Court File and Parties

CITATION: Andriano v. Andriano., 2023 ONSC 729

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-19-00001152-0000

Court File No.: FC-14-046822-01

DATE: 20230203

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: PASQUALINA ANDRIANO, Applicant/Respondent

AND:

MARIO ANDRIANO, MCSS LEGAL SERVICES BRANCH AND YORK REGION SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondents/Appellants

BEFORE: Lederer, Lococo, Hooper JJ.

COUNSEL: Pasqualina Andriano, on her own behalf

Patrick Di Monte, for the Respondent Mario Andriano

Sue Patterson, for the Respondent MCSS Legal Services Branch

HEARD by video conference: January 26, 2023

Endorsement

[1] This is an appeal from an order of Justice McDermott released on January 18, 2019 following a trial conducted on November 22, 23 and 26, 2018. The trial was the hearing of a motion for change brought by Mario Andriano with respect to a final order made by Justice Kaufman on July 3, 2015.

[2] Justice McDermott refused the motion for change. Mario Andriano is the Appellant

[3] Pasqualina Andriano is the former wife of Mario Andriano. She is now Pasqualina Scarola. She is the Respondent. The Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services is also a Respondent. It was the assignee of child support arrears that were to have been paid by Mario Andriano and were assigned to it by Pasqualina Scarola while she was in receipt of public benefits

[4] The appeal was to be heard on January 26, 2023.

[5] At the commencement of the hearing Pasqualina Scarola advised the court that some days earlier she had dismissed her counsel and was unrepresented. She indicated that if the appeal was to proceed, she was requesting an adjournment to retain new counsel. This was the first notification to the respondents and to the court that this request would be made.

[6] Counsel for Mario Andriano indicated a willingness to consent to the adjournment; however, he advised the court that this was only one of the ongoing proceedings presently in court that involves, as parties, Mario Andriano and Pasqualina Scarola. There is at least one other. It is a dispute over the equalization of assets. There are additional parties: Sabrina Scarola Andriano, Vito Scarola and Maria Scarola. That matter is being dealt with by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court in Newmarket (Court File No.:FC-14-46822-02) and is presently the subject of a proposed mediation.

[7] Counsel for Mario Adriano expressed the concern that neither party had the resources to fund long term or complex litigation. While the Court in Newmarket has no jurisdiction to deal with this appeal, counsel offered the view that if both matters found their way into a common mediation perhaps a global resolution could be found. It is apparent that this court has no ability to compel these parties into a joint mediation or, for that matter, to direct another court to conduct one. On the other hand, if such a resolution could be found it would be a benefit to all. Counsel advised that there is to be a further case conference in regard to the other proceeding where an effort will be or, at least should be, made to find a resolution. While this court cannot insist on it, there is nothing to stop these parties from attempting to address the issues in this appeal at the same time.

[8] Counsel on behalf of the Ministry took no position on the adjournment request.

[9] Accordingly, this appeal is adjourned sine die to be brought back by a motion returnable before a case management judge of this court for the purpose of setting a new date. By proceeding in this way, we are providing the parties with an opportunity to find a resolution to this matter, in company (or not) with any other issues between them. We hope they will take advantage of it.

[10] Neither counsel for Mario Andriano or the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services are seeking costs. None are awarded.

Lederer, J.

I agree _______________________________

Lococo, J.

I agree _______________________________

Hooper, J.

Date: February 3, 2023