Father Straps Reproduction Gun to Crib then Lies in Court docket

An uncommon state of affairs arose in a current case referred to as Jurrius v. Rassuli, the place the court docket was requested to determine 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 just about each respect. 

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

In assessing authorized prices, the court docket 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 court docket, associated to the false sworn proof he gave about strapping a duplicate gun to his toddler little one’s crib. This was at a time when he and the mom had been briefly residing 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 court docket software for parenting time.  

The court docket defined: 

The court docket was troubled by the truth that a father would discover it applicable to strap a duplicate gun to a toddler’s crib.

Nonetheless, the court docket 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 court docket’s interpretation of his assertion). At trial, underneath 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 sound {photograph} precisely depicting what he had carried out. 

… [T]he undeniable fact that the respondent father wouldn’t solely mislead a court docket however signify that the harmless celebration [i.e. the mother] was deceptive the court docket is of nice concern to this court docket with regards to the evaluation of whether or not or not the respondent father acted in dangerous religion.

The court docket added the gun incident was so germane to one of the best 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 court docket stated: 

This court docket finds that the truth that a father would discover it applicable to strap a duplicate gun to a new child’s crib, within the opinion of this court docket can be germane to the difficulty earlier than the court docket when it comes to parenting time for that father with the kid. Due to this fact, the court docket 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 duplicate 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 subsequently that she was misrepresenting a germane reality to the court docket is one thing that the court docket finds abhorrent.

…

For the respondent father on this case to signify to a court docket {that a} mom has misrepresented {a photograph} to the court docket 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 court docket can’t be seen to condone or tolerate.

…

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

Even leaving apart the dangerous religion aspect, the court docket additionally famous that the daddy had acted unreasonably in different situations as effectively; for instance he might even have entertained the mom’s settlement provides lengthy earlier than trial.

In the long run, the court docket 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)