I do not have a criminal record and here is my response to your above charges;
    – Mr Herby Boudreau (Nicole Ryan’s father) charged and found guilty of assaulting me with a 5ft metal pipe
    – Mr Hannah his brother and himself attacked me in a washroom in a bar in 1996…randum… I think not…. if I started this and it was random… where are the charges. Listen to his testimony and the cross examination before you make judgement.
    – Mr Green road rage !! check the court file on this one from Kentville provincial court – Mr Green was the one who had the road rage problem here, and he lied in his testimony, the court record will prove that.

    Your statement about it is was ME that made her crazy , again all you are doing is reading her side of the story. I was calling social services about her mental health from Nov 2007 up until she was arrested.. check the court record files, its there !!!

    I didn’t make her “CRAZY” her family did and the local community knows it.

    I just recently posted my response to Nicole Ryan’s SCOC decision on youtube. Google Nicole Ryan hitman response youtube and share it if you like.

    Finally, if people actually believe Nicole Ryan’s false allegations over the RCMP and the prosecutors office and given the fact that I didn’t get the chance to testify, then I really do not have anything else I can say to change that.

  50. Truth Seeker says:

    Strange though that Michael is still avoiding the point blank questions that I asked him. very strange.

    truthseeker says:

    January 18, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Michael. I am curious on a few things. What is behind the story that you killed your and the neighbour’s dog? After you broke up, it says you were sitting in HER car outside her school, and that the story was corroborated by witnesses from the school – what was this all about? If you had not done anything to this woman, why did her father beat you with the pipe?

  51. pete smith says:

    I’m not THAT interested in the case, I’m certainly not going to try to find out how to get a complete transcript. Its YOU who is trying to clear their name. If YOU want to clear your name then I suggest you get the full transcript and post it on a website, better yet, the parts which verify what you say. I’ve already put too much ‘work’ into this (my wife asked me why I care…and have you cleaned the garage yet?) Telling people to go and dig out information to prove your innocence is asking a bit much, and I think I’m probably one in a thousand who has read all these transcripts.

    I’ve read the court transcripts but can’t find any mention that you called social services on your wife, please provide a link where that can be seen. You keep saying ‘check the record’ but when I do, all I’ve found is the appellate court case, and the supreme court case, and the court case against your father in law which certainly doesn’t paint you out as the innocent victim (yes he got the record, but the judge did say it was clear you had the upper hand and used unnecessary force-on a 79 year old) There is a LOT of stuff in the transcripts, and if you are trying to clear your name by telling people “hey go read the 500 page transcript” then you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you. I’m pretty sympathetic to your case, thats why I’m still interested. But at the very least, you seem to attract an awful lot of violence, and the claim that you are a constant victim is pretty unbelievable. I’m saying this for your own benefit, most people will simply take you as a liar and leave it at that.

    There IS something you can do to change that. Namely, get some EVIDENCE. Find out why the RCMP aren’t talking and get them to talk. In case you missed it, Nicole was on The Current this morning answering some pretty softball questions. And actually I was thinking of contacting them and berating them for only doing one side of the story, however, you still haven’t mentioned about the dog. But she is pretty convincing, she has the ‘victim’ role pretty perfected, right down to the pauses between words.

    Your constant claim is that ‘the community knows’ or ‘the police knows’. NONE of this can be corroborated by anybody. That you didn’t testify and that you have custody of the child is about the only reason I’m still interested. Like I said, MOST people will not investigate this story, and you may get some support from guys who feel rightly or wrongly that they’ve been screwed over by the courts, but I’m asking these questions for your own benefit, not mine. Get a lawyer and DEMAND that you be allowed to testify. Like I said, I’m sympathetic, which is why I”m still here. I haven’t the time or even the knowledge of where you’ve been posting your stuff over the years, let alone read it. Your video is pretty uninspiring, there is NO evidence, you are simply saying, I hate to say it, what anybody would expect you to say. I hope you do get a lawyer and maybe sue the police and victim services for not coming out with their information, because I’d really like to see the evidence.

  52. pete smith says:

    I’d also like to hear about the dog. I’d also ask Mr. Ryan “have you EVER initiated any violence since you were 20 years old?” Because thats what it comes down to.

    To truthseeker, and for more context, the judge in the case with the father in law says that a police officer was SUPPOSED to escort various parties to the house the following day. The court says that the house was paid for by Mr. Doucet, or Beaudreau, can’t remember his name, and the house was basically getting gutted before he had been paid back. Although apparantly there was lots of bad blood between them prior to this. I couldn’t find it in the court record, but there seems to have been some altercation the day before this, but I didn’t see details.

    Probably the ONLY other reason I’m still interested is that probably like a lot of men, I’ve been on the recieving end of shit coming from the family of a girl I loved, and I know what its like to be considered the villain. And I’ve also met some women who are batshit crazy and don’t rule that out as well. HOwever, given the amount of domestic abuse in this country the reality is that we can’t simply take ‘ the word’ of somebody online. I should also state that its true that the court only had TWO guys who testified about Mr. Ryans ‘violent nature’, and one of those was 1996, which is pretty ancient history. And having grown up in a military town, this kind of stuff was often ‘just a saturday night’. However, maybe Mr. Ryan can comment on the medical records which apparantly state that you have an anger management problem. But like I say Mr. Ryan, you need to get all this stuff in order on a website with some evidence. If ‘The Current’, Canada’s flagship newsmagazine, can’t even be bothered to TRY and find you or offer another view, then your work is really cut out for you. At least a couple of use here are being sympathetic and trying to find out more, and thats more than virtually ANYONE will do.

  53. michaelmryan says:

    Mr Smith, I can clearly see through the smoke here that you are more interested in this case than you are disclosing. Regardless, you have asked a lot of questions in your comments and I will answer them. Only because I hope in some capacity that you are a part of some process here. I may be wrong, but I smell smoke.
    Anyway, the family dog Nicole is alleging I killed, ran away. We had two pups from the same litter, we lived on a farm. One of the dogs liked to run, and run she did. Check with the Clare SPCA and they will tell you we retrieved her from there on a few occassions. One time she ran, we never got her back. The other pup remained with us until our separation in December 2006. Nicole abandoned the dog and left him in his kennel in the back yard when she moved out of the matrimonial home in Nov 2007. Check with the Meteghan RCMP. I called them when I went to the abandoned home to retrieve the few items I still had in the home. The RCMP responded to this call and retrieved the dog and placed him at Jackie’s kennel in Meteghan. I refused to take the dog at the time, in fear that Nicole would twist the story and events, so I simply called the RCMP who at this time were very much involved in this allegation game Nicole Ryan was playing.

    The neighbours dog is a fabricated allegation. We lived at the end of a long road, 219 S.F. Comeau Rd. None of our neighbours have dogs.

