Trusts in partibus infidelium

The leading article in our recent family law and trusts special issue was Lord Justice Munby's 2011 Chancery Bar Association Annual Lecture, ‘An unconscionable time a-dying: reports from a traveller in a foreign country’,1 which Sir James concluded with this invitation to his audience: if the Family bar will pardon the thought, there are cases in the Family Division where the Chancery bar has something very valuable to contribute, even though my experience is that, for reasons which elude me, few of you seem to feel up to the challenge!2 That Chancery barristers should find the reasons less elusive than his Lordship is easy to understand when cases like Bruni v Bruni3 are considered. In the Family Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Quinn J wasted no time in setting the tone of that litigation: I INTRODUCTION [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. … [8] Presiding over a family trial, with many issues, where the parties are self-represented … is a solitary and unfulfilling experience. What evidence was not brought forward because the parties failed to appreciate its relevance? What evidence that was introduced would have been recast under a skilful cross-examination? With whom do I play devil’s advocate on questions of law? II BACKGROUND 1. The genesis of the litigation [9] Larry and Catherine married and had two children. Larry and Sam were close friends. They work for the same employer. Larry was the best man at Sam’s wedding. A few years later, Sam separated from his wife and obtained custody of their two young children. [Their mother, according to Sam, ‘is not in the picture’ and has abandoned the children.] Larry and Catherine also separated. Their children remained with Catherine. Sam and his children moved in with Catherine and her children. Larry now has a common-law spouse. She has three children. The two households are located one kilometre apart. [10] In the midst of this social stew perhaps it is not surprising that Larry and Catherine are having problems, serious problems, regarding the custody of, and access to, their children. The source of the difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred. [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.] 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). 2. Some family particulars [11] 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. [12] The parties have two children, a daughter, Taylor, born on May 23, 1997 (now 13 years of age) and a son, Brandon, born on August 28, 1999 (now 11). After a brief split and reconciliation in 2004, the parties separated for the final time on October 1, 2006, effectively making this an 11-year marriage (they have not divorced). [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.] [13] Larry (aged 38) is employed as a labourer in the waste management business. He lives common law with Sandra Cook (‘Sandra’), a personal support worker in a nursing/retirement home. [The home in which Larry and Sandra live is jointly owned by the two of them. Larry did not reveal this fact in his financial statement filed in these proceedings.] [14] Catherine (aged 36) is a caretaker with the District School Board of Niagara. In 2008, she commenced a common-law relationship with Sam McTague (‘Sam’) who works for the same company as does Larry. Catherine’s 76-year-old father lives with them and pays room and board. 3. Catherine’s genteel family tree [15] Some family trees have more barren branches than others. [16] Larry testified about the many death threats he received from Catherine and members of her family around the time of, and in the months following, separation. I will mention some of them. [17] In September of 2006, Larry went to live with his father ‘for a couple of days’ to ‘clear my head.’ When he returned to the matrimonial home, the locks had been changed. Larry stated in evidence: ‘Catherine didn’t want me on the property and her family threatened to have me killed.’ [18] Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine, ‘Tried to run me over with her van’ [This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart]. [19] On November 21, 2006, Catherine demanded $400 from Larry or her brother was ‘going to get the Hells Angels after me.’ [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).] [20] On February 9, 2007, Catherine told Larry that she wanted him to sign adoption papers so that Sam could adopt their children. [When one considers that the parties then had been separated for a mere four months and that Larry was exercising access, this is a remarkable request. What does it tell us about Catherine?] Said Larry: ‘She threatened me with her brothers and Hells Angels again.’ [21] On August 13, 2007, Catherine’s niece (Donna), telephoned Larry ‘and told me I will get a bullet in my head if I don’t sign the adoption papers. She called back later and told me I’m as good as dead.’ She called a third time, ‘to tell me her father and uncles are coming to kill me.’ [Donna is a devotee of the literary device known as, ‘repetition for emphasis.’ I do not know whether Donna is the niece who is engaged to the Hells Angels member. If she is, they may be more compatible than I initially surmised.] [22] The next day, Catherine telephoned Larry and said that she ‘wanted my truck or her brother and the Hells Angels are coming to get it and me.’ [23] On October 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added. According to Larry: ‘Donna Taylor, Catherine’s sister-in-law, yelled out her window that I was going to be floating in the canal dead.’ [24] As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem solvers. … [48] Catherine denied access entirely to Larry from some point in January of 2010 up to the commencement of the four-month hiatus in the trial (May-October of 2010). This was a remarkably bold step on her part, taken without reasonable excuse or explanation. Most litigants are on their best behaviour as their trial approaches. Her conduct reflects the lack of respect she has for the legal system and the utter disregard with which she treats Larry’s parental rights. She is a law onto [sic] herself. She is also oblivious to her lack of objectivity in matters of access. [49] Before the commencement of the hiatus, I ordered the parties to meet with Mr Leduc and come up with an access schedule to cover the period until the trial resumed. As a result, Larry began exercising access to Brandon every second week-end from Saturday at 10:00 am until Sunday at 6:00 pm. Taylor usually accompanied Brandon, but always returned home on Saturday (in other words, she did not stay overnight with Larry and Sandra). [50] During these enforced access visits, Taylor repeatedly said to Larry: ‘You’re not my father. Sam’s my father. You’re a loser.’ These are comments that Taylor would have parroted from Catherine, I have no doubt. They are the result of persistent, behind-the-scenes brainwashing by Catherine. … 7. Conduct of the parties and their common-law spouses [70] On fourteen occasions, within eighteen months, the parties drew the police into their petty disagreements—a sad commentary on their inability to get along and a shocking abuse of the Niagara Regional Police Service. Although this statistic probably sums up all that one needs to know about the parties, I will elaborate for the doubters. … IV RESULT [213] Despite the involvement of Niagara Family and Children’s Services, Ms Katz, Mr Leduc and the court, the parties repeatedly have shown that they are immune to reason. Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last resort. … .

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.