![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
from the "so bizarre it can't possibly be real, and yet" file
A lawyer-friend sent me a link to this frankly hilarious court case summary out of Canada.
Morland-Jones v. Taerk, 2014 ONSC 3061 (CanLII)
One sample:
Really, the phrase "And it goes downhill from there" should not appear in a summation of an actual court case, should it? But as the subject line says, "And yet..."
Morland-Jones v. Taerk, 2014 ONSC 3061 (CanLII)
One sample:
[6] The hearing before me started off with counsel for the Plaintiffs playing a short excerpt from security footage shot by the Plaintiffs several years ago, in which Ms. Taerk is seen performing a “poop and scoop” after a dog did its business on her front lawn. The Plaintiffs’ security camera shows her crossing the street with the plastic bag-full in hand, and then walking toward the Plaintiffs’ driveway where the garbage cans were out for collection. Although the impugned deed actually takes place off camera, Ms. Taerk can be seen moments later returning to her side of the street empty-handed.
[7] Apparently, much to the consternation of the Plaintiffs, she deposited the goods in the Plaintiffs’ garbage can. In doing so, she failed to walk to the back of her house to place it in her own receptacle like a truly good neighbour would do.
[8] The “dog feces incident”, as counsel for the Plaintiffs calls it, is a high point of this claim. At the hearing, it was followed by counsel’s description of a cease and desist letter sent to the Defendants in 2008 by a lawyer then representing the Plaintiffs, which describes what is now referred to by counsel as the “dog urination issue”. This letter enclosed photographs – apparently stills taken from the Plaintiffs’ non-stop video footage – documenting Mr. Taerk walking his dog and occasionally allowing it to lift its leg in a canine way next to the bushes lining the Plaintiffs’ lawn.
Really, the phrase "And it goes downhill from there" should not appear in a summation of an actual court case, should it? But as the subject line says, "And yet..."
no subject
That's hilarious! I love the judge's snark; I hope he was equally snarky to the people in the case, and I hope their lawyers soaked them thoroughly.
The judge made clear what should have been obvious to the Plaintiffs to begin with: you can't sue someone because you don't like them. (Or rather, apparently you can, but not with any hope of winning.)
no subject
My friend is an adjunct law professor at NYU who fills in the gaps as an arbitrator, and he says ridiculous cases like this aren't nearly as rare as you'd like to think. Usually they don't go to court because that's so expensive, and much less outside of America where judges usually have the ability to dismiss cases like this as frivolous. (He was a bit surprised this case got that far.) But yes, according to him judges often let their snark fly a bit when the case deserves it. :-)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject