Skip to content

Search results for 'justice quinn'

Another Classic Family Judgment by Justice Quinn

gavel

Another Classic Family Judgment by Justice Quinn

We have written before about the unique and often-entertaining Family Law judgments of Justice J.W. Quinn, who hears cases in St. Catherines, Ontario. Although those judgments are not that frequent, when they do come down the judicial-ruling “pipes”, they are certainly worth the wait.

The latest, a decision called Szakacs v. Clark, is no exception. It involved a bitter custody dispute fought with great vitriol by two self-represented parents. Justice Quinn begins his ruling this way:

For best courtroom adaptation of a work of fiction, the award goes to the [mother], who shamelessly feigned what she thought was necessary to convince the court to circumscribe access by the re-spondent to their almost-six-year-old daughter.

One could sit in Family Court for many years and not encounter such a callously conniving and mendaciously manipulative litigant. She effortlessly put the “rage” in “outrageous,” …

At several points throughout the trial, Ms. [mother] emphasized that she was a Christian who practiced Christian values. There must be some key pages missing from her copy of the Bible.

Justice Quinn then recounted the background facts relating to the mother, who had several short relationships and what the judge called a “lacklustre employment history” culminating in her current state of unemployment which persisted despite the child’s full-day attendance in kindergarten. He described that she met the child’s father online, and became pregnant at their first offline meeting. Among the many unflattering assessments he calls her “argumentative, flippant, acerbic, and sarcastic”, and then wonders aloud: “If she is like this in court, what must she be like outside the courtroom?”

The father, in contrast, appeared to Justice Quinn to be a soft-spoken, “impressive witness” with a stable family background who displayed signs of parental maturity.

But despite what may be some early editorializing in his judgment, Justice Quinn did eventually turn to a more substantive, and legally-based assessment of the overall merits of the case. For example, in ordering that joint custody would be in the child’s best interests, Justice Quinn reflected on whether – despite early indications to the contrary – the parents were likely to co-operate with each other. He wrote:

It cannot be said that the parties lack the ability to co-operate, because co-operation has hardly been tried. [The mother] to use a vernacularism, has called the shots from the beginning and [the father] has complied. [The mother] should not be rewarded for her arrogant and one-sided treatment of [the father]. Once [he] is given a voice (as I intend to do) an acceptable level of co-operation is more than feasible. Indeed, I think that [the father] will be an effective stabilizing force in what is now a non-benevolent dictatorship.

Of some importance is the fact that a joint custody order will prevent the efforts of [the mother] to limit and marginalize [the father’s] relationship with the child. [The father] has much to offer as a parent. …

Fortunately, [the father] has a bond with his daughter (despite the efforts of [the mother]) and it will grow stronger. She enjoys being with him and benefits from that relationship. Although [the mother] has shamefully manipulated the access regime to this point, no permanent harm to the father-daughter relationship has resulted. Had this litigation not occurred for a few more years (which seems to have been the agenda of [the mother]), I expect that there would be permanent harm and her goal achieved: fatherless parenting.

It’s another interesting judgment by Justice Quinn, written in his trademark unconventional style.

What are your thoughts about these decisions? Do you think this style of judgment-writing has a place in the Canadian family law system?

For the full text of the decision, see:

Szakacs v. Clarke, 2014 ONSC 7487

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit our main site.

Mr. Justice Quinn Says: “An Order is an Order, Not a Suggestion”

order

 

Mr. Justice Quinn Says: “An Order is an Order, Not a Suggestion

Devoted followers of my Blog will know that I have written several posts about the uniquely-blunt and funny judgments of Mr. Justice Quinn of the Ontario Court.

The latest in this series of posts involves the older decision in Gordon v. Starr, 2007 CanLII 35527 (ON SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1sq55).

