Sorry it will not load for me, so if you want to read it you will have to do it here;
I wish every Family Court Judge wrote Judgements like this…If you decide to read it, make sure you read his ‘footnotes’ (in italic) and yes this case is real and written by a Judge!
A few of his notable points……
…..the parties repeatedly have shown that they are immune to reason. Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last resort.
 Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.
 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
…parental-alienation conduct of Catherine (in respect of the parties daughter)…..
 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?
 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. 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).
3, I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.
The Hell’s Angel’s get a mention…….
 Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine, Tried to run me over with her van.
6. This is always a tell-tale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart.
 On November 21, 2006, Catherine demanded $400 from Larry or her brother was going to get the Hells Angels after me.
7 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).
Said Larry: .She threatened me with her brothers and Hells Angels again..
 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..
 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.
 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.
 As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem
8. 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?
9. 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.
 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 herself. She is also oblivious to her lack of objectivity in matters of access.
 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.
 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.
 Larry, who regularly drives by the residence of Sam and Catherine, often
shoots the finger at Sam and, on about three occasions, has yelled: ‘Jackass,
20 A further testament to the hopelessness of the custody/access situation is that the parties and their common-law spouses are unable to jointly attend Brandon’s ball-hockey games without erupting into mutual conflict. This is very stressful for Brandon.
21 A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words.
22 When the operator of a motor vehicle yells ‘jackass’ at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.
 On August 14, 2007, Larry sent three text messages to Catherine within a
space of four minutes, saying: ‘The game is just starting’. ‘Prepare yourself for a
long winding road’ ‘Busted! Always look in your rear view mirror’ and, ‘Blood
isn’t’ always thicker than water’. Two days later he texted: .Loser! Homewrecker!
23 In recent years, the evidence in family trials typically includes reams of text messages between the parties, helpfully laying bare their true characters. Assessing credibility is not nearly as difficult as it was before the use of emails and text messages became prolific. Parties are not shy about splattering their spleens throughout cyberspace.
24 These do not strike me as the statements of someone who is concerned about precipitating a Hells Angels house call.
I admonished the parties on a number of matters, one of which was the importance of not
denigrating the other in the presence of the children. Yet, in August of 2010 (in other words, during
the hiatus), Taylor was having an access visit with Larry when she received a text message from
Catherine that read: Is dickhead there?.
 At one point, the children told Larry that if they were to telephone, or talk to,
him they would 'to jail'. Catherine was behind this cruel misinformation.
25 I confess that I sometimes permit a lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience, come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.
26 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'dickhead' as a stupid person. That would not have been my first guess.
Larry passed Sam in the hallway outside the courtroom, You’re done.
29 It takes a special level of audacity to utter threats under the roof of the Court House.
 On another occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: .'You put shit in this hand and shit in
this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor.
30 I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.
 Finally, on this issue, I observe that Taylor calls Sam 'dad’. Where as Brandon refers to him as
‘Sam’. Neither Sam nor Catherine attempted to dissuade Taylor, calling the matter ‘her choice’. Yes,
the alienation indeed is complete.
 The parental alienation in this case reflects an intent by Catherine to destroy the relationship
between Taylor and Larry; it is shocking conduct. It also amounts to a hideous repudiation of the
relationship between Catherine and Larry as co-parents of Taylor. The harm here probably is
irreparable. Certainly, it is extremely serious at best.
 While Larry’s access-conduct has largely reflected nothing more than inept
parenting, Catherine’s parental-alienation behaviour has been evil. Is there a
 Dollars cannot replace the father-daughter relationship that Catherine has
destroyed. However, in the circumstances of this case, justice has only a Hobson’s
choice. Catherine’s alienation of Taylor and Larry must be condemned and, an
effective method of expressing that condemnation, is by way of a reduction in spousal support.
 Accordingly, the spousal support to which Catherine would otherwise be
entitled shall be reduced to one dollar monthly.
 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