Family Law office of Andrew H. Heft

Family Law office of Andrew H. Heft Family Law office of Andrew H. Heft Quebec Divorce Lawyer My practice is restricted to matrimonial and divorce
litigation in Quebec.

I apply a direct, assertive, and
energetic approach in order to create the conditions that
will result in the best possible outcome.

04/22/2020
02/03/2019

I came across an Ontario decision that is one of the funniest judgments that I have read. The sarcasm is hysterical. Some of the highlights are:

1. Justice Quinn commences his Reasons for Judgment with the first paragraph simply stating: “Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.”
2. "Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment.”
3. "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)."
4. "Catherine and Larry were married on October 7, 1995. If only the wedding guests, who tinkled their wine glasses as encouragement for the traditional bussing of the bride and groom, could see the couple now." And then later in an endnote “I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts."
5. "Some family trees have more barren branches than others."
6. "As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem solvers."
7. "I find that Sandra does not exert a positive gravitational pull in this dysfunctional family constellation."
8. "The legal system does not have the resources to monitor a schedule of counselling (nor should it do so). The function of Family Court is not to change people, but to dispose of their disputes at a given point in time. I preside over a court, not a church."
9. "I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional)."
10. "While Larry’s access-conduct has largely reflected nothing more than inept parenting, Catherine’s parental-alienation behaviour has been evil. Is there a remedy? 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.”
11. "It is likely that, in the period 2004-2006, Larry was having one or more extramarital affairs. Interestingly, Larry’s father was married five times, in addition to going through several relationships. Perhaps there is an infidelity gene. "
12. "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.”
13. "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "dickhead” as "a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.”
14. "I do not know why courts find it necessary to alter the meaning of words. One would think that if the legislators had intended "shocking” they would have used "shocking."
15. "On another occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: "You put s**t in this hand and s**t in this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor." And the endnote "I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory."

You can read the full text at:

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=dickhead&language=en&searchTitle=Ontario&path=/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc6568/2010onsc6568.html

The full read is well worth it.

CanLII calls upon users accessing its services a large number of times to ensure that they are people and not programs acting on command. Indeed, massive downloads are prohibited by CanLII’s Terms of Use. Though your own use may be quite limited, it may have been compiled with that of others in yo...

02/03/2019

One of the funniest judgments that I have ever read. It was rendered by Justice Quiinn of the Ontario Superior Court . He awards monthly spousal support of one dollar and makes some very strange comments for a judge of a court at that level:

Some of the funniest parts are:

1. Justice Quinn commences his Reasons for Judgment with the first paragraph simply stating: “Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.”
2. "Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment.”
3. "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)."
4. "Catherine and Larry were married on October 7, 1995. If only the wedding guests, who tinkled their wine glasses as encouragement for the traditional bussing of the bride and groom, could see the couple now." And then later in an endnote “I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts."
5. "Some family trees have more barren branches than others."
6. "As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem solvers."
7. "I find that Sandra does not exert a positive gravitational pull in this dysfunctional family constellation."
8. "The legal system does not have the resources to monitor a schedule of counselling (nor should it do so). The function of Family Court is not to change people, but to dispose of their disputes at a given point in time. I preside over a court, not a church."
9. "I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional)."
10. "While Larry’s access-conduct has largely reflected nothing more than inept parenting, Catherine’s parental-alienation behaviour has been evil. Is there a remedy? 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.”
11. "It is likely that, in the period 2004-2006, Larry was having one or more extramarital affairs. Interestingly, Larry’s father was married five times, in addition to going through several relationships. Perhaps there is an infidelity gene. "
12. "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.”
13. "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "dickhead” as "a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.”
14. "I do not know why courts find it necessary to alter the meaning of words. One would think that if the legislators had intended "shocking” they would have used "shocking."
15. "On another occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: "You put s**t in this hand and s**t in this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor." And the endnote "I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory."

You can read the full text at:

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=dickhead&language=en&searchTitle=Ontario&path=/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc6568/2010onsc6568.html

If you want an even better laugh, read the whole judgment. It’s worth the read.

CanLII calls upon users accessing its services a large number of times to ensure that they are people and not programs acting on command. Indeed, massive downloads are prohibited by CanLII’s Terms of Use. Though your own use may be quite limited, it may have been compiled with that of others in yo...

02/02/2019

There are three things that I don’t like about doing litigation:

1 - not knowing in advance what judge will hear me
2 - waiting around the courthouse to be heard
3 - listening to the other side

02/02/2019

A little legal humor - things that were taken down and published by court reporters - who had the
torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

Q: Are you sexually active?
A: No, I just lie there.

Q: What is your date of birth?
A: July fifteenth.
Q: What year?
A: Every year.

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
A: Yes.
Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
A: I forget.
Q: You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?

Q: How old is your son, the one living with you.
A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
Q: How long has he lived with you?
A: Forty-five years.

Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?
A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
Q: And why did that upset you?
A: My name is Susan.

Q: And where was the location of the accident?
A: Approximately milepost 499.
Q: And where is milepost 499?
A: Probably between milepost 498 and 500.

Q: Sir, what is your IQ?
A: Well, I can see pretty well, I think.

Q: Did you blow your horn or anything?
A: After the accident?
Q: Before the accident.
A: Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.

Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo or the occult?
A: We both do.
Q: Voodoo?
A: We do.
Q: You do?
A: Yes, voodoo.

Q: Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did she say?
A: What disco am I at?

Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?

Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?

Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?

Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were you doing at that time?

Q: She had three children, right?
A: Yes.
Q: How many were boys?
A: None.
Q: Were there any girls?

Q: You say the stairs went down to the basement?
A: Yes.
Q: And these stairs, did they go up also?

Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
A: By death.
Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

Q: Can you describe the individual?
A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Q: Was this a male, or a female?

Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

Q: All your responses must be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
A: Oral.

Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.

Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere

Judge: "Well Sir, I have reviewed this case and I've decided to
give your wife $775 a week."
Husband: "That's fair your honor. I'll try to send her
a few bucks myself."

02/02/2019

I was admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1977. For the last 40+ years my practice has been restricted to family law and estates litigation.

I have pleaded hundreds of contested cases over the years, both before the Quebec Superior Court and Court of Appeal.

I have experience with almost all difficult issues that come up regularly before the Family Division of the Quebec Superior Court, including custody, support, and division of property.

My practice has also included cases involving the contestation of wills where the issues have been competence to execute a will and undue influence.

I would be interested in hearing from you if you are facing a difficult marital, family, or estate situation and are looking for a lawyer to help you achieve the best possible outcome, coupled with the edge that years of litigation experience brings.

I will provide a free initial consultation over the phone to see if we are right for each other.

If we do decide to work together, I guarantee that you will get 100% of me.

03/04/2011

My practice is restricted to matrimonial and divorce
litigation in Quebec. I apply a direct, assertive, and
energetic approach in order to create the conditions that
will result in the best possible outcome

Address

1155 BoUlica Robert-Bourassa Suite 806
Montreal, QC
H3B3A7

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Family Law office of Andrew H. Heft posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share