In that case, one of the spouses had been ordered, as an interim step in what the court called “unrelenting” custody and child support litigation, to pay a small amount in legal costs up-front. She did not do so, claiming that she was unable to pay; however the facts suggested that she was deliberately unemployed. In addition to lackluster job search efforts, she had unreasonably refused to seek work outside a fairly narrow geographical area, despite it being within a reasonable commuting distance. The claim that she had no money was also suspect in light of her 2-year delay in moving the child support proceedings along. As Mr. Justice Quinn wrote:

Her financial statement shows monthly expenses of $4,229.52. By resorting to friends, relatives and assets, she is managing to get by. She has a home, rental property, some rental income and the capacity to earn significant employment income. In short, she has the ability to satisfy the May costs order. She has deliberately placed herself in a position of non-compliance with the May costs order.

The other spouse had asked the court for an order striking out the pleadings or dismissing the upcoming motion. However, Mr. Justice Quinn concluded that such measures would be unduly harsh and not in the best interests of anyone.

Instead, after reviewing the circumstances, Mr. Justice Quinn barred her from participating in any further proceedings until she paid those legal costs first, writing:

Why should any litigant be spared from obeying a court order? …. Why should the court be available to those who disobey its orders?


When I made that order [to pay costs], I did not attach any provisos, conditions or exceptions. I did not say, for example, that Gordon need comply with the May costs order only if she felt like it or if it was financially convenient for her to do so.


Court orders are not made as a form of judicial exercise. An order is an order, not a suggestion. Non-compliance must have consequences. One of the reasons that many family proceedings degenerate into an expensive merry-go-round ride is the all-too-common casual approach to compliance with court orders.

Mr. Justice Quinn accordingly ordered that the child support motion that had been brought by the defaulting spouse was to be dismissed, and could only be reinstated once she paid costs as she had been ordered to do.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Gordon v. Starr, 2007 CanLII 35527 (ON SC)   http://canlii.ca/t/1sq55

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at www.RussellAlexander.com.

Even More Quips from Mr. Justice Quinn

happy face

Even More Quips from Mr. Justice Quinn

Those of you who have read my Blogs in the past will know that in the past I have highlighted some of the more amusing decisions written by Mr. Justice Quinn of the Family Court branch of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In a recent Family Law decision called Stirling v. Blake, Mr. Justice Quinn is in fine form yet again.

The factual background of the case – which involved an application by a mother to vary a prior order giving the father access to their children – is not really necessary to appreciate the literary flair that the judge demonstrates, in both the judgment itself and in numerous humorous footnotes. Mr. Justice Quinn begins his reasons in Stirling v. Blake with this opener:

In the period 2001-2013, these parties (individually or together) appeared in Family Court 65 times. At the St. Catharines Court House, they are more tenants than litigants.

After chronicling the mother’s various failed relationships with other men after her separation from the father, the judge wrote:

The fact that [the mother] appears to be a serial spouse is unsettling, but it is not terribly relevant to the motions.

In a footnote, Mr. Justice Quinn added:

If her current relationship fails, [the mother] should seek counselling with a view to determining why she has no talent for picking a mate. Alternatively, she should not live with or marry another man without the written permission of her six closest friends, who, no doubt, will see what she, so far, has failed to see.

Turning next to a description of the father, Mr. Justice Quinn observed:

[The father] is a 55-year-old, self-employed painter, sometimes likeable, frequently articulate and always passionate. He has been married, divorced and is a grandfather and, like so many of the poor souls who amble into Family Court, he has not learned from his mistakes. He is too busy perfecting them. [The father] dances to the tune of a different drummer.

In a footnote, he added:

In fact, so does his drummer.

About the father’s residence:

After making a point of defending the cleanliness of his apartment, he freely admitted that his premises “have clutter.” As he put it, the clutter consists of the evidence of “all of the past activities” of his children. Apparently, over the years, whatever the children have done in his apartment, he has left in place as some sort of shrine.

In the footnote, Mr. Justice Quinn writes:

This might be cute for a few days, but after years have gone by cute becomes creepy.