    The pipe assault took place at the abandoned matrimonial home. This property still had my name on it and I was responsible for it. Yes I was removing some items from the home that belonged to me. For example, the day Nicole’s father and brother in law and sister showed up at the house, I was removing a hand made bathroom vanity that I had made myself. You have to understand the house was abandoned, not secured, no heat, no lights and it was winter. The home was being stripped by Nicole’s father. The evidence will show, that her father and brother in law showed up and attacked me and my present wife with the pipe. During the altercation, the evidence will show that I forced the two men down the driveway with a baseball bat. Nicole’s father was convicted of the assault and I was not charged. The RCMP did a investigation on site, it was very clear as to what had transpired as there was a fresh layer of snow on top of the 12 inches of undisturbed snow already in place. So Mr Smith, if you are all about “he said she said” and not about the facts, then I can understand how you come to your conclusions. I will tell you this about 219 S.F. Comeau Rd. This matrimonial home was a big part of why Nicole Ryan hired a hitman to murder me. This home was purchased for $90 000.00 in 1997. I renovated the home completly and built barns garages and sheds over the years. During our court proceedings for the division of matrimonial property, the home was appraised at $344 000.00 As well Mr Smith, I owned two homes in the Anapolis Valley that were appraised at over $400 000.00 I had a military pension and other assets. The court evidence will show that it was me that applyed for the divorce and Nicole attempted to avoid this until after she was arrested.

    So Mr Smith, you can critisize my response to these comments as much as you like. Your interpretation of evidence is obviously different than mine. You will not find evidence in transcripts or testimonies, its in police reports and court documents. I have the evidence and the transcripts and police reports as well as the audio recordings of all our court proceeding. If you are as interested in this case as much as you seem to be, go to the courts and get copies of the documents, you call the police and read the reports. Me scanning this evidence and posting it on a website does not clear my name. The RCMP have cleared my name by not having me charged for any of these allegations, because that’s all they are. Nicole Ryan and her lawyer continue to slam the RCMP and say they did nothing. Wrong, all lies, they were in our faces from the start Nov 23, 2007 and on. At times they pissed me off and I understood they were doing their job. But in the end, they got it right, and in the process, asaved my life.

  54. michaelmryan says:

    The car….
    During our marriage and in June 2006, I leased a new 2006 Ford Fusion for Nicole. When we separated, I moved out of the home and moved into another home 200km away. Part of our agreement was that I would continue to pay for the Ford Fusion Lease instead of paying child support. This was all fine until I asked for a divorce and Nicole lost it. She began making allegations Nov 23, 2007 (RCMP) and then later in Dec 2007 I was assaulted by her father. (pipe Assault). It was apparent at that time that Nicole was attempting to lash out at me any way she could. She made all kinds of allegations to the RCMP and provided a 45 min video statement. In this statement mentions nothing about physical abuse or guns. Actually she filled out a DOMESTIC FAMILY VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT on Nov 24, 2007 and stated that she had NOT been threatened physically or with guns or weapons. Anyway, by Feb 2008, it was explained to me by the Lease company Ford Credit, that any damage to the car would be my responsibility. It was recommended that I report the car stolen. You see at this point, my lawyer had already been in contact with Joel Pink’s firm in regards to Nicole failure to sign the vehicle into her own name as she had agreed to do back in the early fall of 2007. She continued to refuse to sign the car over, and I called the RCMP and explained that I was going to the school to pick up the car because it was to be considered stolen. The RCMP agreed to meet me at the school. I called them as requested when I was 20 min from the school. I had a tow truck arrive at the school as well. It is clear that one of Nicole’s school teacher friends lied when she tesified at the criminal trial. She stated that she saw me in the car and it was running. She stated that I was just sitting there. The fact is, I could not start the car because I didn’t have a key, (hence the tow truck). The RCMP arrived and we discussed the situation, and the RCMP explained that I was in my right to take the car, however, think of your daughter, Nicole will not be able to get around without the car. I explained that she refuses to sign it over into her name. The RCMP officers explained they will talk to her and let her know my concerns. I left the area and the tow truck was sent away. Important point here folks, I was on an undertaking to stay away from Nicole and our daughter as a result of the allegations Nicole had made on Nov 24, 2007. Those allegations were investigated and were found to be false and the charges were dropped by the Crown. When I went to the school parking lot that day to recover the car, i was not malicious or hurtful in any way. The RCMP were well aware of my concerns about the car well before that day. I was not charged with breaching the undertaking and it was me that called the RCMP. Nicole states that her friend called the RCMP, and that may be true, however they were already informed by me that I was there. Nicole doen’t mention anywhere about her involvement with this car and her refusal to return the car. I eventually got the car back and with damages including the tires and aluminum rims missing. In the court proceedings for the division of matrimonial property this issue was disscussed for a complete day at the divorce trial and in the end, Nicole was ordered to pay for the car.

  55. Chris P. Bacon says:

    This story is being handled so poorly by the media. The sentence in my local paper was that Michael Ryan “took his daughter”. It sounded like a domestic kidnapping. Then after some reading I find out he was awarded sole custody. Saying Michael ‘took his child’ is hardly the most accurate way to reflect this. Why is the media so one-sided on this?

    Does anyone know if the court documents are available on-line?

  56. Ryan A. Fox says:

    Mr Ryan,

    The actions of the media in Canada in regards to this matter are disgusting. The SCoC has given them a free license to print unsubstantiated allegations as fact, despite the laws of libel.

    Having gone through many similar experiences, with the signficant difference being the hiring of a hitman to kill me has not yet happened, I can relate to your statements from my own experiences with the RCMP, Child and Family Services, and a mentally ill former spouse. In fact, despite being the primary care giver of my children, I still have to regularly deal with new and ever more serious false allegations from a woman with a 23 year history of mental illness and treatment with psychotropic medication.

    Please for the sake of your child, hire a lawyer to pursue the persons and organizations that are currently making defamatory statements and printing libelous language all across Canada.

    While I do not know you personally, and I have no way of knowing if your statements are true or false. I have seen enough of this system to understand that it is likely to be true.

    Reading comments on sites such as cbc news, it is apparent that public opinion has convicted you with no regards for your version of events.

    I can only hope you will pursue this matter in the courts.

    Best Regards,

    Ryan A. Fox

  57. pete smith says:

    I agree with Mr. Bacon, this story has been very badly handled. There is no ‘smoke’ here, obviously I’m interested in this case for the reasons I mentioned. I’m just a member of the public who at least has some experience online and with media and courts so know just how often they get it wrong.

    I’m really not going to call the police to get reports and transcripts, I don’t have that kind of time, and I doubt the police are going to hand out transcripts and reports just because some guy on the phone asks for them-in fact one of the reasons reporters may have such a hard time is because I doubt police even give them to media. So far ‘the powers that be’ seem perfectly content to ride it out, as the only casualty is Michael Ryan. I am ‘sympathetic’, most of the country is not, and as you can tell, most of the public is not crying out for ‘your side of the story’. Scanning the evidence WOULD ‘clear your name’ because it is the ‘court of public opinion’ that you currently have problems with. If you expect everybody out there to call the police and ask for copies of evidence, then, well, good luck with that. Like I said, I’m sympathetic, but until I see paperwork…. If you put SOME evidence online with a website,then you can at least go to media and get them to take a look. As you may have noticed from The Current, they didn’t even bother to even TRY to find you, and it really wasn’t that hard.

    And what about the medical report that the judge references?

  58. Ryan A. Fox says:

    Fundamental to our society is that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

    Mr Ryan has had no trial, nor are any charges pending, therefore he at this time is innocent.

    The apathy of the media and the general public in regards to this concept is appalling.

