A judge settled a dog-poop dispute between two Forest Hill couples in the most sarcastic way possible
Only in Forest Hill could a dispute over dog poop escalate into a lawsuit. Fortunately for all of us, Justice E.M. Morgan, who was recently forced to spend precious time adjudicating just such a case, turns out to have been the perfect person for the job. His written judgment, released online yesterday, takes what may be the pettiest local legal dispute of the year and smacks down everyone involved in a way that is both devastatingly sarcastic and completely dignified. Wealthy people of Toronto, take note: this is what happens when you actually make good on a threat to sic your lawyer on a neighbour who annoys you.
The exact circumstances of the lawsuit, brought by oil executive John Morland-Jones and his wife against their neighbours, Gary and Audrey Taerk, are unclear, but Justice Morgan does take a little time to revisit some highlights. At one point, he writes about the case’s smoking gun: a video, captured by two cameras the Morland-Joneses keep trained on the Taerks’ property at all times, that shows Audrey Taerk picking up a pile of her dog’s poop with a baggie, then placing it in the Morland-Joneses’ garbage bin.
This mild breach of neighbourly etiquette (it’s not as though the poop was in a flaming bag on someone’s doorstep, after all) became known, in court, as “the dog feces incident.” Here’s what the judge had to say about it:
The Morland-Joneses even called in a few neighbours to testify on their behalf. Evidently, none of them were that enthused at the prospect of participating in the dog-poop witch hunt:
Also at issue: the fact that the Taerks sometimes turn their heads in the direction of the Morland-Joneses’ house. In other words, the Morland-Joneses wanted a superior court judge to punish their next-door neighbours for sometimes looking in their direction. The judge seems to have taken some grim pleasure in this:
It’s at this point in the judgment that a reader beings to wonder: does Justice Morgan consider this case to have been a reasonable use of court time? And does he believe the Taerks to be blameless? The answer, in both cases, is no:
How does a judge decide on a case like this? Justice Morgan figured out a way:
What he has done here is hand the win to the Taerks, but only because, in his opinion, the lawsuit (which, remember, was brought by the Morland-Joneses) had no merit to begin with. Rather than order the Morland-Joneses to cover the Taerks’ legal costs, the judge has left the two couples to cover their own legal bills, because that’s the only way he can punish both of them for wasting his time. And justice is served.
You can read Justice Morgan’s full judgment right here.
Aren’t most cases a matter of “kindergartners” wasting the court’s time?
This is a perfect example of where a private dispute should be resolved through arbitration paid for by the parties themselves instead of resolving it in the courts at taxpayers’ expense. The courts cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. With finite resources, it’s more crucial that the criminal justice system be well-funded to protect society, and that serious civil rights issues and other issues affecting the public writ large be resolved, rather than use precious court resources to settle pet disputes and disagreements between neighbours.
The existing arbitration laws provide more than enough legal authority to resolve private disputes. With online arbitration services like those offered by eQuibbly.com it is even possible to have a former trial judge resolve the dispute and do so at affordable rates and without the need to meet in person, or waste court resources.
Why does it even get seen. A judge views this and it should automatically be tossed!
Any lawyer that takes on a case such as this should be penalized! Fucking ambulance chasers!
This case is proof that some people really do have too much money.
WHO GIVES TWO SHITS IN FACT WHO EVEN GIVES ONE SHIT!!!
Hooray!
I have never heard of four more immature people than the one’s in this article. I have worked with severely mentally ill adults, who never exhibited behaviour such as this.
I also lived in Forest Hill for about a year and worked at a very prestgious law firm. There I saw some of the same behaviour. Personally, I would rather work with the underprivileged population.
Perhaps the judge should have meted out a community work project for these four extremely entitled individuals. The Food Bank would be a good place for them to spend their leisure time, instead of feuding over insignificant and idiotic self-imposed, nonexistent problems.