On the father’s admitted frequent marijuana use:

I was alarmed when I heard that [the father] uses marijuana with the same casual frequency that others drink coffee. But my eyebrows were the only ones in the courtroom that arched. His marijuana use is a fact known from 2001 onwards, yet it did not play a role in any of the orders that were made. Perhaps my alarm manifests a fuddy-duddy perspective (I am aware that the decriminalization of marijuana use currently is part of the platform of at least one Federal political party). I gave thought to ordering that [the father] not use marijuana when with the children. However, I abandoned the notion as it would be a mere finger-wagging order (I would be directing [the father] to behave himself and to not commit a criminal offence during access visits).

As an aside, in yet another footnote Mr. Justice Quinn added:

I might as well order Mr. Blake not to rob a bank while exercising access.

And finally, Mr. Justice Quinn observed:

In a trial involving self-represented litigants, my expectations are low: all I ask is that they be clothed. If they can fake civility toward each other and pretend to be respectful of the court, that is a merciful bonus.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Stirling v. Blake, 2013 ONSC 5216 (CanLII)  http://canlii.ca/t/g02jg

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at www.RussellAlexander.com.

Judicial Quips of Mr. Justice Quinn of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

 quips

 

Judicial Quips of Mr. Justice Quinn of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

I’ve posted several times about the funny and oh-so-quotable judgments of Mr. Justice Quinn of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. While Justice Quinn clearly has a good sense of humour, he is certainly not the only member of the Bench who has a way with words.

In the recent decision in Martin v. Czarniecki, 2013 ONSC 46 (CanLII) [Link] http://canlii.ca/t/fvm3h the judgment started with some almost-poetic and poignant observations about the nature of Family Law disputes:

Almost all family law cases involve some degree of sadness – sadness for what was but is no longer, sadness for what might have been, sadness for broken promises and betrayals, sadness for lost opportunities, sadness for wasted time, energy and money, and all too frequently sadness for the battles still to come.

Later in the judgment, the Court was somewhat more direct:

The parties find themselves in this situation due to a litany of significant errors of judgement, misunderstandings, miscommunications, lack of communication, mistrust, and, occasionally, deliberate deceptions.

Another Judge with a literary bent is Mr. Justice Langdon, who was asked to rule on the proper sentence to be imposed in a criminal case called R. v. M.J.O., 2005 CanLII 50809 (ON SC) [URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1mldd]. Justice Langdon began his lengthy opinion with the following:

Introduction

[1.] In 1958 I entered law school. In the 1958-59 academic year I enjoyed the great privilege of being taught criminal law by G. Arthur Martin, Q.C. He was probably the finest criminal lawyer in Canadian legal history. I well remember my surprise when, in his opening lecture, he stated to the class that the least expensive way for society to deal with a car thief would be to give him a car. Of course, he was right. But society simply does not accept as justice that a criminal should be rewarded for his acts. The corollary of that position, however, is that society must pay the cost of due process. That is expensive.

[2.] Hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone south in the prosecution of these proceedings. Nothing would please me more than to have them end here. Sadly, we know that this matter is headed for appellate review. So be it.

[3.] Mr. M.J.O. has taken to these proceedings an inclusive approach to the admission of evidence saying that he wants all the evidence to be heard so that the truth can be discovered. He has testified and has told us his version of the truth. Other witnesses have testified to sometimes very different versions of the truth.

[4.] I have been a lawyer and a judge for 42 years. I do not have a monopoly on being right. On neither of the two occasions when I was appointed a judge, was I given a crystal ball that enabled me, either to look back, and find the truth infallibly, or to look forward and predict the future infallibly. I have been listening to witnesses for 31 years. I try to do so carefully and thoughtfully. I cannot promise to Mr. M.J.O. that what I have found is the absolute truth completely free of error. I have struggled to do that. However, unless I completely misapprehend the evidence, what I have found is the truth that the legal system will accept.

[5.] There is an old saying to the effect that one should be careful about what one asks for, lest one receive it. Because of the volume of material that I have to deal with, I must necessarily paint with a broad brush. What follows is the truth about the life of M.J.O., as I find it.

Court cases are not always the most interesting to read. Some cases offer pleasant little literary surprises.

