Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2013 ONSC 4655

CITATION: Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2013, ONSC 4655 COURT FILE NO.: 30336/08 DATE: 2013-07-12 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO RE: Salvatore Scrivo, Applicant AND: Jacqueline Cynthia Scrivo, Respondent BEFORE: M. J. Donohue, J COUNSEL: Counsel for the Applicant; Salvatore Mannella Counsel for the Respondent; Self-Represented with Duty Counsel at the Motion Counsel for OCL; Virginia Da Costa by written submissions HEARD: June 26, 2013 E N D O R S E M E N T Opportunity to Purge Contempt [ 1 ] On May 21, 2013 Ms.

Scrivo was given the opportunity to purge her contempt for bringing Brendan for an access visit on May 25, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Scrivo was to drive Brendan home at 10:00 p.m. [ 2 ] The evidence on the record is that Ms.

Scrivo drove Brendan to the appointed address and dropped him off. [ 3 ] The evidence is that she arranged for the adult twins to be close by and ready to pick Brendan up. [ 4 ] The evidence is that Brendan, on arriving at his father’s did not go inside and immediately began to walk down the street, calling his brothers on the cell phone and was promptly picked up. [ 5 ] The evidence is that no access occurred. There is no dispute of the facts. [ 6 ] I find that Ms.

Scrivo has not purged her contempt and further conspired to frustrate access by her actions. [ 7 ] Despite my trial order for access in the spring of 2012, the time of Mr. Scrivo with his son has been measured in hours rather than days. [ 8 ] The office of the Children’s Lawyer has never found any reasons why access should not occur. [ 9 ] Ms. Scrivo has argued that Mr. Scrivo needs to make an effort. It is ironic that she does not notice that he brought a trial for access to occur and has had five court attendances to make the access materialize. [ 10 ] I find Ms.

Scrivo has not honoured the court with her behaviour and has flouted the court’s orders to facilitate access. [ 11 ] The Divorce Act seeks to promote maximum contact between children and both parents, s. 16 (10) Divorce Act , P.S.C. 1985 (2 Supp.), c. 3, s. 16.10. [ 12 ] It has long been understood that it is in the child’s best interests for that to occur. The goal in this case was to overcome the estrangement between father and son. [ 13 ] It has been made clear to Ms. Scrivo that she was to facilitate time with Brendan with his father. [ 14 ] I find she has not done so. Court Sanction

[15] Mr. Scrivo has sought an order for suspension of child support payments on a temporary basis. His counsel argues that afinancial sanction is the only possible solution to Ms. Scrivo’s behaviour. [16] Justice Jenkins, in Welstead v. Bainbridge (ON SC), [1995] O. J. No. 93, IOR.F.L. (4th) 410 did consider thatthe court could remove child support in whole or in

part in the face of consistent and wilful refusal to facilitate access. [17] The concern of the court is whether this will visit financial hardship on the children. [18] I will therefore allow Ms. Scrivo to reattend before the court to show cause why such an order should not be made. Ms.

Scrivois to serve and file a proper sworn financial statement, copies of her tax returns, copies of her bank statements for the last year and anyother documents supporting her debts or liabilities. [19] I ask the parties to attend on Monday, September 30, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. for the reappearance on this issue. [20] This also allows further time for Ms. Scrivo to purge her contempt by insisting on the benefits to Brendan spending time withhis father. The court wishes to see Ms. Scrivo arranging further successful access visits. [21] To assist in this cooperation I order the access to occur only with Mr. Scrivo.

He is not to include his second family (up toSeptember 30, 2013). [22] Ms. Scrivo is to drive Brendan to the access visits. [23] The court expects to see three visits occur between now and September 30, 2013. Costs [24] I note Mr. Scrivo’s counsel submission for an order regarding costs of $24,829.63, on a partial indemnity basis, since trial, onthe follow up attendances regarding access. [25] I defer this issue to the hearing on September 30, 2013. ___________________________ M. J. Donohue, J DATE: July 12, 2013 CITATION: Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2013, ONSC 4655 COURT FILE NO.: 30336/08 DATE: 2013-07-10

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO BETWEEN: Salvatore Scrivo Applicant – and – Jacqueline Cynthia Scrivo Respondent ENDORSEMENT M.J. Donohue, J. DATE: July 12, 2013