  59. SR says:

    I don’t believe that the RCMP ignored her, because I know from personal experience that there is a zero-tolerance spousal abuse policy in Nova Scotia. An evening of drinking (by all), an argument, an idiot calling 9-1-1, my wife trying to convince the RCMP that nothing had happened, and still I get hauled off, charged, issued restraining orders, and forced to hire a lawyer. I’m really quite leery of relationships now, and that includes the marriage my wife desires I return to. If I hadn’t personally experienced the blatant anti-male bias in the justice system regarding spousal disputes, I would have returned to her months ago, but now I’m so apprehensive I think I’d rather just get a dog for love and companionship. The terrible thing is that our kids have to suffer. 😦

  60. michaelmryan says:

    Mr Smith,

    Ok I get it, I think you have a good point there and I will follow. Going to scan some evidence and I’ll let you know where it is ASAP. I guess i have just been expecting people to see the obvious.
    What is hard to digest is this; Nicole Ryan was arrested March 28, 2008 and immediately sent for a 30 day pysch assessment. There, she told doctors she wanted me dead before April 1, 2008 because we had a child custody hearing (I will scan this). She also told doctors that I never abused her.
    When she was released from custody we resumed the child custody and access process.
    What you need to know, is that after she was arrested, the RCMP and Social services had to take my daughter into custody as it was determined that she was being physically and mentally abused by her mother. The RCMP and Social services investigated Nicole Ryan’s allegations that I was not an active parent in her relationship with me and Nicole wanted our daughter to go to her sister’s home until she was released. However social services and the RCMP felt that Nicole’s family were a threat to our daughter based on their investigation. After a week in a foster home April 7,2008 social services recommended to the Family Court that I have custody of our daughter based on the joint investigation.
    So again, now Nicole has been released from hospital and custody and she wants our daughter back in to her custody, so the court proceedings begin. Throughout the Family Court proceedings Nicole and her lawyers never mentioned anything about me abusing her or our daughter. No mention about burying them in a hole or threats with guns. No mention of physical or sexual abuse. Her position in family court was simply that I have never been around our daughter and did not want to spend time with her and that she has been her caregiver her entire life. She stated all this in an affidavit (I will scan this).
    So my question to the Courts is this, if Nicole Ryan is seriously concerned for her daughter safety and I am a monster, why did she not mention any of the abuse that she alleges in her criminal trial in Dec 2009. You would think that if any of this abuse was true, she would have mentioned it to her lawyers and brought forth this position in the Family Court to gain custody of our daughter and keep her safe. This Family Court proceeding was all after she was arrested in March 2008 and before her criminal trial. During the custody process, the court ordered an assessment of the parties (Nicole and I and our daughter). This assessment was conducted by a female pyschologist who interviewed many people involved in our lives and it was recommended by this doctor that I have full custody of our daughter. On july 15, 2009 Nicole Ryan sent her lawyer alone to the Family Court to say that she was not contesting my application for sole custody and primary care. She was then ordered to pay Child support and she refused to pay that. The Child Support enforcement agency had to garnish her teaching wages. I didn’t receive support until August 2011. She refuses to correspond with her daughter, and refuses to accept updates on her daughters education and accomplishments. Her lawyer refuses to respond to my numerous letters.
    That is the problem here, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia only had to look as far as the family court proceeding a few months prior. She never mentioned any of this abuse to the RCMP or the Family Court. Only until she testified at the criminal trial.
    Ill scan what I can and get it out on a site, will let you know.

  61. pete smith says:

    Nobody is going to ‘see the obvious’ because right now, according to media, YOU are the bad guy, and may very well BE the bad guy. So far its just words on a screen. Nobody is going to believe you-except any people who may have been screwed over, and thats not as many as you’d think. All the evidence you are supplying has been seen by a judge who was convinced Nicole was under duress, so you really have to realize the hole you are in. It’s VERY hard for the general public to think that judges err, even though their goof ups show up almost weekly. But the more serious the accusation, the less likely people are to believe a mistake has been made. And it will be hard just to get people to LISTEN, I’m a pretty objective person but the thought just popped into my head that I may be giving way too much credence to somebody who MAY be the worst human being I’ve discussed anything with, and thats a hard pill to swallow.

    Again, it may be better just to leave it alone, because most people will no doubt forget as soon as the next shiny penny comes along and as Nicole has said, it appears you have ‘won’ since you have your daughter and a life, and she has, well, I don’t know-I guess she has public sympathy, but in the long run the public is a pretty fickle mistress and not that good for much. But if you set up a site I’ll certainly look at it. has a ring to it.

  62. Mr Smith,
    You call yourself a “pretty objective person”… I’m done talking to this arrangement. You aren’t interested in any form of discussion.

    I’ll return when your comments are blocked.

    Thank you

  63. Anonymous says:

    Michael Ryan – I would continue explaining and post as much as you can. Your reputation is being trashed. I heard Nicole on The Current and wouldn’t want to be in your shoes. If you can do something to force your side to be given weight, I would do it. Get a lawyer. Fight for your name.

  64. Chris P. Bacon says:

    Mr. Ryan. You might want to start with an open letter to Mike Blanchfield, Canadian Press and Anna-Maria Tremonte, CBCttelling them what a disservice they are doing to the spirit of justice. I would send letters to the editor of Canadian papers. Your story, and how it is presented boggles the mind. From my perspective, your story needs to be on W5 to show people how some can manipulate the system. You owe it to yourself, your wife and child to tell your story. I believe with some exposure of the facts you will be heard. How you have been mistreated and maligned by the press is the real story here. This is the one people will relate to.

  65. pete smith says:

    That’s not a good sign. I am an objective person, in fact I lean toward your side, otherwise I would not still be posting comments, I would take Nicole’s claims at face value and move on. I don’t think my comment is out of line. Now I’m more on the fence again because the court stated that is one of Mr. Ryan’s failings-that he is nice and polite ‘when he gets what he wants’ and then turns abrasive. Abusers don’t always abuse, they can be quite charming, but when they’re not, its another story. If my final comment makes you come out with a comment like that then I can see some validity in that, not to mention the comment about my comments being blocked.

    The public wants answers, and if you won’t provide answers, and proof of those answers, then why would we believe you? – especially if you have this proof in your possession. Most people, particularly women, will probably be too terrified to even listen to you. And online I’ve been insulted worse than that, so you really need to develop some thicker skin-particularly online, let alone maybe in your life.

    Being objective means just that, it does not mean buying everything you say because you said it. This is mainly for other readers out there who are interested in this topic, and for those who may be men or seen the bad side of the judicial system, we can repeat the ‘objective’ evidence against Mr. Ryan. The court looked at the medical record and stated Mr. Ryan had an anger management problem.

    Besides that is the ‘fact’ that Mr. Ryan has at the very least been the victim of at least three attacks which he claims were not his fault. That’s a fair bit of violence, three times more than most adults have experience with. In the case we have documented, Mr. Ryan didn’t exactly ‘run away’ when he was attacked by a 69 year old man who was much smaller and had a pipe. Note for others, there is no shame in running away from a 69 year old man.

