Court File and Parties

Court file number: 13/485 DATE: 2020-04-28 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Amy Giammarco, Applicant AND: Mark Lawley, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: both parties self-represented

HEARD: April 28, 2020 by telephone

Endorsement

[1] In September 2019, the Respondent moved to cite the Applicant for contempt of the orders of Martin J. dated June 1, 2017 and Gregson J. dated February 9, 2016 (both made pursuant to minutes of settlement) with respect to access to his 8-year-old daughter. The motion has had to be adjourned because of the public health emergency. The Respondent now moves for directions. He asks that a trial date be set for his motion and that the orders be enforced in the interim. He says that during the recent health emergency, he has only tried to exercise telephone access, to be told each time that his 8-year-old daughter does not want to come to the telephone.

[2] The Respondent has not included in his materials mention of important developments that have taken place since September 2019. The child’s conduct makes manifest serious issues with her father. From the child’s point of view, they seem to relate to the way the Respondent comports himself, rather than any influence by the Applicant. In any event, the child forcefully refuses to have any contact with the Respondent and appears quite upset about the prospect of having to deal with her father. FACS concluded at the end of August 2019 that reconciliation would require counselling in which father and child both participated. Each party blames the other for the Respondent’s failure to engage in counselling.

[3] The Applicant says that the child has not seen the Respondent since August 2019. The Respondent had no contact with the Applicant between November 2019 and March 2020, at which point he began demanding telephone access.

[4] In communications between the parties filed by the Respondent, the Respondent’s tone is imperious. A disparaging remark about former counsel for the Applicant included in the Respondent’s materials only serves to reduce the Respondent’s credibility. It is clear that this child’s problems have complexities that will not be resolved by a trial for contempt of court and that the chances that a court will find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Applicant deliberately breached a court order are negligible. The appropriate way to deal with the problem would be for the Respondent to engage in reconciliation counselling, and if he is not satisfied, to bring a motion to change.

[5] The motion to cite the Applicant for contempt of court is adjourned for trial to a date to be set by the trial coordinator. Two days should be set aside. The parties will disclose to each other all documents upon which they intend to rely within 30 days of the trial date being set. Otherwise the motion for directions filed April 24, 2020 is dismissed without costs.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2020-04-28