 

“A marriage licence surely must be the easiest of all licences to obtain” Even More Quips from Justice Quinn: Thomas v. Thomas

 pen

Even More Quips from Justice Quinn: Thomas v. Thomas

A while ago I highlighted the decisions by Mr. Justice Quinn in the cases of Bruni v. Brunihttp://bit.ly/lhJ15r and Pirbhai v. Singh http://bit.ly/lx509U, where the esteemed Ontario Court Judge provided some quotable quotes and funny quips in the context of resolving the disputes before him.

In that same vein, I thought I would highlight an earlier decision by Justice Quinn that shows he was in fine comedic form even a decade ago.

In Thomas v. Thomas, 2003 CanLII 64346 (ON SC) http://canlii.ca/t/2342w the judgment begins as follows:

The parties in this matrimonial litigation, both with a military background, came to learn that marriage “is a field of battle and not a bed of roses.”
(Ever one for attention to detail, in his footnote the Judge correctly credits this “bed of roses” quote to Robert Louis Stevenson’s, Virginibus Puerisque (1881))

About the parties’ communication skills, the Judge observes:

One week after the wedding, the husband announced that there would be no children of the marriage. And, he told the wife to “not think about accidentally getting pregnant.” She was greatly upset by this and grieved for awhile.

The footnote reads:

It is both sad and remarkable that, prior to the wedding, these highly intelligent people did not discuss if they would have children or what roles each would perform in the marriage or whether the wife would be expected to pursue a career and work outside the home. A marriage licence surely must be the easiest of all licences to obtain.

In the course of chronicling the breakdown of the marriage, he writes:

In July 1990, the husband was transferred to Hamilton, Ontario. Although the wife had taken some time to settle into her life in Germany, she grew to like it and did not want to leave. Nevertheless, there was no choice in the matter and the parties returned to Ontario. Thereafter, the marital temperature never got above freezing. Sexual relations ended.

The footnote to this passage reads:

Like many families, watching rented videotaped movies was part of their lifestyle. However, they each would rent their own movies and watch them separately. Apart from eating, sleeping and breathing they had nothing in common.

On August 5, 2001, while returning from a week-end trip that he and his wife had taken to Kingston (it was a police convention of sorts), the husband announced that he wanted a divorce. Much time and evidence was devoted to this week-end. Apart from wondering why, in the light of the sorry state of the marriage, the husband would extend an invitation to the wife to accompany him and she would accept, all that needs to be said about the trip is that it was extremely unpleasant and acrimonious. I accept the testimony of the wife that, on the way home in their motor vehicle, the husband chronicled all of her shortcomings. She was shocked, hurt and confused.

Again, the footnote says this:

It is quite amazing that the marriage lasted 14 years. One would have thought that, “The weakest kind of fruit drops earliest to the ground.” (Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, scene i, line 115.)

For the full text of the decision, see:

Thomas v. Thomas, 2003 CanLII 64346 (ON SC) http://canlii.ca/t/2342w

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at www.RussellAlexander.com.

15 Best Quips by Justice Quinn in Pirbhai v. Singh

15 Best Quips by Justice Quinn in Pirbhai v. Singh

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released the 2010 decision of Justice Quinn in the case of Kalinuddin Pirbhai v. Gurnek Singh on May 7th, 2010.

This is another decision filled with wry quips and comments by Justice Quinn. The background and outcome of the Singh decision can be found in earlier blog Quinn’s Quips Continue: More Quips from Mr. Justice Quinn http://bit.ly/l0Tt86

Keeping with the 15 Best Quips format we decided to highlight some of Justice Quinn’s more colourful and pointed comments. Justice Quinn’s judicious use of humor and wry quips continue to provide fodder for bloggers and legal commentators.

Here we go:

1. A friend of a friend is not necessarily your friend.

2. In 1999, the plaintiff was in the market for a used, high-end motor vehicle. A friend of his said that he had a friend who could supply such a vehicle. Ten years, and 31 days of trial, later, that transaction is finally completed. The plaintiff ended up with an expensive bargain.