    Mr. Ryan is fond of saying “Why didn’t she…” and then asking hypothetical questions. The reality of the court case was that this was a woman ‘under duress’ (true, the Supreme Court threw out that defence, but the ‘court of public appeal’ doesn’t play by the same rules). So to the public, and quite reasonably, the answer is “she didn’t because she was terrified”, and “she didn’t because she felt helpless and defeated”. Again, to most of the public the woman is dysfunctional, but its Mr.Ryan who made her so. Mr. Ryan tells a convincing other side, and the fact is that he has the daughter in custody. However, that could simply because he was charming during interviews with social services and his wife was not. We really don’t know.

    Anyway, like Mr.Ryan I am done with the issue. I put too much time into it to only come out with the same conclusion as I had at the beginning. Mr. Ryan could be a monster, and he could be a victim, or could be somewhere in between. If he does check back, one final piece of advice would be that if you are going to do a video, at least have some corroborating evidence. And stop asking the public to answer questions, its not the public that knows the case, its you.

    And to the poster above, and any other men out there, one good piece of advice-keep alcohol out of your lives. It only makes things seem better, and usually ends up making them worse.

  66. Chris P. Bacon says:

    You can see Michael Ryan’s youtube video and further comments on this National Post page:

  67. SR says:

    I read the original court case, available on Canlii, and if she hadn’t have ordered a hit on you, to be honest, I’d be rooting for her if all she said were true, but that’s a big IF. I wouldn’t dismiss the testimony of others though, like the road rage incident and the bar fight; if they’re true, they’re true, nothing you can do. If in fact you have a temper and got into some mischief with deserving males, that does not mean you’re a wife abuser. I’d say also that if you’ve suffered PTSD from your overseas duties, you’re just as much a victim as anybody; just because you’re 6’2 doesn’t mean you can’t hurt inside.

    Nicole had a big family in a tiny town. If you go to her school’s website, there are a lot of the same surnames employed there. It seems like issues of inbred hilbilly justice might have been at work against you there. Just a guess.

  68. michaelmryan says:

    Mr Smith,

    I know I said I was not going to comment until you were blocked, but I just had to comment on your last post.
    You are an example of the total problem in this case. Making comments in regards to the fact that I was given sole custody of our daughter. Ya like maybe I charmed my way through social services. You are a confrontational coward hiding behind the false name you post, I know you who you are !. And ya, maybe I charmed my way through the pyschologist assessment as well. And maybe I charmed my way out of a charge and a criminal record with the RCMP. And maybe after I get into fights in bars and on the side of the road when dealing with road rage lying freaks I can charm my way out of that too. I don’t have to produce any documents to prove my inocence, I already did the court has them. But the courts are full of people like you. Control freaks !!
    You are pathetic

  69. michaelmryan says:

    Thanks for the support !! I have received alot of requests for interviews after my video was streaming. I have had two interviews today already. Photo copies of evidence and documents have been made and are going out fast. It’s unfortunate that some of us have to go through this sort of embarassment, when it can easily be controlled by simply having the courts address all evidence, including making it manditory for the intended victim to testify.

  70. SR says:

    This popped into my head today as I was doing some work: if Nicole had the wherewithal (money, motivation, time, etc.) to connect with a potential assassin and plot your demise, she could have just as easily (or more easily) evaded you by taking paid stress leave from work (her co-workers would have backed such a claim, apparently), taken her daughter and moved away to a safe place (there are shelters for specifically such cases), and if the local RCMP had not taken her seriously as she claims, she could have gone above their head and complained to higher-ups in the Force. She simply did not have to plot to assassinate you, unless it was for nefarious reasons.

  71. michaelmryan says:

    That’s a good question and one that was not looked at during the trial. The RCMP were aware of the monetary gains she was after.
    In the criminal trial, it was disclosed and cross examined by the Crown when questioning her therapist, why Nicole refused refuge in a shelter when it was offered. In the court evidence!!

  72. Chris P. Bacon says:

    Mr Ryan,
    Can you provide any information as to where the interviews might show up?

  73. Mary says:

    ven with the degree of placation that is found in the emails, an insight in to Mr. Ryan’s personality can be seen in the last email sent February 23, 2007. He concludes the email as follows:

    I’m done, I will not talk to you anymore, I will not answer my phone.

  74. michaelmryan says:

    I’ve been doing interviews all day with the Canadian Press, 95.7 Halifax and CFRB Toronto. keep you posted !

  75. Chris P. Bacon says:

    Mr Ryan,
    I saw in my local paper an editorial doubling down against you. It repeated all the accusations of pointing a gun to Nicole’s head etc. It conveniently omitted the part where the psychiatric evaluation resulted in you gaining sole custody of your daughter. Very short on facts. I can certainly appreciate how frustrating it must be to be repeatedly convicted by the media using only the unsubstantiated words of your ex-wife. What’s your feeling with this? Are you still of the mindset to set the record straight?

  76. SR says:

    When Nicole’s lawyer, Joel Pink, learned of your Youtube video, he claimed that he “doesn’t do Youtube”. Curious; perhaps there’s more chargeable time to be billed in planning and staging a press conference than in counseling a client to do his or her own Youtube video?

    I’ve known a few folks from Clare/Meteghan, and given that Ms. Doucet has a large family there, I would not be surprised if some of your former inlaws were well-known to the local RCMP. I cannot judge a whole community based on a half dozen people, but you may have been quite right to want to get the hell out of there, with her or without her. Were there any particular reasons she was estranged from her family?

    Also, Nicole is a very well educated woman, possessing at least two degrees. With relatively little research, she would have learned that she could kill you and likely get off using the “battered wife syndrome” defense. Even at her petite 110 pounds, all it takes is a shotgun (easily obtained in a rural area especially when one has a large family) in the middle of the night to take a man out. But the problem with that? Ahhh yes, that would have negatively affected the cashflow following your demise. Better to make it look like an accident or random killing so as to maximize monetary gain. Just hunching here.

  77. pete smith says:

    I know I said I was done with this, but two things-first, we don’t have a copy of the psychiatric assessment, Mr. Ryan states that that was during the eighties and his ‘tough upbringing’. In the Macleans article Nicole’s lawyer says the bar fight also shows it, but again, if every guy who was in a bar fight lost custody of their kids there wouldn’t be many fathered kids around.

    However, given his final comment to me I have to once again wonder at just how bad his temper is. It’s true that I don’t use my real name when dealing with an experienced soldier who is accused of violent crimes and has been involved in at least three verified violent acts (outside of a war zone) and had a ‘tough’ upbringing. If you want to call that ‘cowardice’, that’s fine, because its fear that motivates that decision, but I notice not many names on here. I’m going to assume he thinks I am somebody else, because since I never even heard of this case before last friday, the only way he knows who I am would be from some very exhaustive research, and I don’t even know how he’d go about that, and if he did, then that would be creepy beyond belief. Sadly, if he hadn’t overreacted to that comment, after reading the macleans article and the comments about the psychiatric assessment, then I would have had all my questions answered and would be pretty much prepared to support him.

