Tag Archives: Ontario Superior Court

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.

Advertisements

LegalEase – CKUT 90.3 Montreal – April 2010 Episode 10 – Silent Labourers

Welcome to LegalEase – a Montreal-based, produced and broadcast radio show concerning “The Law”. This month’s episode is entitled: Silent Labourers.

Mae Nam looks at the International Labour Organization’s 90th Anniversary conference at McGill, interviewing Prof. Peggy Smith of Iowa University about the conditions of Domestic Workers. Daniel Mayer, in his fourth segment on Francophone rights, looks at the relationship between Quebec and the Francophone community outside Quebec through the lens of a recent Supreme Court case, Nguyen v. Quebec (Education, Recreation and Sports), 2009 SCC 47. Finally, LegalEase discusses the life of a little-known Superior Court judge with Michael Bookman, with some thoughts on the writing of Canadian Legal history.

Enjoy! Check us out at https://legaleaseckut.wordpress.com or email us at legalease[at]ckut.ca

http://www.archive.org/details/Legalease-Ckut90.3Montreal-April2010Episode10-SilentLabourers