3. The trial was most notable for revealing the defendant, Gurnek Singh (“Singh”), to be unblinkingly dishonest. He shows no aptitude for the truth; he is without a conscience; he is incorrigible.

4. Singh, on the other hand, is a devious man and an unbelievable witness who will do or say anything to advance his position. He was maddeningly unwilling to respond to the simplest of questions and often had to be asked the same question over and over (no doubt using the time gained to visit his pantry of untruthful answers).

5. Indeed, by the end of the trial, if Singh were to have testified that the world was round, I immediately would have sought membership in the Flat Earth Society.

6. Throughout the trial, I patiently waited for a Phoenix-like moment that might serve to rehabilitate his credibility: it never came. All in all, he was an exasperating witness who told untruths too numerous to catalogue and insulting in their breadth.

7. I feel somewhat responsible for this as I must have done or said something during the trial that caused Singh to believe that I was dim-witted.

8. There is no suggestion that Singh was the victim of a rogue employee or that there was a faxing poltergeist bumping about Brampton Auto.

9. Singh deposited the cheque to his personal bank account and thought that his splendid skullduggery had succeeded.

10. the plaintiff took the Lexus for a drive. He noted that the vehicle swayed, swerved, wobbled and emitted unusual noises. He also observed that it seemed to have a number of body parts that did not match [with the endnote] .. Something of an automotive Frankenstein.

11. Singh abandoned the Toyota story, said “Yes,” this document related to the Lexus, and offered an explanation that fell somewhere between a yarn and a fairy tale.

12. Singh’s evidence, in this area of the case, is an example of the elaborate lengths to which he was prepared to go to deceive the court. If lies were clothes, Singh would have been considerably overdressed for the trial.

13. Singh maintained that he did not receive this fax. However, the telephone records of the plaintiff establish that it was sent as he testified. Singh, overestimating the obtuseness of his audience, straight-facedly testified that perhaps the plaintiff had faxed a blank piece of paper. Singh did not produce any telephone records for this time-frame.

14. Singh’s casual and haphazard approach to his business and corporate structure and, more importantly, his fraudulent conduct in this case, vitiate the benefit of limited liability available through the process of incorporation and, therefore, in my opinion, attract personal liability. The corporate veil here was more of a bandit’s mask.

15. I have not said anything about a counterclaim made by Singh and that is because it was advanced with more nerve than merit. At that point in the trial, Singh’s credibility had immolated and the court was up to its sash in falsehoods.

Justice Quinn’s full decision is available at http://bit.ly/nsaDn9

Quinn’s Quips Continue: More Quips from Mr. Justice Quinn

Quinn’s Quips Continue: More Quips from Mr. Justice Quinn

A few months ago, I wrote about the judgment of Mr. Justice Quinn in the Ontario family law decision in Bruni v. Bruni, see http://bit.ly/lhJ15r .  The judge’s Reasons for Judgment were – to say the least – on the colourful side: they were filled with unusually-candid quips, humorously pointed observations, and – at some points – scathing criticisms of the parties to the litigation. To set the tone of that judgment, it is sufficient to note that they began with the words “Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.”

Well, Justice Quinn is at it again. While not a family law case, in Pirbhai v. Singh (c.o.b. Sarwan Auto Sales), Justice Quinn makes no bones about the character of the defendant Singh, whom in the second paragraph he calls “unblinkingly dishonest”. He goes on to conclude that Singh “shows no aptitude for the truth; he is without a conscience; he is incorrigible”, adding that “All in all, he was an exasperating witness who told untruths too numerous to catalogue and insulting in their breadth.” And in case there remained any misunderstanding about his assessment of the defendant’s credibility, in a footnote to the decision the judge adds: “Singh should not be permitted to conduct any commercial business in the Province of Ontario that brings him into contact with members of the public”.

These caustic observations are contained in a 27-page decision pertaining to a dispute between Singh, a used car dealer and auto collision shop owner, and Pirbhai, a St. Catherines doctor. Pirbhai had wanted to buy a used luxury car and had been referred to Singh by a friend-of-a-friend. The deal went sour because of Singh’s shoddy workmanship and broken promises in connection with a used Lexus that Pirbhai agreed to buy. The matter finally came before Mr. Justice Quinn after 10 years, and took 31 days of trial time.