    At the very least it does appear that some media are taking an interest, and it seems that the RCMP are at least getting ready to make some comments. So to Mr. Ryan, good luck, and please be aware that right now it is your online conduct by which a lot of people may judge you. Insulting people, particularly ones who through most of their exchange were supportive, is not particularly wise. If this story gains traction, which I assume you hope it does, then you are going to see a lot worse comments than mine, and people who ask that many questions and read that many transcripts are obviously looking for answers, not reasons to insult you. If you think your problems are due to the criminal court system being filled with ‘people like me’, well, good luck with that. When it comes to forming opinions and getting questions answered before making judgements, I readily admit to being a control freak, and I recommend it to all the people out there who base their opinions just on what an individual says.

    Normally I would follow a debate through to its conclusion, but that one comment from Mr. Ryan creeped me out enough that I don’t want to have anything else to do with his story, and if Mr. Ryan really does know who I am, I’m assuming he has the good sense to not try to contact me.

  78. westerner says:

    It’s time for the adults in the case to grow up and start acting like adults. Who the hell cares who did what and who said what?! It will die down eventually and most people will forget, if allowed. Divorce and custody battles don’t need to be in the news. There is a child that everyone seems to be forgetting here! She is old enough to google and so are her friends. Just think of the further ramifications all this has in her young life. All too often children are the pawns in break ups so for God’s sake, think of the young girl and how this will affect her emotionally. Parents battling out divorce and custody on the airwaves are nothing more than attention whores.

  79. Anonymous says:

    Mr Smith….
    I guess I will comment (to you) one last time. Honestly, you really need to read over your responses to me in your up and down twisting forum. You must understand that this blog is for a respectable debate and should be conducted that way. The way you speculate and twist my comments would upset anybody when they are simply just trying to explain their side. The legal side of this is finished for the courts as far as their are concerned. I believe my side should be crediable in that I am exposing myself and offering transperency. You go on about 3 violent fights, yet don’t explain or know what you are talking about. I have not been charged with assault.
    I will speak to you in this forum if you leave the speculation and the I must have charmed my way out of all this out of your comments. This forum should be for discussion and not ridicule. I am not a violent person and your comments again are based on what you heard and given the fact that I have not threatened you, only displayed my opinion of you based only on your written demeanor to me.

  80. SR says:

    Pete Smith, I wasted 5 minutes of my life reading your posts; I want them back!

  81. michaelmryan says:

    Westerner, I respect your opinion, however, the yound lady has already been forced into the middle of this divorce. In fact, it is no longer a divorce matter. The divorce matter was settled years ago along with the custody arrangements. What we are discussing here are the false allegations related to how my family lived for 15 years and the fact that Nicole Ryan is alleging that my daughter is still in danger. If I do not argue my side of the story on some level, what does that say for me. Yes you and yours may forget about this story, but my family and friends have lived this nightmare for a long time and will not forget for a very long time.

    Again, I appreciate your comment and you are correct in most of what you are saying, however, my daughter has a voice too.

  82. westerner says:

    My apologies for sounding harsh Mr. Ryan. Just as the owner of this wordpress stated in her opening paragraphs that while reading the various media reports etc she went through various feelings on the case, I did as well. Many pro and con feelings.
    I honestly wouldn’t know how to deal with some of the bizarre people that are mentioned in the reports although I have had coaching in diffusing circumstances that have potential to spiral out of control. It is not always easy to do the right thing when everyone is volatile.
    I hope it works out for you all that the young girl can meet with her bio mom if she so wishes, in a controlled environment of course. Being that a hit man had been paid for, my trust is lacking and to allow the young lady unsupervised visits doesn’t sit well at all. I hope all that can be worked out satisfactorily. Now that the bio mom has an opportunity to have her life back, I hope she does just that and stops the vindictive behavior as it will only destroy her daughter’s feelings for her. You are living distant from the relatives; that should be an advantage for you as well. Get your points out and then drop it, would be my advice. It can be damaging emotionally for children to constantly hear bad things about either parent. Good luck.

  83. SR says:

    Westerner, you make a damn good point. A woman as unhinged as Nicole (you certainly cannot call a woman who hired a hitman to kill her daughter’s father normal), bent on vengeance and possessing a proven predisposition to use premeditated murder to get her way, should definitelt NOT be allowed unsupervised visits with her daughter!!!! A person with her state of mind is fully capable of killing her daughter simply to exact revenge against her ex-husband, especially if her daughter is estranged from her and particularly fond of her father, as the case may be. Mr. Ryan,
    make sure Nicole is NEVER alone with your daughter. NEVER!

  84. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone else think this entire situation shows how skewed the justice and media are against men in general and Michael Ryan specifically? Should we just let this drop? I have never seen a case as clear as this, and yet the male is still accused as the abuser in the media, without a shred of evidence except the woman who attempted to hire a hitman. I saw a 2″ column on page 9 of my paper giving Michael’s side, but of course that was coupled with a complete editorial repeating all the unfounded accusations from Nicole. I don’t have much to offer, but I would be willing to help craft a letter to the editor to be sent to all the papers nationwide. Mr Ryan, let me know if you might be interested.

  85. Anonymous says:

    “Anonymous” I am interested in your support.

  86. Anonymous says:

    “Anonymous” I couldn’t agree with you more, and I am interested in all support I can get.

  87. Chris P. Bacon says:

    Michael Ryan, I have no desire to disclose personal information on a public forum. Contact me at and we can exchange proper email addresses and discuss what should happen next.

  88. Ryan A. Fox says:

    Mr Ryan,

    I am hoping you have already read the excellent opinion piece by Barbara Kay in the National Post, If you have not, please do.

    I would contribute any resources at my disposal to see that this issue is given a proper inquiry. It benefits all of us who have suffered through false allegations of abuse, with no course of action available to rectify the assumption of guilt in our communities.

    Best Regards,

    Ryan A. Fox

  89. SR says:

    It’s nice to see a lady, Barbara Kay, look at this situation reasonably and see it for what it is. It is very easy for a woman to automatically vilify Mr. Ryan because of the vulgarity of his alleged actions, but she’s taken a balanced look at it, and that gives me hope.

    As for myself, at a relatively young age, I’ve retired from relationships within Canada’s borders.
    Having been falsely accused of spousal abuse by a meddlesome ‘family friend’, I had a bitter taste of the anti-male bias in the justice system, and while my wife really wants me back, that brief exposure permanently scarred me. The ironic thing is that I’ve never raised my hand to my wife, my kids, and indeed no female whatsoever (my father and grandfather never raised their hands to any women ever, so the act is alien to me; I’ve never even witnessed it), but my wife has hit our kids so hard over the years that at times it caused superficial, and occasionally bloody, injury; she’s even beaten me over and over in (usually intoxicated) frustration (as I can be, I admit, frustrating at time), and I’d be bruised the next day, but really, would any self-respecting 230 pound man hit a 120 pound woman back? 😉

    Just because I’ve given up on romance in cold Canada doesn’t mean I won’t have a fling or two on some warm island somewhere once or twice a year though! 😉

  90. michaelmryan says:

    I know how you feel my friend. I have seen a lot of good relationships ruined by people outside the relationship. That’s what happened to me here. I have been very fortunate to find another lady who lives her own life. I truly believe she is an Angel, as we met and started our relationship before my ex began her allegations of abuse. So therefore, she knows as well as I do how false her allegations are. I guess I was lucky there, however some others are not. This situation has opened my eyes and I have spoken to many people like you in response to all this. I am going to take time in my life now, to bring awareness and try to help others if I can.
    But one thing SR, don’t think that there isn’t a loving sweet lady out there for you that would never have the heart to do to you what your ex did. Just be wise and open, and enjoy life brother !!!

