(c) The contents of paragraph 13.1 of the separation agreement (child support) shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
(i) Based on an income of $53,000 in 2008, Larry shall pay Guidelines table child support for 2008 in the sum of $798 monthly for the two children, payable on the first of each month commencing January 1, 2008;
(ii) Based on an income of $57,690 in 2009, Larry shall pay Guidelines table child support for 2009 in the sum of $866 monthly for the two children, payable on the first of each month commencing January 1, 2009;
(iii) Based on an income of $81,000 in 2010, Larry shall pay Guidelines table child support in the sum of $1,171 monthly for the two children, payable on the first of each month commencing January 1, 2010 until otherwise ordered.
I was reading calmly until that part. Jesus fucking christ this judge is preposterous.
This case came out quite a while ago and there was a good globe and mail article which summed up a lot of the better quotes. (You may want to put it in the OP!)
Judge Quinn said that Larry, 38, possesses “a near-empty parenting tool box,” and was fond of venting his anger by sending Catherine insulting text messages and giving her ‘the finger’ as he drove by her home. “A finger is worth a thousand words and therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words,” Judge Quinn added.
"He said that...Catherine once tried to run over Larry with a van. “This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart.”
“On Oct. 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added,” he remarked. “According to Larry, ‘Catherine’s sister-in-law yelled out her window that I was going to be floating in the canal dead.’"
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.
At all the idiots who keep getting warned/banned for saying they're not going to read it just read through the thread where people are conveniently posting the funny bits. Seems pretty hilarious wish we had judges like that around here.
my father is lawyer (german) and thus I know it's everyone's Lawyers wish to make like a really cool "judgement saying" to be printed on the famous magazine with it and your name. It's a way to earn fame for lawyers because the most important law magazine prints it^
I finished reading the notes and the referenced sections. However I found lack of evidences that Larry is bad as people make out to be, it seems to me that Catherine is the totally evil one here, maybe I missed.
I meant sending insult texts and pointing fingers isn't as bad as threatening to kill and brain washing children is it?
Can someone fill in the light for me? That would be great!
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.
but they're the ones that create child support
Says who? Clearly not the law, as the Ontario Superior Court indicates.
Also, you must pay child support on adopted children if there is a divorce.
On January 21 2011 04:48 furymonkey wrote: I finished reading the notes and the referenced sections. However I found lack of evidences that Larry is bad as people make out to be, it seems to me that Catherine is the totally evil one here, maybe I missed.
I meant sending insult texts and pointing fingers isn't as bad as threatening to kill and brain washing children is it?
Can someone fill in the light for me? That would be great!
From what I've gathered from the thread and the record, I think you have it about right
Mindblowingly hilarious...every footnote had me. I feel sorry that the judge had to deal with such an outrageously dimwitted individuals in this case...the child custody/support lawyer also evidently deserves some kudos though :>
Larry should have gotten away with no harm done to him... he's being ravished out of potential money via investments/dividends/derivatives/naked shorting/usury/stocks/day trading...
Catherine is truly evil... and the sister in law... wow... she's like giving him death threats... wtf... Larry should be the one to get compensation for being hurt/threatened... psychological damage to him...
He isn't even allowed to see the children either... wtf... and he's forced to pay...
The children are taught pure hatred without from an early age and they don't even know each other...
That cornelia guy shouldn't have to pay... for kids that aren't even his... he's being shylocked...oh wow... 14000 annually to some goy...wtf... 14000 could've been used for usury...
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.
Screw the children. They are not of his blood, he shouldn't have to pay a cent if he doesn't want to. If he wants to support children that he is fond of, he of course has the right to do so, just as I have the right to give donations to orphanages. But just as the orphanage doesn't have the right to pursue me for child support, neither should his wife nor the children of his wife have any right whatsoever to his money.
What she did to him was fraud. The worst kind of fraud possible. That the children were partial beneficiaries of her fraud is not an extenuating circumstance.
