Father Straps Reproduction Gun to Crib then Lies in Courtroom

An uncommon state of affairs arose in a latest case referred to as Jurrius v. Rassuli, the place the courtroom was requested to resolve whether or not to order the daddy to pay the mom about $162,000 in authorized prices that arose within the trial between them. The previous couple’s disputed points included parenting time and little one assist, and the mom had been vindicated in nearly each respect. 

One of many key components within the courtroom’s dedication on authorized prices, was whether or not the daddy had acted in “dangerous religion” throughout the proceedings.  This was necessary as a result of below Rule 24 of the Ontario Household Regulation Guidelines, if the courtroom discovered the daddy acted in dangerous religion, it might order him to instantly pay the mom prices on a full restoration foundation. (And on this context, “dangerous religion” is greater than mere dangerous judgment.  It consists of an intent to deceive or mislead, and features a “lack of honesty and belief”).  

In assessing authorized prices, the courtroom assessed the related proof.  It began by saying it had “main issues” with the daddy’s credibility.  A key instance of this, and one which “notably troubled” the courtroom, associated to the false sworn proof he gave about strapping a reproduction gun to his toddler little one’s crib. This was at a time when he and the mom had been briefly dwelling collectively.   Even worse, as soon as he and the mom spilt up, he falsely accused her of doctoring a photograph of the gun on the crib, as a part of his courtroom software for parenting time.  

The courtroom defined: 

The courtroom was troubled by the truth that a father would discover it acceptable to strap a reproduction gun to a baby’s crib.

Nevertheless, the courtroom was much more troubled by the truth that in a movement and much more troubling in a reply affidavit … the respondent father had in sworn proof alleged that the applicant mom had included {a photograph} of the duplicate gun strapped to the kid’s crib which he alleged was “doctored” or “Photoshopped” (the courtroom’s interpretation of his assertion). At trial, below cross-examination, he had admitted that he had actually strapped this duplicate gun to the then toddler’s crib and that the {photograph} submitted by the applicant mom in her responding supplies to his movement was actually a legitimate {photograph} precisely depicting what he had finished. 

… [T]he proven fact that the respondent father wouldn’t solely mislead a courtroom however characterize that the harmless social gathering [i.e. the mother] was deceptive the courtroom is of nice concern to this courtroom in the case of the evaluation of whether or not or not the respondent father acted in dangerous religion.

The courtroom added the gun incident was so germane to the perfect pursuits of the kid, that it needn’t go additional to seek out different indicators of the daddy’s dangerous religion for prices functions. The courtroom mentioned: 

This courtroom finds that the truth that a father would discover it acceptable to strap a reproduction gun to a new child’s crib, within the opinion of this courtroom can be germane to the difficulty earlier than the courtroom by way of parenting time for that father with the kid. Subsequently, the courtroom finds that it could have discovered that the respondent father acted in dangerous religion by merely denying on the movement that he had actually positioned a reproduction gun on the kid’s crib as was alleged by the applicant mom.

 It might have been dangerous sufficient if the respondent father had merely denied putting the duplicate gun on the kid’s crib. To allege that the applicant mom had “doctored or Photoshopped” the image and due to this fact that she was misrepresenting a germane reality to the courtroom is one thing that the courtroom finds abhorrent.

For the respondent father on this case to characterize to a courtroom {that a} mom has misrepresented {a photograph} to the courtroom all of the whereas understanding that the {photograph} is actually an correct and never a doctored {photograph} and that it was he who positioned that duplicate gun on the kid’s crib is one thing that this courtroom can’t be seen to condone or tolerate.

If this isn’t proof of dangerous religion, then the courtroom finds it extraordinarily tough to think about a scenario which might be thought of dangerous religion.

Even leaving apart the dangerous religion ingredient, the courtroom additionally famous that the daddy had acted unreasonably in different situations as properly; for instance he might even have entertained the mom’s settlement gives lengthy earlier than trial.

Ultimately, the courtroom ordered the daddy to pay the mom prices within the quantity of just below $162,000, payable forthwith. 

Full textual content of the choice: Jurrius v. Rassuli, 2022 ONSC 6139 (CanLII)