 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Barns J.
This is an action for divorce commenced by Edna MacDonald, against her husband, Olde, a.k.a. Old. Edna petitions this court of the County of Mother Goose for an order dissolving the marriage and other relief.
Divorce
Edna seeks a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. She claims Olde is constantly going around singing that he has a farm and that on his farm he has a number of animals, including but not limited to a horse, a cow and a pig. After calling out each animal, he then chants loudly, “E-I-E-I-O.”
She claims this is driving her crazy. She alleges that Olde even sings in his sleep, thereby keeping her awake. She cannot readily fall asleep again even after counting sheep. For that matter, Olde laughs off her complaints, adding, “Oh yes, sweetie, I also own those sheep. A baa baa here, a baa baa there, here a baa, there a baa, everywhere a baa, baa.”
Edna claims that as a result of her husband’s conduct, she has been getting treatment for anxiety from a psychiatrist, one Dr. Holstein. Counsel for Edna filed a report from the doctor, who concluded that it is well established that being exposed to a frequent barrage of E-I-E-I-Os can be hazardous to one’s health. He urged her to leave the matrimonial home and move to a greener pasture.
I accept the evidence of Dr. Holstein, notwithstanding the argument of Olde’s lawyer that the good doctor is a professional witness whose opinion is not worth a moo. I find that the respondent, Olde, has created a situation whereby continuing the marriage is untenable. Accordingly, Edna has made out a case for a divorce on the cruelty ground.
This case is similar to the High Court case involving Mary and her little lamb. In that action, Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow, and which followed her everywhere she went. She married one Walter. The marriage did not last too long as Walter claimed he was getting virtually no privacy. The little lamb even followed Mary on their honeymoon. Arguments ensued even though Mary ensured the little lamb, known as Wooly, would sleep on the sofa. I find that the lamb case and the case at bar are on all fours.
Property
Olde MacDonald claims he wants a reasonable property division, but he does not want to give up the family farm.
The parties mistrust one another. Edna in fact sought and obtained an interlocutory restraining order preventing Olde from dissipating assets. She got suspicious after he sneaked off recently taking a little piggy to the market, selling it and losing the proceeds in a game of horseshoes. The court ordered that Olde ensure the other piggies stay home. Olde tried to hide another piggy under his coat, but Edna heard it as it screamed “wee, wee, wee.”
Edna also alleges that Olde has an interest in a wheat farm outside of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Olde responds vociferously that the farm is and has always belonged to his cousin, Orville. He says his wife is delusional, mad and a few bushels short of a silo.
I find insufficient evidence supporting Edna’s allegations about the wheat farm. Orville did however testify in cross-examination that a John Deere turbo combine harvest machine on his farm was there on loan from Olde MacDonald. I find that Edna is therefore entitled to a share in its value.
Child custody
The parties each seek sole custody of their 14-year-old daughter, Clementine. Edna relies on the case of Re Farmer in the Dell. In that case, the court noted:
“Hi-ho, the derry-o
The farmer takes a wife
The wife takes the child
The wife takes the child
Hi-ho, the derry-o
The wife takes the child.”
The farmer takes a wife
The wife takes the child
The wife takes the child
Hi-ho, the derry-o
The wife takes the child.”
There is, however, a problem with this decision. The narrative continues on with,
“The child takes the nurse… The nurse takes the cow… The cow takes the dog, who in turn takes the cat, who takes the mouse, which takes the cheese, which stands alone.”
What troubles me, and what the court in Re Farmer in the Dell did not decide upon, is that all these actions in series contravene the Farmers’ Perpetuities Act. This endless progression has to stop well before we get to the poor unwanted cheese that nobody wishes to take.
Given that Clementine is the farmer’s daughter, of both parents, I order that it is in the child’s best interest that there be joint custody.
Judgment accordingly.
I also thank both counsel for their most able presentation, including assisting me in spelling Saskatchewan.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.