SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-43975-00

DATE: 20140109

RE: Marco Bonofiglio, Applicant

AND:

Teresa Bonofiglio, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice R. Kaufman

COUNSEL:
A. DiNardo, for the Applicant

J. Cushon, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 8, 2014

ENDORSEMENT

[1] There are 2 motions before the Court.

[2] One by respondent mother seeks to suspend the access order of Douglas, J. of December 12, 2013 pending the return of that motion before Douglas, J. on January 29, 2014. The other by applicant father seeks an order appointing Dr. Goldstein to provide reintegration/re-unification therapy between the children and their father. In response to this action the respondent mother suggests such services to be performed by Dr. DeCunha or Ms. D’Alessandro.

[3] This court has great respect for the ability of the 3 individuals proposed to assist this family unity. Unfortunately, the parties and their respective counsel do not trust the other’s recommendations, thoughts or theories. The only common denominator in this case is apparently that the parties, their counsel, CAS counsel and my learned colleague, Justice Rogers all believe that reintegration therapy/counselling is needed at the earliest opportunity. To that end and recognizing the trust each parent places in their chosen expert, there will be an order to go that subject to their availability, Doctors Goldstein and DeCunha shall converse with one another and together propose another individual known to them with the ability and availability to undertake this case. To that end, the parties shall reattend before me on January 15, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. to update me on the chosen individual.

[4] I am not inclined to suspend any terms of the order of Justice Douglas. Rather, as noted in my December 24 endorsement, I view that the parenting time contemplated in that order requires the applicant father to have two consecutive visits in the presence of the CAS worker (assuming the worker consents and is available) prior to the balance of the parenting time commencing. I have no concerns that both paternal grandparents will be present, as ordered, during subsequent parenting time.

[5] Pending the return on January 15 the applicant father has quite appropriately indicated that he will hold resumption of his parenting time pursuant to the order of December 12 in abeyance, notwithstanding the added passage of time during which he has not seen his 3 young daughters.

[6] At this stage, the motion for January 29 will remain scheduled to enable the court to maintain control of the progress of this case. It is hoped that this matter will appear on Justice Douglas’ list if he is available for motions on that day.

Justice R. Kaufman

Date: January 9, 2014