In this context, Judge Quinn calls Singh “a devious man and an unbelievable witness who will do or say anything to advance his position. He was maddeningly unwilling to respond to the simplest of questions and often had to be asked the same question over and over (no doubt using the time gained to visit his pantry of untruthful answers.)” Ultimately, the judge ordered Singh to pay Pirbhai $33,465.77 in compensation, together with $50,000 in punitive damages.

Despite his role as a respected member of the judiciary, Mr. Justice Quinn is not stranger to calling it as he sees it. In 2009, he rendered a similarly-candid decision in a dispute between two best friends who engaged in bitterly-fought litigation over a $5-million lottery win. “During this trial, truth was only an occasional visitor,” Judge Quinn wrote. He added: “the case is awash in untruths and curiosities.”

Mr. Justice Quinn may be among the most forthright (and prolific) of Ontario judge in terms of a willingness to write such unreserved rebukes to parties and their witnesses. I am sure there will be similar decisions in the future, to look forward to.

For the full-text of the judgments, see: Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII) http://bit.ly/jib4Vnand and Pirbhai v. Singh et al., 2010 ONSC 2446 (CanLII)   http://bit.ly/lvRt3W

As a side note, in a separate decision regarding costs in the Pirbhai case Justice Quin notes that:

“Singh was evasive as a witness. He refused to acknowledge simple factual matters. He failed miserably in making reasonably diligent efforts to provide documentary disclosure, rendering it obvious that his objective was to divulge only what he wanted the court to see. Singh lied under oath. He tendered forged documents in evidence with the intention that the court act upon them. He perpetrated a fraud upon the plaintiff and his plan was to do the same upon the court. In this trial, he was a one-man crime wave. “

Justice Quin then awards the Plaintiff $131,211.74 in costs plus $2,000 in HST, in addition to the judgment for $33,465.77 and $50,000 in punitive damages.  This costs decision can be found at Pirbhai v. Singh, et al, 2011 ONSC 1366 (CanLII) http://bit.ly/lx509U

For further details of this decision, please see my subsequent blog 15 Best Quips by Justice Quinn in Pirbhai v. Singh at http://bit.ly/nXU658

 

15 Best Quips by Justice Quinn in Bruni v. Bruni

15 Best Quips by Justice Quinn in Bruni v. Bruni

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released the 2010 decision of Justice Quinn in the case of Catherine Bruni v. Larry Bruni on November 29, 2010.

In decision filled with wry quips and comments by Justice Quinn, the court awards, amongst other things, monthly spousal support in the amount of one dollar.

Decide for yourself whether the Justice Quinn’s judicious use of humor is necessary, appropriate or fitting for the Superior Court.

Here we go:

1. Justice Quinn commences his Reasons for Judgment with the first paragraph simply stating: “Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.”

2. “Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment.”

3. “The source of the difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred. Larry and Catherine hate each other, as do Larry and Sam. This hatred has raged unabated since the date of separation. Consequently, the likelihood of an amicable resolution is laughable (hatred devours reason); and, a satisfactory legal solution is impossible (hatred has no legal remedy).”

4. “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.” And then later in an endnote “I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.”

5. “Some family trees have more barren branches than others.”

6. “As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem solvers.”

7. “I find that Sandra does not exert a positive gravitational pull in this dysfunctional family constellation.”

8. “The legal system does not have the resources to monitor a schedule of counselling (nor should it do so). The function of Family Court is not to change people, but to dispose of their disputes at a given point in time. I preside over a court, not a church.”

9. “I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional).”

10. “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? 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.”

11. “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. “

12. “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.”

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

14. “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.”

15. “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.” And the endnote “I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.”

The Justice Quinn’s full decision is available at http://bit.ly/fRlRaD

Further family law court decisions can also be found on our website at http://bit.ly/eJmpsx

%d bloggers like this: