Court File and Parties

Court File No.: D15,214/01
Date: 2012-07-13
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Steven Russell Bertrim, Applicant

And: Anna Marie Bertrim, Respondent

Before: Mr. Justice R.G.S. Del Frate

Counsel:
Pierre R. Bradley, Counsel for the Applicant
Richard K. Guy, Counsel for the Respondent

Heard: July 12, 2012

Endorsement

[ 1 ] Ms. Bertrim brings a motion for contempt on the grounds that Mr. Bertrim has disregarded the Orders of Justice Gauthier, Justice Del Frate, and the latest Order of Justice Hennessy dated May 17, 2012.

[ 2 ] In particular, Miss Bertrim alleges that Mr. Bertrim is indoctrinating their daughters in counselling them not to visit with their mother.

[ 3 ] My Order of January 31, 2012, provided for joint custody of the children Taylor and Lena, with Lena residing with her father and Taylor residing with the mother. An access schedule was worked out between the parties.

[ 4 ] Since the mother was not seeing the children, Justice Hennessy on May 17, 2012, ordered that the father return the daughters to the mother’s residence as of that date and that the ordinary schedule of week about be followed. In fact, the father did return the children as ordered by Justice Hennessy. However, after the children were returned to the father, the week about schedule was never followed with the end result that the mother has not seen the children since May 24, 2012.

[ 5 ] Miss Bertrim submits that Mr. Bertrim is alienating the daughters from her since he does not wish to pay the child support. Accordingly, he should be found in contempt of court.

[ 6 ] Mr. Bertrim submits that following the May week where the daughters were with their mother, they have expressed a desire not to return to her residence and not to see her. All types of communication since then have been cut off at the request of the girls. The girls have made it clear to him that if they are forced to return to their mother they will run away.

[ 7 ] Mr. Bertrim further submits that he has taken steps to enrol the girls in counselling and in spite of his encouragement to visit their mother, they refuse to do so. Accordingly, for the concern of the daughters, he has chosen not to force them to return to their mother.

[ 8 ] Contempt proceedings are always serious, especially in matrimonial issues. What concerns me is the lack of information in the materials filed as to why the girls would all of a sudden refuse to attend at their mother’s residence. The earlier agreement seemed quite acceptable to everyone and it lasted some eight or nine months. Unexpectedly, the girls now refuse to attend at their mother’s.

[ 9 ] As a result, I find myself in a position that I cannot determine the issue of contempt without further information. Accordingly, the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer is necessary. The parties agree that an order ought to issue appointing the children’s lawyer. It is so ordered.

[ 10 ] The parties may wish to retain counsel for the girls on a private retainer thereby expediting resolution of this case.

[ 11 ] In the interim, the contempt application is adjourned to before myself to a date to be set. Mr. Bertrim should continue taking the girls to counselling and should consider and should make his outmost efforts to comply with the outstanding orders.

[ 12 ] The costs for today’s attendance are reserved.

Mr. Justice R.G.S. Del Frate

Date: July 13, 2012