  91. westerner says:

    From Anonymous: “Does anyone else think this entire situation shows how skewed the justice and media are against men in general and Michael Ryan specifically? Should we just let this drop?”

    The system is flawed in favor of females, that has been seen time and time again. Each to their own how it is to be handled I suppose. I’ve seen plenty of females get away with lying about their ex’s, and although I am female as well, could never just take the females side just because.
    Going more public one may have to be prepared to get restraining orders against volatile extended family members though. Not that a piece of paper will do any good when someone is bent on revenge. OTOH Nicole has to watch her steps now or she chances to lose her life work as a teacher as they won’t always be so accommodating.
    Best of luck in all your collective endeavors. Let the truths come out.

  92. Anonymous says:

    I was just thinking to myself, why aren’t I married again? Then it hit me. Before someone else could…..

  93. Dee Taylor says:

    Its interesting to read that Michael has been involved in anger issues in the past. One is a road rage incident where he was found guilty, as well as another incident in the 90s where he was again found guily. Michael also had an evaluation done by Dr Paul Reynolds in 2002 with some interesting results. In that evaluation Michael admitted when he gets angry he throw things around and destroy property. Another statement in that evaluation is: although he recognizes that his way of coping is a problem he is not sure if, at this point, he wants to let it go…..
    obviously that’s still true.

  94. Sean says:

    Nicole Ryan was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Michael is not the one on trial for “road rage” if we shall call it that. Nicole was not present for either of the incidents you have mentioned. Also, I have been looking in to this extensively and Michael Ryan was NOT found guilty of road rage as you have suggested. The incident in 1990 was before he even met Nicole. I do not believe that the fact that a young man gets in to a bar fight is justification for publically declaring he is abusive or that he deserves to die at the hands of a hitman. Also, your 2002 med document you refer to was entered into evidence at Michael Ryan’s consent. The document was not as a result of a specific incident but rather because he was undergoing medical treatment for a serious illness. If people believe that they can have a complete picture by hearing only her side of the story and ignoring Michael Ryan and the RCMP then they are completely naive. There are many more serious things to talk about here and people should stop concentrating on digging up any negative crumb they can find in Michael Ryan’s past. Nobody is perfect, everyone has things of there past that thy are not proud of (including Nicole). What about the fact that Michael Ryan moved away from Nicole (200 kms away) and started a new relationship with his current wife, whom he js still with today. There is a great deal of court evidence that clearly indicates that Nicole was upset about the fact that she and Michael were separated. Obviously that was something she could not let to of, so much that she attempted to have him murdered, and at her own admission she was okay if his new girlfriend was killed too. Have you ever looked at this case and asked yourself where did she get all of that money to pay multiple hitmen? Did you forget that her father was charged in 2008 for conspiracy to commit murder. His charges were dropped and the public has never to this date l received an explanation for that. Obviously Nicole was NOT acting alone. That is the ugly truth the courts don’t want to talk about. Wake up and smell our corrupt justice system people. Have you forgotten Karla Homolka and Donald Marshall already?

  95. Chris P. Bacon says:

    I’d like to add one other fact to Sean’s post. I watched the video of Nicole hiring her hitman. The hitman, an undercover RCMP officer, asked her about the complication if the wife would be home. Nicole’s answer was that she was okay if the wife was killed as well. Let that sink in for a bit. Now consider this. She told the hitman it was okay to include a woman if needed. But she knew her daughter lived in the same house! No warning was given to the hitman about the daughter. She even admitted to the hitman, on video that Michael Ryan never hit her. Abused estranged wife? Hardly.

  96. Dee Taylor says:

    I am not denying what Nicole did, she was found guilty of her actions. I mentioned the road rage incident simply to point out that Michael had a lot of anger/violence issues. The road rage did occur back in the 90s, however there was another incident which occurred in 2007. The other party was Alan Green and his car was damaged by Michael – seems anger was still a problem. You seem to enjoy pointing various things out, but lets not forget that she was found guilty…. what else does Michael want to happen. Why doesn’t he just move on instead of being a fame whore

  97. Rellie says:

    She wasn’t found guilty. His reputation has been attacked/destroyed by her and the courts. He has every right to defend himself and every right to freedom of speech. He should have had an equal opportunity to defend himself in court, he was denied that. Nothing about that makes him a “fame whore”. Nicole Doucet is now teaching our children in the high school. This is not the conduct of a person that I want my kids to role model after. Why are you so quick to tell this guy to move on? Walk a mile in his shoes. I think him speaking up is a testament to the truth he wants heard, he obviously has nothing to hide.

  98. Michael Ryan says:

    I do understand some people’s position on this matter. What you read in the papers, is what you get, you think it’s the truth, because someone wrote it. This is one of the many reasons why I am speaking out. I would think anyone in my position would do the same, if you had nothing to hide. I will tell you that there has been so much information and evidence in this case that has misled the public, simply because I was not put on the stand to testify. I understand to a certain degree why the crown did not do this, the Supreme Court of Canada overturning Nicole’s acquittal in the matter is a testament to that. However, the public does not see the actual evidence that is before the court. They only hear what certain people, (including the courts) have disclosed to the media. We have seen the video and the demeanor. The judge did not include his comments on the content of the video conversation. Regardless, had I been given the opportunity to testify, the outcome would have been different. Had the trial judge reviewed the evidence presented to the court by the prosecutor, the outcome would have been different. The fact is, and it is obvious with the evidence all over the internet, that this was not about domestic violence. Those that still choose to think that it is, are only giving me more reasons to push on and get my side of the story out. Sure, you can hold up Dr Reynolds report from 2002. Anybody following this case will remember that day 1 of Nicole’s trial, I freely consented to having the document entered as an exhibit for the defence. Why, because it was easily explained and I had in my possession at the trial the documents that accompanied that Consultation report. Nicole and her counsel attempted to use that same document in the family court matter. However, during that matter, I was given the opportunity to speak and explain everything in the proper context, as well as the additional documents not disclosed at the criminal trial. The document was deemed irrelevant in the matter and was not a concern. I was called as a witness to the criminal trial and was sure that again, I would be able to explain the report and to prove that I had nothing to hide. As well as the alleged “Road Rage” incident in 2007. I openly admit, that an incident happened, but I will tell you that it was not in the context that was explained at the criminal trial. I was not found guilty of anything, nor do I have a criminal record. However, at the end of the day this had nothing to do with Nicole. She was not even there. I was living 200kms away from her. As far as “Dee Taylor’s” comment, “what else does Michael want to happen. Why doesn’t he just move on instead of being a fame whore” The fact is I tried to move on in December 2006, 15 months before she was arrested. In March 2008, when she was arrested I was living 200 kilometers away, back in the military at a new job and in a new relationship with my present wife. I had already moved on, I didn’t try to have somebody killed. This wasn’t about domestic violence.

