Separation agreements are not always enough

“Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud”

You know that when a judge opens a family law decision with this line, it doesn’t end well. We’ve all heard horror stories about divorces that go off the rails. I’ve expressed my view on the need for reform in a previous post. In preparation for my article today, I was looking for a humorous judge decision. Judges don’t usually have much leeway in rendering their decisions. They must maintain relative anonymity. However, now and then, the facts of a case combined with a creative personality result in an interesting read.

Bruni v. Bruni

Ontario Superior Court Justice Quinn is one of those judges, and Bruni v Bruni was one of cases that led to a funny decision. But it is important to remember this comedy is more of a Shakespearian comedy than a barrel of laughs. There is a great tragedy that underlies the humour of the decision and the chaos these people created for themselves. In the end, a mother poisoned her daughter’s opinion of her father so badly, and the judge was unable to order joint custody. Kids always pay the highest price.

The Judge Described The Situation As Follows:

Perhaps it is not surprising that Larry and Catherine are having problems regarding the custody of, and access to, their children. The source of the difficulties is hatred. A hardened, harmful, high-octane level of hatred. Larry and Catherine hate each other. 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).

Multiple legal issues

The decision is not easy to follow because of the number of legal issues, but if you want to read it for yourself, you can find Bruni v Bruni here. The judge had to make decisions on 11 legal issues that included the home’s value, the impact of a lack of independent legal advice, child support, etc. I should point out that the parties had signed a separation agreement. Yet, despite the existence of a standard, well-written agreement, they still ended up in court.

Humour

If you read the decision, please read the notes as you go. It’s a little awkward because you must scroll down and find them, but they are worth it. That is where the real comedy occurs. For example, Quinn remarked in the decision: Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine “Tried to run me over with her van.” In the accompanying note, the judge added, “This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart.” Another favourite of mine is when Quinn describes some of the mother’s actions that influenced her daughter’s opinion of her father. He observed, “Taylor [the daughter] was having an access visit with Larry [her father] when she received a text message from Catherine [her mother] that read “Is dickhead there?” The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person”. That would not have been my first guess. And finally, another gem. Quinn was reviewing the evidence given at trial, “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 when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in their 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).

Conclusion

Courts are a difficult place to live. More often than not, parties live through a once-in-a-lifetime traumatizing experience. Judges and lawyers live these days in and day out. Sometimes, humour is the only relief. Sometimes, humour is also the best way to highlight the ridiculousness of certain situations. In this case, the Bruni’s not only burned through taxpayer dollars and the majority of their resources by tying up a court for several weeks, but their behaviour also caused significant trauma to their children. While it’s hard to feel sympathy for the parents, I can’t help but wonder how those kids will turn out. Will we have another Bruni case like this one in 10 years?

‍

Disclaimer – Legalese

This article is presented for informational purposes only. The content does not constitute legal advice or solicitation and does not create a solicitor-client relationship (this means that I am not your lawyer until we both agree that I am). If you are seeking advice on specific matters, please contact Philippe Richer at 204.925.1900. We cannot consider any unsolicited information sent to the author as solicitor-client privileged (this means confidential).

‍