Funny Writing Styles – Bruni v Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII)

Family TIme

Who says Canadian Courts are boring?

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

[2]     This is yet another case that reveals the ineffectiveness of Family Court in a bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require therapeutic intervention rather than legal attention. Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment.

So begins the decision, Bruni v Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII), penned by Justice Quinn of the Ontario Superior Court. It is worth going through this piece of juridical writing – despite the lurid details of a messy family dispute, the Justice makes the decision readable and, well, entertaining.

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

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

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

Footnote [30]   I gather that this is L’s version of the Big Bang Theory.

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

[…]

9.       Spousal support

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

Footnotes

[2]               At one point in the trial, I asked C: “If you could push a button and make L disappear from the face of the earth, would you push it?” Her I-just-won-a-lottery smile implied the answer that I expected.

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

[26]             The New Shorter Oxford EnglishDictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.