  99. Dee Taylor says:

    Its obvious by your YouTube video that you have no intention of moving on. It also has everything to do with domestic violence and attempts to continue to control Nicole and this situation. You are just pissed that her acquittal was overturned and you didn’t have your day in court. If you fully admit being involved in the road rage incident, then it wasn’t alleged at all. It happened, you smashed the back window and the mirror of the vehicle… the second road rage incident that you were involved in. If that didn’t happen as was reported, why didn’t the crown dispute what Alan Green testified too? You may not have tried to hire anyone to have your wife killed, but you did threaten to kill her… no wonder she was terrified of you. Let me suggest that you focus on your family especially your daughter. It is unfortunate that all these articles and videos are now on the internet for her to read over and over, and will follow her for years to come

  100. Sean says:

    Dee Taylor, the only thing that is obvious is that you do not have your facts straight and you are spewing the first thing that comes to your head. Whether it is accurate or not. After everything that Michael Ryan has been put through you are unreasonable to suggest that he let it go and move on. You comment that he is pissed because her acquittal was overturned. That does not even make sense. Why would he be upset about her acquittal being overturned? Why are you so adamant that he keep quiet about this? Do you know this woman? Are you scared the truth will surface? I am putting together a disclosure report on this to show the corruption in our justice system. This really is not about Michael and Nicole anymore, it is about our justice system and protecting public interests. However, in the process of my report I have reviewed the Allan Greene matter extensively. Mr Ryan did not smash Mr Greene’s mirror as was alluded. The evidence clearly suggests that Mr Greene was an antagonist in the incident and not an innocent victim as he choses to lead the courts and public to believe. I can not comment on the Crown’s arguments to Mr Greene at this time, but I will be reviewing that in the upcoming weeks. You state that he threatened to kill her. Again, this is an unproven allegation. Her exact allegation about him burning the house down has been changed and an escalation over the last so many years. She has changed it numerous times and recently it became threatened to burn the house down with her and her daughter in it. She never mentioned anything about with her and her daughter previously, she did mention that he threatened to call social services (which he is well with in his rights to do). It is increasingly more obvious why he would have threatened to call social services. As far as the couples daughter, I agree with you no child should have to see any of this. But that does not dismiss her father’s right to defend his name. By all social and psych reports their daughter does not corroborate her mothers stories that they suffered any form of abuse.

  101. Dee Taylor says:

    oh sean sean, your post is just smoke and mirrors. do you think that joel pink would ever call alan green on the stand, if he did not speak the truth. are you truly saying that Michael was not found guilty of that incident? Just maybe if Michael was able to not to control himself in this incident, he was also not capable of control his anger around his wife. regarding the death threat which you say is an allegation – well sean I believe what Michael is now saying to anyone that will listen, is an allegation. Michael would have only been happy if his ex went to jai (like he did) l… I believe that’s the sole reason he produced his video. There are many incidents of violence and police involment in his life, all of which lead me to totally believe the Nicole. You are probably right that psych reports reveal his daughter is doing ok, lets hope that continues – that’s my concern = all this is going to be available to the world, and we all know the effects of bullying can have

  102. Chris P. Bacon says:

    Dee, are you a troll or just someone who doesn’t believe evidence in front of them? Have you watched the video of Nicole interviewing her ‘hitman’? Did you notice she had no problem at all if Michael’s wife was murdered as well? Did you watch where she admitted to the hitman that Michael had never hit her? How do you reconcile this? How does alleged abuse from Michael justify her plotting to kill his wife?

    Nicole damning interview starts at 3:27
    Nicole Ryan answers the question “Did he beat you? Any beatings?” at 5:00
    Spoiler Alert: She said NO.
    She has been planning the murder for 7 months: 5:40
    Hitman, “If she’s in the way, is that a problem?” Meaning of course is Nicole if his then girlfriend would also be killed. Nicole has no problem with that. 6:20
    Her testimony of abuse only came during her trial for attempted murder.

  103. Chris P. Bacon says:

    Correction. I referred to the woman as his wife, but she was his girlfriend at the time. They have since married.

  104. Michael Ryan says:

    Chris P. Bacon, thank you for your continued support !!!

  105. Dee Taylor says:

    Chris no one is denying what she did. Michael seems to be the only one denying what he did. I have watched her video as I have watched the video put out by Michael and both are terrible, the point I am making is Michael has exhibited violent behaviour in the past, spent time in jail for assault, which is all why I feel that he did abuse his wife. there are other forms of abuse besides beating – for instance making death threats is a major form of abuse. madeline deveau, a social worker involved in this case said Nicole told her that Michael always wins and madeline noted that there is always a fear that he will continue to do all he can to destroy her… seems that’s the case, doesn’t it

  106. Rellie says:

    I have seen numerous articles where Michael Ryan acknowledges issues of the past, he isn’t denying any of that. Although not admirable they are not proof of domestic abuse whatsoever. Also I reviewed the Greene thing as well Ryan was not found guilty of that. The fact that HE moved 200 kilometers away from her and was in a new relationship does not give me the indication that he had any interest in controlling her. Also, as far as the media reports go he has since re-married and has at least one child with his new wife. The Deveau reporting occurred in the midst of her plotting his murder (several times over). She should have used the (legal) resources available to her. The police have publically stated she did not report he domestic violence that she mentions at trial. But instead she resorted to trying to murder the father of her child. Think about the life that little girl would have had growing up without her dad, knowing her father was violently murdered. That would have been on the Internet forever as well. Not to mention the psychological damage. By all accounts the child seems to be doing fine with him.

  107. Dee Taylor says:

    so Michael is admitting that he abused and did indeed make those death threats to Nicole and his child? Again no one is attempting to deny what Nicole did by hiring this hit man… that is a fact… again. As for the road rage incident, did it not happen – I would love to know what Michael’s version of that is.. As I have stated before there are other forms of domestic abuse besides assault and I believe that he fully did all those things that she has stated. Think about the life this little girl is now going to have reading all this over and over, think about the possibility of her being bullied and teased by her peers who also are going to read this. Of course it is terrible for her to read what her mother did, but its equally as bad to have to now read what her father has done by posting this video and all blathering all over the internet and media…

  108. Rellie says:

    He has admitted to getting in a bar fight and that there was an incident with the Greene guy. I’m done with this mindless conversation.

  109. Dee Taylor says:

    oh doesn’t surprise me at all that you are done. let me add some other violent issues to your list – he was beating his father in law with a baseball bat. and he attached nassim hanna in 1966. he also attacked two civilians in a bar and did jail time. in fact Michael told Dr Reynolds that when he gets angry he sometimes will throw things around and destroy personal property. he also told this same doctor that he has long standing anger problems and when angry abut something he can notstop thinking about them particulary with problems he and his wife are having with her family. that is all from a psych report done on Michael lets face it, Michael does have a lot of anger issues and has obviously not learned to control this. seems there could be something to what Nicole had to say about him. its also interesting to know why the rcmp set her up in the first place.. I wonder who was behind that

  110. Chris P. Bacon says:

    Dee, you are spouting nonsense.You can actually say you know what Michael has told his doctor? Canada has libel laws, and you are posting with a link to your Facebook page.

