Citation

Mattina v. Mattina, 2022 ONSC 1548

Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 991/13 Date: 2022-03-09 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Vincenzo Mattina, Applicant And: Raffaella Mattina, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz

Counsel: Lauren Hanna (Agent), Counsel, for the Applicant Sam Garcea (Agent), Counsel, for the Respondent

Heard: March 9, 2022 (Applicant and Respondent present)

Endorsement

[1] This is the Applicant’s motion to change child and spousal support provisions in the temporary order of Justice Milanetti dated November 8, 2013.

[2] This family has had more than its share of bitterly contested litigation. It is understandable that parenting issues dominated until about 2018 when those parenting issues were finalized. It is also understandable that the parties may have experienced some element of litigation fatigue which might account for the lack of activity on this file.

[3] But the fact remains that parenting issues had been bifurcated from the remaining support and property issues – and those remaining issues have never been determined on a final basis.

[4] This motion to revisit eight years of temporary support payments is potentially quite complicated, both factually and legally. At the very least it would require a long motion. And because there are significant credibility issues, it would likely require an oral hearing.

[5] For example, the father seeks a temporary determination that he is entitled to a $258,812.50 overpayment of support. As well he seeks to impute $50,000.00 income to the mother, based on things he feels she should have done during the nine years since they separated on April 8, 2013. These are the kinds of complicated issues that need to be dealt with at trial.

[6] Motions to change temporary orders are to be discouraged. Sometimes they can be unavoidable when an urgent situation has arisen which must be addressed sooner than a trial can be held.

[7] But in this case the parties could have had the trial of the remaining issues long ago – years ago. For whatever reason, they have both been content to allow this file to sit in abeyance.

[8] The court has a responsibility to ensure that judicial resources are utilized efficiently. Temporary support orders are intended to be a temporary solution pending trial. Implicitly that means that there is an expectation that the parties will proceed in an efficient manner toward a trial.

[9] It is not appropriate to put judges in the difficult position of having to decide complicated financial issues based upon disputed and untested affidavit evidence at a motion. It is more appropriate for these issues to be determined – once and for all – at a trial, where more complete information and analysis will be available.

[10] As well, taxpayers can’t afford to fund repetitive motions, to then potentially be followed by a trial where exactly the same issues will be canvassed.

[11] After counsel conferred, they agreed they would re-focus on finalizing the main application.

[12] Leave granted for the Applicant to withdraw this motion with costs being reserved to be dealt with only in the event that the Applicant returns this motion.

[13] Adjourned to May 24, 2022 at 2 p.m. for Settlement Conference before Justice Lafreniere.

[14] Timelines extended to September 30, 2022.

Pazaratz J. Date: March 9, 2022