Here, I'll give you an analogy: A woman with fertility trouble is having IVF treatment. Her husband is the doctor. She believes that the embryo that is implanted was made from her husbands sperm and her own egg. But in fact, the doctor (who is her husband), actually used an egg harvested from his mistress, because he decided that his mistress was better looking, and thus he could have fitter children. So he implants the embryo into his wife, she carries it to term, never realising that she is actually a surrogate. Years later, the doctor decides that his wife is no longer pretty enough. He divorces her, and lives in a de facto relationship with another woman. He gets custody of "their" daughter, and she is ordered to pay child support. Even knowing that a large portion of the child support will actually be spent buying jewellery for his new lover, she opts to pay the money anyway, as she figures she has a duty to support her daughter.
One day, she finds his dairy and reads it. She finds out the daughter she so loved wasn't even hers. She sues him, but the courts dismiss her case and order her to pay increased child support.
Would you call this just?
(I realise that the example is contrived. However, due to the differences in male and female physiology, which is to say, that women give birth, such convoluted examples are necessary.)
If he wanted to pay for children support, he'd just adopt some new kid... and not that brainwashed daughter that catherine made her to become so full of hatred...it should be his prerogative...
From fotnotes: "[2] 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."
This is pure GOLD! I had no idea people in the legal profession could write something like this. Makes me feel a lot better about starting law school in a month.
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.
Screw the children. They are not of his blood, he shouldn't have to pay a cent if he doesn't want to. If he wants to support children that he is fond of, he of course has the right to do so, just as I have the right to give donations to orphanages. But just as the orphanage doesn't have the right to pursue me for child support, neither should his wife nor the children of his wife have any right whatsoever to his money.
What she did to him was fraud. The worst kind of fraud possible. That the children were partial beneficiaries of her fraud is not an extenuating circumstance.
Here, I'll give you an analogy: A woman with fertility trouble is having IVF treatment. Her husband is the doctor. She believes that the embryo that is implanted was made from her husbands sperm and her own egg. But in fact, the doctor (who is her husband), actually used an egg harvested from his mistress, because he decided that his mistress was better looking, and thus he could have fitter children. So he implants the embryo into his wife, she carries it to term, never realising that she is actually a surrogate. Years later, the doctor decides that his wife is no longer pretty enough. He divorces her, and lives in a de facto relationship with another woman. He gets custody of "their" daughter, and she is ordered to pay child support. Even knowing that a large portion of the child support will actually be spent buying jewellery for his new lover, she opts to pay the money anyway, as she figures she has a duty to support her daughter.
One day, she finds his dairy and reads it. She finds out the daughter she so loved wasn't even hers. She sues him, but the courts dismiss her case and order her to pay increased child support.
Would you call this just?
(I realise that the example is contrived. However, due to the differences in male and female physiology, which is to say, that women give birth, such convoluted examples are necessary.)
I think you need to re-read the article. all the details are wrong and your analogy is whack.
1) the whole jewelry you just threw in without any backing. Children are more expensive to raise properly then the payments from child support. You threw in that comment for flavour and you shouldn't have.
2)a more accurate analogy, derived from your example would be the following:
Doctor uses his mistresses eggs on his wife. He tells his wife that he had been boning a woman on the side, and that he *might* have used the mistresses eggs. The wife is fully aware of the mistress, but chooses not to have any maternity tests. Instead the mother fights to stay in the lives of these children, knowing they probably aren't hers. She starts paying child support to help retain parental rights, and proceeds to pay for years.
Eventually the father asks for more money as costs of living rise. The mother, who knows the kids probably aren't hers, doesn't want to pay any more. She gets a maternity test knowing what the results will be. She tries to use the now official information to get out of child support. The judge sees right though it.
One of the more humorous decisions I've read. I can't help feeling sorry for Larry though. I think he would have wound up getting money and more access to the kids in the decision if he had been represented by a lawyer.
Long story short the court system in Canada is so entirely screwed up in every way I don't even know where to begin to try and explain it to non-Canadians. Essentially the judges here feel the need to not simply pass judgement based on the law, but based on their own personal vendettas and feelings as well.
EPT
