Judge Chucks out Case About “Tux”

Here’s a case from Oshawa that will humour you.

Chris and Allison dated from 1993 to 2004.  In 1996, Allison bought a dog, called Tuxedo, for $100.  Allison and Chris did not live together.  Tuxedo (I’ll call him Tux, as I bet they did) lived with Allison. 

When they broke up, they shared Tux for a few months, but that stopped.  I guess that Allison finally said that Chris could not have Tux anymore.  Chris, instead of saying “Shucks” and spending a hundred bucks of his own to get Tux II, spent lotsabucks and got a lawyer.

Chris started a proceeding in Family Court, seeking an Order for “shared joint custody” of Tux.  Big bucks.

It seems that the Court’s first concern was whether the Family Court actually had jurisdiction over the matter.  You see, family law does not apply to people who date – only people who cohabit in a conjugal relationship (married or unmarried).  “Cohabitation”, for the purposes of this case, means living together as husband and wife.

The matter ended up in front of Justice Roger Timms, who is known a little bit for his sense of humour.

In a part of his judgment, he quotes a passage from a 1948 case, which defined “cohabitation”.  Part of the quote reads: “Cohabitation consists in the husband acting as a husband towards the wife and the wife acting as a wife towards the husband, the wife rendering housewifely duties to the husband and the husband cherishing and supporting his wife as a husband should.” 

Yup.  In 1948, “cohabitation” meant Ward & June Cleaver.

Justice Timms did not need to get into a historical analysis of cohabitation to decide the case.  However, it added some welcome humour into an already funny (if not pathetic) case.

Justice Timms then said what needed to be said.  I give you the excerpts:

“However any court case is determined, it should not occupy more court resources than it merits.  Ideally, it should not eat up more of the parties’ resources than is warranted.”

“The applicant herein [Chris] seems to know no reasonable limit.  He has already spent what must amount to several thousand dollars….If the applicant were to have his way, there would be a trial.”

“In my view…this case must end here.”

“The parties deserve a just procedure; one that is fair to both parties; one that saves time and expense; one that is appropriate to the importance and complexity of the case and one that devotes appropriate court resources.  Three judges have now spent time on this file.  That is sufficient.”

Justice Timms then spends half a page to summarise the facts and dismiss the case.

Nicely done, I say. 

I hate to think that I might have a lot in common with Judge Judy, but I bet she’d say something like this:  “You were only dating and now you want to keep sharing the dog.  You’re wasting expensive court time over a $100 dog.  Get out of my court, get your own dog and get a life.”