It's good to see a judge with a sense of humour :)

[Papa_Complex]

Reading through this judgment, carefully, results in finding several nuggets of comedy. I particularly like the first line of the final judgment, which reads: Despite the involvement of Niagara Family and Children’s Services, Ms. Katz, Mr. Leduc and the court, the parties repeatedly have shown that they are immune to reason. Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last resort.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...0onsc6568.html

Don't forget the footnotes

[Particle Man]

Catherine and Larry were married on October 7, 1995. If only the wedding guests, who tinkled their wine glasses as encouragement for the traditional bussing of the bride and groom, could see the couple now

Some family trees have more barren branches than others.

Larry testified about the many death threats he received from Catherine and members of her family around the time of, and in the months following, separation. I will mention some of them.

[17] In September of 2006, Larry went to live with his father “for a couple of days” to “clear my head.” When he returned to the matrimonial home, the locks had been changed. Larry stated in evidence: “Catherine didn’t want me on the property and her family threatened to have me killed.”

[18] Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine, “Tried to run me over with her van.”[6]

[19] On November 21, 2006, Catherine demanded $400 from Larry or her brother was “going to get the Hells Angels after me.”[7]

[20] On February 9, 2007, Catherine told Larry that she wanted him to sign adoption papers so that Sam could adopt their children.[8] Said Larry: “She threatened me with her brothers and Hells Angels again.”

[21] On August 13, 2007, Catherine’s niece (Donna), telephoned Larry “and told me I will get a bullet in my head if I don’t sign the adoption papers. She called back later and told me I’m as good as dead.” She called a third time, “to tell me her father and uncles are coming to kill me.”[9]

[22] The next day, Catherine telephoned Larry and said that she “wanted my truck or her brother and the Hells Angels are coming to get it and me.”

[23] On October 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added. According to Larry: “Donna Taylor, Catherine’s sister-in-law, yelled out her window that I was going to be floating in the canal dead.”

[24] As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem solvers.

7. Conduct of the parties and their common-law spouses

[70] On fourteen occasions, within eighteen months, the parties drew the police into their petty disagreements – a sad commentary on their inability to get along and a shocking abuse of the Niagara Regional Police Service. Although this statistic probably sums up all that one needs to know about the parties, I will elaborate for the doubters.[20]

(a) Larry

[71] Larry, who regularly drives by the residence of Sam and Catherine, “often shoots the finger”[21] at Sam and, on about three occasions, has yelled: “Jackass, loser.”[22]

[72] In 2007, Larry created a false Facebook account in the name of Catherine on which he posted derogatory comments that appeared as if they had been authored by her. (Facebook is a popular website where one registers and posts personal information.)

[73] On August 14, 2007, Larry sent three text messages[23] to Catherine within a space of four minutes, saying: “The game is just starting. Prepare yourself for a long winding road”; “Busted! Always look in your rear view mirror”; and, “Blood isn’t always thicker than water.” Two days later he texted: “Loser! Home-wrecker!”[24]

(b) Sandra

[74] Sandra is a no-nonsense disciplinarian. By the start of the trial, she had seen Taylor infrequently (perhaps only once), but Brandon approximately every other week-end.

[75] In September of 2008, Larry was exercising access to Taylor in the home where he and Sandra reside. At one point, Taylor wanted to telephone Catherine. However, Sandra prevented her from doing so, saying: “It’s your dad’s week-end, not your mother’s.”

[76] In February of 2009, Brandon returned home from week-end access with Larry and explained to Catherine that he was “sick and tired of Sandra always questioning me.” Added Brandon: “She asks too many questions about you, mom.”

[77] In March of 2009, after another access week-end with Larry, Brandon was angry that Sandra would not allow him to telephone Catherine, “for any reason.”

[78] I find that Sandra does not exert a positive gravitational pull in this dysfunctional family constellation.

(c) Catherine

[79] The trial began with three days of evidence being heard in May of 2010. As it was necessary for the trial to be interrupted by the four-month hiatus already mentioned,[25] I admonished the parties on a number of matters, one of which was the importance of not denigrating the other in the presence of the children. Yet, in August of 2010 (in other words, during the hiatus), Taylor was having an access visit with Larry when she received a text message from Catherine that read: “Is dickhead[26] there?”

[80] At one point, the children told Larry that if they were to telephone, or talk to, him they would “go to jail.” Catherine was behind this cruel misinformation.

[81] Larry’s sister, Susanne Kelly (whose children attend the same school as do Brandon and Taylor), testified that, in February of 2010, while she was waiting to pick up her children from school, Brandon approached her vehicle crying and said: “I don’t know what to do anymore. My mom won’t let me see my father.” In 2009, Taylor told Ms. Kelly: “I am not allowed to talk to you.” And, in April of 2010, Brandon told Savanna (his cousin and Ms. Kelly’s daughter) that he was not allowed to play with or talk to her.[27]

[82] Sandra testified that Catherine “gave me the finger while driving on Bunting Road.”[28]

[83] In September of 2008, Taylor told Sandra: “You stole my dad from the family, my mom said.” Taylor repeated this comment to Sandra during the trial hiatus. Catherine is unable to filter inappropriate thoughts and comments from her conversations with, or in front of, the children. In fact, she deliberately does otherwise, with the hope of alienating at least Taylor from Larry.

(d) Sam

[84] Two incidents are representative, in my view, of Sam’s nature and character. Firstly, during the trial, Larry passed Sam in the hallway outside the courtroom, and the latter said: “You’re done.”[29] Secondly, on December 24, 2007, Larry attended at Catherine’s residence bearing gifts for the two children. The gifts were refused, because, according to Catherine, “Sam doesn’t want you giving them anything.”

[85] Sam’s attitude toward Larry undoubtedly has been influenced by Catherine, as Sam has been dining at her table of hatred for more than three years; however, this explains, but does not excuse, his deplorable conduct.

8. Larry and the children

[86] Ms. Katz (who had meetings and interviews with the parties and the children in September and October of 2009 and again in January, March, April and September of 2010) confirmed the obvious when she told the court that the children are aware how their parents feel about each other.

(a) Taylor

[] [87] Ms. Katz sees Taylor as “closely aligned with” Catherine. By September of 2010, when the trial resumed, Taylor did not want anything to do with Larry and she made this clear to Ms. Katz.

[88] Larry described an incident when, during access with Taylor, he had taken her to a McDonald’s restaurant and they were “kicked out” because Taylor “caused a fuss by calling me a deadbeat.” This is language that Taylor would have learned from Catherine.

[] [89] On May 23, 2009, Larry attended Catherine’s residence to pick up the children for an access visit. Brandon said to Larry: “Do you know whose birthday it is?” Larry, caught in an afterthought, answered: “Oh, happy birthday Taylor.” He pulled $50 out of his pocket and told Taylor not to give it to her mother. Taylor was unwilling to accompany Larry because she was having a party with her friends. Larry responded: “No one will probably show.”

[] [90] On another occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: “You put shit in this hand and shit in this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor.”[30]

[] [91] Larry explained in his evidence that his comments to Taylor were anaemic attempts at humour. They were not intended to be hurtful. I accept his evidence. Mr. Leduc correctly characterized Larry as a passive man who was not adept at responding to situations involving his post-separation daughter. It is to be remembered that, following separation, Larry was confronted with an angry, hurt, confused and rebellious daughter who had been receiving advanced animosity-tutoring from Catherine. This would be a difficult situation for even the most talented and perceptive of fathers to overcome. Given Larry’s near-empty parenting toolbox, it is not surprising that he handled the matter awkwardly. Had Catherine fulfilled her dual parental duty to foster and encourage access between Larry and Taylor and not to speak disparagingly of him in the presence of Taylor, I am confident that this case would have unfolded differently.

[] (b) Brandon

[92] Sam concedes that “Brandon wants to be with his father.”

[93] Ms. Katz explained that, in the beginning, Brandon was “quite happy” to have regular access with his father. However, Brandon has now declared that he wants access on his terms. Having watched how badly his parents botched the matter of access, it is little wonder Brandon feels that he can do a better job. He has said to Ms. Katz that he would not mind if access were to occur on alternating week-ends, on one week-day and for part of the summer.

ignored my several protestations during the pre-hiatus part of the trial during which I was critical of how the parties spoke of each other in the presence of the children; she disregarded my order that she and Larry were not to denigrate each other in the presence of the children during the hiatus; and, she participated in three court-recommended counselling sessions. After all of that she, nevertheless, sent the text message. Now, in the witness box, she purports to be bathed in the light of repentance and reason. I think not.

It is likely that, in the period 2004-2006, Larry was having one or more extramarital affairs. Interestingly, Larry’s father was married five times, in addition to going through several relationships. Perhaps there is an infidelity gene.

The courtroom energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree. Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine’s niece is engaged to a member of the Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has made a poor choice).

Donna is a devotee of the literary device known as, “repetition for emphasis.” I do not know whether Donna is the niece who is engaged to the Hells Angels member. If she is, they may be more compatible than I initially surmised.

A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words.

()

I confess that I sometimes permit a lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience, come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.

I do not know why courts find it necessary to alter the meaning of words. One would think that if the legislators had intended “shocking” they would have used “shocking.”

____

And “shocking,” as I pointed out in an earlier footnote.

Man, this is great stuff. I like this guy.

[Archren]

His comments are hilarious... the situation, however, is awful. I feel bad for those kids.

Very first line of the document:

[1] Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.

[Archren]

[18] Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine, “Tried to run me over with her van.”[6]

[6]This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart.

[Papa_Complex]

[3] I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.

[Archren]

(q)final conclusion on spousal support
[210] While Larry’s access-conduct has largely reflected nothing more than inept parenting, Catherine’s parental-alienation behaviour has been evil. Is there a remedy?
[211] Dollars cannot replace the father-daughter relationship that Catherine has destroyed. However, in the circumstances of this case, justice has only a Hobson’s choice. Catherine’s alienation of Taylor and Larry must be condemned and, an effective method of expressing that condemnation, is by way of a reduction in spousal support.
[212] Accordingly, the spousal support to which Catherine would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced to one dollar monthly.

Outstanding. I think both parents in this case are worthless humans, but the woman in particular was a raging whore bag. One dollar monthly... fucking brilliant.

[shmike]

Awesome!

The judge is a riot and that family is beyond Jerry Springer.

The Summary is good but the footnotes are gold!

A few favorites:

A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words.

When the operator of a motor vehicle yells “jackass” at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.

Larry The Scientist:

On another occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: “You put shit in this hand and shit in this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor.”

Footnote:

I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.

[Papa_Complex]

When you run out of laughs in that one, try reading his used car case

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...0onsc2446.html

[Archren]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

When you run out of laughs in that one, try reading his used car case

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...0onsc2446.html

He's like the Canadian version of Judge Judy, only less in-your-face, and more tongue-in-cheek.

[the chi]

I loved it.