Family Proceedings as Catharsis?
The Family courts across the country must see their fair share of acrimony, shameful conduct, sad stories, and tears.
In a pair of cases from western Canada, the courts made insightful observations about the unspoken role that the Family justice system fulfills: to provide the participants with an opportunity to tell their side of the story, and have their “day in court”.
This perhaps-unintended purpose was acknowledged in an Alberta case, where the court wrote:
Often acrimonious contests over custody are a time of catharsis for the parents as each wishes to tell of the unsatisfactory or even reprehensible conduct of the other. To the extent that this satisfies the need to have one’s day in court it may be fulfilling to the parties. Perhaps it even assists a parent in accepting an adjudication he or she finds unsatisfactory.
In another decision, this time from B.C., the court said:
The parties in a family dispute will on occasion use the trial process to a cathartic effect as a means, perhaps, of purging the unhappiness accumulated as their marriage disintegrated.
In that case, the court went on to describe the context in which the need to purge unhappiness arose – perhaps quite understandably:
In this trial, the parties’ rancour had few if any bounds as the evidence particularly that led on Mr. Ruel’s behalf appeared aimed to disparage and demean his former partner. Described succinctly, the defence evidence sought to portray Ms. Ruel as a liar, a thief, a fraudster and a drunk, allegations denied strongly by Ms. Ruel who throughout the trial, while on the stand and while in the court, in spite of admonishments to desist, responded to the defendant’s [Mr. Ruel’s] allegations describing them as lies and Mr. Ruel to be a liar. Ms. Ruel’s anger followed her discovery that the defendant appeared to have entered a marital-like relationship with another woman in Tunisia where he was then employed, the actions he took against her after their breakup, and his subsequent failure to pay spousal support as ordered by this court.
Sounds like a lot of courtroom drama – and not the good kind.
For the full text of the decisions, see:
D.G.S. v S.L.S., 1990 CanLII 5528 (AB QB)
Ruel v Ruel, 2010 BCSC 1043 (CanLII)