Amazing read, and great judge. I worked for a U.S. District Court judge for a summer and judges are often stuck with really unsympathetic parties and cases (along with unsympathetic lawyers). One of the best part was the award for spousal support, (the judge had a lot of discretion based on the Canadian Statute) and held:
[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.
That's right, spousal support is 1 dollar a month b/c of her actions!
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.
I lol'd, long and hard. I'm glad that not everything in the courtroom has to be taken incredibly seriously, especially when people can be so petty, stubborn, and downright idiotic. I say this coming from parents that undertook a particularly acidic divorce when I was in third grade (that never got any better). Would've been nice to see them ridiculed by a judge on occasion.
On January 19 2011 11:02 BlackJack wrote: The funniest Canadian ruling is the one where a guy had a paternity test and found out his ex-wife's children weren't his but the judge ruled that he had to pay child support anyway.. lol
You make it sound like these kids didn't see the guy as their father.
"Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with someone named Tony, who may have fathered the twins -- but he sought joint custody regardless. He only began pursuing the issue after Ms. Cornelio began seeking increased child-support payments"
The guy wasn't trapped into anything. He wanted to raise the kids as his own until they got too expensive. Absolutely he should continue to pay, despite having a bad wife. Think of the children.
Exactly. Biological bonds are not the only bonds that create family.
On January 19 2011 11:02 BlackJack wrote: The funniest Canadian ruling is the one where a guy had a paternity test and found out his ex-wife's children weren't his but the judge ruled that he had to pay child support anyway.. lol
You make it sound like these kids didn't see the guy as their father.
"Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with someone named Tony, who may have fathered the twins -- but he sought joint custody regardless. He only began pursuing the issue after Ms. Cornelio began seeking increased child-support payments"
The guy wasn't trapped into anything. He wanted to raise the kids as his own until they got too expensive. Absolutely he should continue to pay, despite having a bad wife. Think of the children.
Exactly. Biological bonds are not the only bonds that create family.
Evidently it's court orders that create families.
Hahah that made me laugh. And this part made me smile. Considering the children were going under so much stress it's good to have someone looking out for their best interest:
[216] A word must be said about the children’s lawyer, Mr. Leduc. I am indebted to him for his effective questioning of the witnesses and wise and helpful submissions. I expect that this was a trying experience for him. Throughout his year-long involvement in the case, he was contacted on numerous occasions by the parties and by the children. While generally siding with Larry’s position, Mr. Leduc, nonetheless, conducted himself in a fair-minded manner, impartial to the parties, always alert to the best interests of the children and in the highest traditions of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
While funny, humor is in its most simple form an emotional coping mechanism for pain. We laugh because otherwise we would cry, but they are still similar.
With that said, reading through the whole thing, I felt really horrible for the poor judge who obviously was very upset by the level of disgusting evil in these peoples behavior toward not only each other but their own children. What an incredibly upsetting case. No wonder he had to put in so many jokes.
so, while everyone else quotes their favorite funny parts, my favorite part was this bit at the end:
[216] A word must be said about the children’s lawyer, Mr. Leduc. I am indebted to him for his effective questioning of the witnesses and wise and helpful submissions. I expect that this was a trying experience for him. Throughout his year-long involvement in the case, he was contacted on numerous occasions by the parties and by the children. While generally siding with Larry’s position, Mr. Leduc, nonetheless, conducted himself in a fair-minded manner, impartial to the parties, always alert to the best interests of the children and in the highest traditions of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional).]
@Brett Thanks for this wonderful post it was an hilarious read. Never thought a judgement can be so much fun!
PS: Read the footnotes too. They provide some 'valuable insight' e.g.
At one point in the trial, I asked Catherine: “If you could push a button and make Larry disappear from the face of the earth, would you push it?” Her I-just-won-a-lottery smile implied the answer that I expected.
and
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).
I found this really depressing tbh. While the Larry guy seems to be a bit of a bastard, you don't turn your children on their father for no other reason than that you don't like him. It might be because I've seen it happen first hand and it's not a pretty sight.
This is supposed to be sort of the middleground and Catherine comes of as the biggest bitch on the planet. I wonder how bad she is in Larrys story, if you add bias to this the idiot-meter would probably explode.
On January 19 2011 16:35 Hynda wrote: I found this really depressing tbh. While the Larry guy seems to be a bit of a bastard, you don't turn your children on their father for no other reason than that you don't like him. It might be because I've seen it happen first hand and it's not a pretty sight.
This is supposed to be sort of the middleground and Catherine comes of as the biggest bitch on the planet. I wonder how bad she is in Larrys story, if you add bias to this the idiot-meter would probably explode.
The case described him as an asshole and an inept parent, but his list of detractions was pretty short in comparison to that of Catherine (and her supporters). Yeah, he drove by and yelled obscenities at them, but they kind of did the same thing to him. He also didn't have a criminal gang with which to threaten her or try and brainwash his son against her.
Again, read the judgment and footnotes together.. lol
I must say that this case is even more humorous than then one listed in the OP, especially the notes.
"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."
This is really funny and extremely inappropriate at the same time.
I currently study law in germany, something like that would be absolutely impossible here. The fact that a judge can rule so solely based on subjective grounds, is so shocking that it becomes hilarious to me.
[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]
Again, read the judgment and footnotes together.. lol
Did they ever charge that Indian with massive usury for the 10 years? That money could've been used for naked shorting and various other investments...
reading the judgement is funny and deprressing for me.
I split with my ex 5 years ago and she won't allow me to see my son, I thought about taking her to court but a friend had already been through the process many times with his ex, who periodically (and still to this day) decides she won't let him see his daughter. He then takes her to court again and the judge gives her a talking to, then they repeat the whole thing a few months later.
I didn't want to do that because the hatred felt on both sides with myself and my ex was at the time extreme. I no longer feel the same hate, but I haven't had to deal with her in 5 years, I have no doubts that 5 minutes in a room with her would reignite the hatred, as taking my son away from me literally ruined my life for a long time.
If we went to court the judge would probably have similar scathing remarks for us lol. So instead I have decided to wait until my son can choose to see me, as all children will at some point want to meet their real parent, in the mean time I have a lovely gf and her son to take care of.
On January 20 2011 22:32 GeneticToss wrote: [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]
That made me lol hard
Did you read the note attached to that? LOL.
[30] I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.
You don't have to mind your language in Canada as much. Simple answer. We assume most people have thick enough skin to deal with the truth. I'd have to say I attribute the same attitude to the English as well. No punches pulled. Always excruciatingly blunt and honest no matter whose neck they crush under their boot. Good on them, good on the judge. A1 for the big bang theory joke.
From what I gather, Catherine should never have had any children at all. What an evil bitch. Sure, from the evidence Larry makes some apalling moves (Taylor - shit) but Cathy here is downright committing psychological child abuse.
The ruling itself is a pretty awesome read - thanks for posting!
On January 19 2011 11:02 BlackJack wrote: The funniest Canadian ruling is the one where a guy had a paternity test and found out his ex-wife's children weren't his but the judge ruled that he had to pay child support anyway.. lol
that shits just fucked up. Being forced to pay some of your hard earned money to a bitch that obviously cheated on you throughout the whole marriage, for kids that arent even yours?
Not funny.
But on topic. I love how he only has to pay a dollar to her personally every month. You dont hear that very often. Glad a guy caught a break for a change.
EPT
