Footnotes by Justice Quinn
Here are Justice Quinn's actual footnotes in this judgement.
I couldn't believe what I was reading! LOL
Does any other Family Court Judge do this?
[1] When she advised the court of the no-trespass letters, during closing argument, Ms. Szakacs seemed quite pleased with her procedural coup.
[2] If she is like this in court, what must she be like outside the courtroom?
[3] However, my task includes determining whether Mr. Clarke is parentally fit, not whether it would be prudent for the child to become his business partner.
[4] Dr. Freud has not responded to my page.
[5] Of the litigants to whom I pose this question, 99% answer “No,” explaining that they want a better life for their child.
[6] If Mr. Clarke had turned water into wine, Ms. Szakacs would have complained that she prefers beer.
[7] This is another example of her unfair refusal to concede anything favourable about Mr. Clarke.
[8] Imagine a situation where a father has sole custody and the mother has access. What is one’s first thought? If you are taking this quiz honestly, you will answer: “I wonder what is wrong with the mother? Drugs? Alcohol?” In other words, she is somehow thought to be inferior to the custodial parent by the mere mention that she is only an access parent. A fortiori, in the case of an access father.
[9] Sometimes the presumption does not survive the first recess in the trial.
[10] “Parens patriae is the power of the court to act in the stead of a parent for the protection of a child”: see B.(A.C.) v. B.(R.), 2010 ONCA 714 (CanLII) at para. 23.“[T]he discretion is to do what is necessary for the protection of the person for whose benefit it is exercised”: see Eve, Re, 1986 CanLII 36 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388 at p. 427. “[T]he categories under which the [parens patriae] jurisdiction can be exercised are never closed . . .”: see Eve, Re, supra, at p. 426.)
Here are Justice Quinn's actual footnotes in this judgement.
I couldn't believe what I was reading! LOL
Does any other Family Court Judge do this?
[1] When she advised the court of the no-trespass letters, during closing argument, Ms. Szakacs seemed quite pleased with her procedural coup.
[2] If she is like this in court, what must she be like outside the courtroom?
[3] However, my task includes determining whether Mr. Clarke is parentally fit, not whether it would be prudent for the child to become his business partner.
[4] Dr. Freud has not responded to my page.
[5] Of the litigants to whom I pose this question, 99% answer “No,” explaining that they want a better life for their child.
[6] If Mr. Clarke had turned water into wine, Ms. Szakacs would have complained that she prefers beer.
[7] This is another example of her unfair refusal to concede anything favourable about Mr. Clarke.
[8] Imagine a situation where a father has sole custody and the mother has access. What is one’s first thought? If you are taking this quiz honestly, you will answer: “I wonder what is wrong with the mother? Drugs? Alcohol?” In other words, she is somehow thought to be inferior to the custodial parent by the mere mention that she is only an access parent. A fortiori, in the case of an access father.
[9] Sometimes the presumption does not survive the first recess in the trial.
[10] “Parens patriae is the power of the court to act in the stead of a parent for the protection of a child”: see B.(A.C.) v. B.(R.), 2010 ONCA 714 (CanLII) at para. 23.“[T]he discretion is to do what is necessary for the protection of the person for whose benefit it is exercised”: see Eve, Re, 1986 CanLII 36 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388 at p. 427. “[T]he categories under which the [parens patriae] jurisdiction can be exercised are never closed . . .”: see Eve, Re, supra, at p. 426.)
Comment