Erinn Alexandra Fitzpatrick

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion at the court's direction to determine whether the self-represented respondent was a 'special party' under Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed the respondent's demeanor, communications, and former counsel's opinion, finding him incapable of understanding the issues or appreciating the consequences of his decisions.

The court declared the respondent a special party and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as his legal representative.

In divorce proceedings, the respondent brought a motion seeking joint custody or unsupervised access, spousal support, equalization of family property, and various property-related orders.

The court declined to revisit custody and access where prior provincial court orders imposed supervised access pending unresolved criminal charges and no change in circumstances was demonstrated.

The request for spousal support was denied due to the absence of a financial statement and evidentiary foundation.

The equalization claim was dismissed as statute-barred under the six-year limitation period in the Family Law Act and the court declined to extend time.

Certain remaining property-related issues were adjourned, while the responding party was awarded costs.

The applicant sought spousal support of $1,500 per month while receiving CPP disability benefits and incurring significant monthly drug expenses.

The respondent had a monthly income of approximately $5,021.

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested a range of $552 to $737 per month based on the parties’ circumstances.

The court found that the applicant’s financial needs, including increased expenses associated with her adult son returning home while attending college and her disability-related costs, justified an award above the guideline range.

Spousal support was set at $1,000 per month and the respondent was ordered to maintain medical and drug coverage.

The applicant brought a motion seeking temporary child and spousal support notwithstanding a prior separation agreement.

The respondent sought dismissal of the request, arguing that the agreement governed the parties’ obligations and disputing ongoing child support obligations for adult children attending a performing arts college.

The court held that the validity or repudiation of the separation agreement could not be determined summarily and must be addressed at trial, including any potential review under the principles from Miglin v. Miglin.

On a temporary basis, the court ordered the respondent to resume spousal support payments consistent with the status quo and to continue contributing to child support and extraordinary educational expenses while the children completed their programs.

The order preserved existing arrangements pending trial.