An amusing case from Canada

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

Whenever a Judge says:

Morgan J. wrote:

The “dog feces incident”, as counsel for the Plaintiffs calls it, is a high point of this claim.

you know its time to start settlement talks

Ken.

I'd love to know the exact legal costs for both.

Victor

Call the cops.

Either the lawyers need to be done for fraud or the parties need to be taken to a psychiatric hospital.

impr0v

Morgan J wrote:

I cannot help but comment that the courts as public institutions are already bursting at the seams with all manner of claims. To add to that public burden the type of exchanges that these parties have engaged in would be to let the litigious society stray without a leash – or perhaps without a lis.

Nice.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Call the cops.

Either the lawyers need to be done for fraud or the parties need to be taken to a psychiatric hospital.

Jaysus Victor, if it was a criminal offence to argue a bad case I doubt thered be anyone left to prosecute the thing!

Icepick

Victor wrote: »

Call the cops.

Either the lawyers need to be done for fraud or the parties need to be taken to a psychiatric hospital.

One must go there regularly

the Defendant, Gary Taerk, is a psychiatrist.

seagull

I'd have thought the lawyers should be done for contempt in daring to bring a case like this before the court. The parties involved should also have had to pay all costs incurred by the state, along with their own costs.

seamus

The lawyers ultimately act on their clients' instructions. They can tell the client that it's a complete waste of time, but if the client wants to push it, the lawyer can't stop them. And won't when there's a nice fat fee in it.

Reads to me like the Plaintiff is a complete lunatic while the defendants, to their shame given that he's a psychiatrist, have gradually settled into an enjoyable hobby of winding her up and driving her crazy. I guess when you're dealing with crazy, you may as well have some fun with it. But ignoring it would have been better and wouldn't have cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Reading between the lines though I'm guessing that's play money on both their parts.

mikemac1

Did the judge write that? It's a witty style of writing

I guessed it must be a reporter though maybe judges like to add a little banter to their judgements. I'm not sure

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pat Mustard

seagull wrote: »

I'd have thought the lawyers should be done for contempt in daring to bring a case like this before the court. The parties involved should also have had to pay all costs incurred by the state, along with their own costs.

Acting for a party to a weak case is not contempt of court.

The state was not a party to the action so there were no legal costs incurred by the state. Unlike arbitrators, judges do not charge litigants for their services.

The parties had to pay their own costs, which ran to tens of thousands of canadian dollars, according to the judge.

It was a stupid case brought by stubborn people with more money than sense but apart from clogging up the court list a bit, the parties' costs were the extent of the damage.