Morland-Jones v. Taerk, Ontario Superior Court
Popping out from a stately home in Toronto’s Forest Hill, 11 security cameras capture everything the Morland-Jones’ neighbours, especially the Taerks, do.
Two cameras are directed right at the Taerks’ home, allowing the Morland-Joneses to gather evidence of Audrey Taerk depositing dog poop in their garbage bin, taking photos of their house with her cellphone camera, “casting her gaze from her own property across the street and resting her eyes on the plaintiffs’ abode for a full 25 seconds,” and other such supposedly abhorrent illegalities.
“For their part, the defendants have not been entirely innocent,” according to Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan, who calls the case a ”gem of a lawsuit.”
In addition to Ms. Taerk’s habit of taking photos of the Morland-Jones home to annoy Paris Morland-Jones, Gary Taerk carries a voice recorder when he walks past the house, presumably to record the profanities with which Ms. Morland-Jones greets him.
The Morland-Joneses pursued a civil lawsuit after shouts and “the finger” were exchanged between the parties, the police called on numerous occasions, and an attempt at peace bond restricting the Taerk’s movements failed.
“In my view, the parties do not need a judge; what they need is a rather stern kindergarten teacher,” Morgan said.
“I say this with the greatest of respect, as both the plaintiffs and the defendants are educated professionals who are successful in their work lives and are otherwise productive members of the community. Despite their many advantages in life, however, they are acting like children. And now that the matter has taken up an entire day in what is already a crowded motions court, they are doing so at the taxpayer’s expense.”
Case dismissed, no costs ordered.
Popping out from a stately home in Toronto’s Forest Hill, 11 security cameras capture everything the Morland-Jones’ neighbours, especially the Taerks, do.
Two cameras are directed right at the Taerks’ home, allowing the Morland-Joneses to gather evidence of Audrey Taerk depositing dog poop in their garbage bin, taking photos of their house with her cellphone camera, “casting her gaze from her own property across the street and resting her eyes on the plaintiffs’ abode for a full 25 seconds,” and other such supposedly abhorrent illegalities.“For their part, the defendants have not been entirely innocent,” according to Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan, who calls the case a ”gem of a lawsuit.”
In addition to Ms. Taerk’s habit of taking photos of the Morland-Jones home to annoy Paris Morland-Jones, Gary Taerk carries a voice recorder when he walks past the house, presumably to record the profanities with which Ms. Morland-Jones greets him.
The Morland-Joneses pursued a civil lawsuit after shouts and “the finger” were exchanged between the parties, the police called on numerous occasions, and an attempt at peace bond restricting the Taerk’s movements failed.
“In my view, the parties do not need a judge; what they need is a rather stern kindergarten teacher,” Morgan said.
“I say this with the greatest of respect, as both the plaintiffs and the defendants are educated professionals who are successful in their work lives and are otherwise productive members of the community. Despite their many advantages in life, however, they are acting like children. And now that the matter has taken up an entire day in what is already a crowded motions court, they are doing so at the taxpayer’s expense.”
Case dismissed, no costs ordered.