    Why did the RCMP set her up? Are you serious? Let me guess, the whole attempted murder case was a conspiracy against Nicole. Let me give you a small bit of education, but from your mindless posts to date, I doubt you will able to comprehend this. This is how it usually works. Someone wants to hire a hitman. They confide in someone they trust if they might know someone. That person, thankfully, understands that murder is wrong and contacts the RCMP who then provide the ‘hitman’ to do the job. The interview is then recorded.

    This Dr. Reynolds stuff is pure malarky. I don’t know what your agenda is, but you have no affection for the truth or facts.

    If you want to talk about anger issues, how about Nicole Ryan who was prepared to have Michael Ryan’s girlfriend murdered. Your deflections are transparent and meaningless.

  111. Dee Taylor says:

    how interesting Chris that you know how this whole scenario regarding the hiring of the hit man happened. I am curious, are you disputing any of the other violent incident that Michael was involved in happened? Is the Dr Reynold stuff truly malarkey???? Is it? That evaluation was done in 2002 after Michael was referred to that doctor by Dr Tom Goddard from Greenwood….by even suggesting that I could be charged with libel is just nonsense, you and i both know that would never happen. However speaking of libel, why doesn’t Michael charge his ex with libel, that is if indeed all her testimony is lies…. Let me break this down for you I understand that Nicole did hire a hit man and given the violent history that Michael has been proven to have I believe her story about the domestic abuse that went on in that family The RCMP let her down. One last thing when the crown doesn’t put a person on the stand, sometimes its because they know that person wont help the case… i wonder if that’s what happened here???

  112. Anonymous says:

    The interest in this has been overwhelming. I believe the truth will be heard. Time heals everything.

  113. Tim says:

    HI All. Thanks for all your interesting viewpoints and opinions. It would be gratifying to see all the evidence. I will speak from personal experience. Most people can’t understand how abuse works where they have not studied, witnessed or lived through it. I have done all of these. I have witnessed a similar situation (without the hitman). This couple were very close friends of mine and I saw the truth unfold over the years. I provided years of encouragement and personal support to both parties. In the end I saw the final breakdown of the situation and its conclusion. I saw firsthand professionals try to avoid responsibility for their actions and mistakes. Unfortunately it is difficult to prove allegations of abuse without witnesses. I was fortunately present unexpectedly and witnessed one of these abusive incidents and was able to diffuse it. This experience enabled me to piece together events of the past along with testimonial from the victim. This case is still winding its way through the courts with strategic delays by the defence counsel. These are very complex psychological situations. This abuser was able to push the abusee to the point of mental instability which could have been disastrous if I hadn’t been able to garner the proper safety and support mechanisms until the situation stabilized. The perpetrator continued to deny the allegations and blame the victim even with a witness. This may not be the case in Mr. Ryan’s story. But from what I’ve read in many media reports (looking at facts and not conjecture) and seeing his responses here, and finally my own experience I would lean very strongly toward the fact that the abuse did occur. Proving that it did occur could be a tremendous task. If there’s one thing I have learned deeply is: Abusers (smart ones) usually abuse when there are no witnesses while they try to maintain their innocence to appear as the victim. Thank you.

  114. Shannon says:

    Tim, you form your opinion based on your own experiences. I respectfully disagree with you but I base my opinion on the fact that I have been in a relationship with Michael for the past six years. I knew both him and Nicole for about 9 months before she hired the hitman in 2008. Michael and I lived together about 200 kms away from her. There was no abuse whatsoever going on. What I did witness was a very spiteful and obsessive woman who was determined to make Mike’s life miserable. I have lived with Mike from that time forward. We live with his daughter and we have one child together. There has been no abuse of any kind in the past six years. That is what I base my opinion on. Michael has every right to defend his name and reputation. The Courts certainly have not afforded him the right to testify. The fact that he is speaking out is a weak reason to conclude that abuse did occur. People that falsely use the excuse that they were abused in order to get themselves out of trouble are taking credibility away from people that truly are survivors of domestic violence.

  115. Anonomous says:

    Ms Shannon is a person to Ms Nicole, as was ‘the mistress’ who stole Shaina Twain’s (country singer’s) husband (Mutt Lauoge) behind her back, it is obvious to anyone with discernment. How is THAT fair!! and then she has the nerve to even comment on a blog, she should be quiet, and ashamed of herself for adultery.

  116. Anonymous says:

    As far as everything I have read and using my own discernment, it is clear that Michael Ryan left “Ms. Nicole” to escape her and her controlling family. He wouldn’t be the first man or woman in that position. Whether he met “Ms Shannon” while he and Nicole were still together is not relevant. You are clearly losing sight of the fact that she tried to have him murdered. Murder is the most heinous crime of all and is not comparable to adultery (if it in fact even did occur). If Michael Ryan was an “abusive husband” as his ex claims then why do you ask the question “how is THAT fair”? She should have been happy that he moved on to a new relationship. You are most likely nothing more than one of Nicole’s hometown advocates that knows the truth about the real reason she attempted to have him murdered. She felt hurt and pathetic and knew that “she would never find a lover better than Mike” (Cite- 2 O’ Clock in the morning pathetic phone call) The truth hurts doesn’t it.

  117. Sean says:

    More details in to the Nicole Doucet case that will make you shake your head at our “justice” system.

  118. Anonymous says:

    I couldn’t see any reason why the road rage incident concerns some people who are trying to paint Michael as an wife abuser. I don’t know if this incident actually happened or not. I didn’t check court documents. Lets say, it happened. However, Nicole was not there. It doesn’t constitute a “domestic” violence because that violence occurred (if it ever occurred) to someone else, not to Nicole. Plus Michael was not found guilty for the assault charge. Shouldn’t be he treated innocent according to the Canadian law? Why is something unproven used against him over and over? Even if that incident truly happened and Michael was at fault, should we assume that he did the same to Nicole? If yes, I could have blamed/accused/sued/prosecuted a serial killer for the accidental death of my nephew many years ago.

    Also, again, lets say, Michael has anger problem. What can it prove? “A man who has anger problem will abuses his wife.”? Is that it?

    Nicole (or the court) said Michael had controlled her. It is not clear what kind of control they were talking about? How does anyone know if Michael controlled her or resisting her control?

    Several people said Michael had been in trouble with police many times. They imply if a person is in trouble with police, he/she must be a criminal. Is this even logical?

    Nicole’s attempt of hiring a hit man to kill Michael despite the fact that Michael had been living 200km away from her simply explains one thing: Nicole needed an utmost revenge; She needed to destroy Michael. How can a person believe a woman who tries to ruin her ex at all costs? Wouldn’t she have done the same in the court?

    I agree with Michael at one point: this is not about domestic violence. This is about revenge and getting upper hand in family court for child custody and financial settlement.

    Finally, I know that some people deliberately, or by nature, make false accusations. They excel at distorting the truth and making projections. Police, prosecutor, and even the judge, are not their equal because of the perfectness and plausibility of their lies. Please visit to have more understanding about such people.

  119. Thank you for your support Anonymous!!
    I really don’t know what more the National Post or the RCMP Complaints Commission’s report can tell the public. All false allegations !!!

  120. Justice seeker says:

    CTV W5 investigated this extensively and have made an hour long documentary! Just wow is all I can say. This is a serious injustice.

  121. mystictide23 says:

    Looking for a Mike Ryan who was in Belleville around 1985,86,87 ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s