Marie G. Michaels

The applicant sought divorce, child support, spousal support, and equalization of property after the respondent fled the country, leaving debt and abandoning the matrimonial home.

The court imputed income to the respondent, ordered lump sum spousal support, child support, and payment for house expenses.

The court also ordered an unequal sharing of the matrimonial home in the applicant's favour but denied the applicant's request to vest title of the home in the children's names or the abandoned car in her name, citing lack of legal basis and improper use of vesting orders to circumvent laws.

The applicant father sought unsupervised parenting time, decision-making authority for counselling, and damages for parental alienation following a high-conflict separation.

The respondent mother, who frequently failed to participate in the proceedings, alleged the father had alcohol issues and committed family violence.

The court found the mother engaged in family violence and psychological abuse, alienating behaviours, and repeatedly breached court orders.

The court granted the father unsupervised parenting time and decision-making authority for the child's health assessments and counselling.

The father's claim for damages for parental alienation was dismissed.

Child support was ordered based on the father's imputed income, while the mother's claim for section 7 expenses was dismissed due to lack of disclosure.

The court also requested the involvement of the Children's Aid Society to assist the family.

Amicus curiae brought a pre-trial motion to determine whether the respondent mother was a 'special party' under the Family Law Rules, which would require the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The mother also brought a motion to adjourn the proceedings on health grounds and alleged unavailability of counsel.

The court applied the functional test for capacity and concluded that while the mother was an ungovernable litigant who frequently failed to comply with court orders and procedures, there was insufficient medical evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The court dismissed the motion to find the mother a special party and denied her request for an adjournment, ordering the trial to proceed.

In a protracted family law dispute, amicus curiae brought a motion to determine whether the self-represented respondent mother was a 'special party' lacking capacity to litigate.

Amicus sought production of the mother's health records from non-party doctors and requested broad confidentiality orders, including excluding the applicant father from the capacity hearing and denying him access to the records.

The Superior Court of Justice ordered the production of the health records for judicial vetting, applying the Stavro and Wigmore tests.

The court granted a sealing order over the file but refused to exclude the father from the proceedings, allowing his counsel restricted access to the vetted medical records to ensure trial fairness.

The mother brought a motion to adjourn the family law trial for a year, citing a disability and arguing the court had a duty to accommodate her under human rights legislation.

The father opposed the lengthy adjournment and brought a motion to unseal an incomplete Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report.

The court found the mother's medical evidence insufficient to justify a year-long adjournment and noted her failure to specify required accommodations.

However, the court adjourned the trial to the fall sittings due to overall lack of trial readiness.

The father's unsealing motion was adjourned, the mother's request for child counsel was dismissed, and the father's request for police enforcement of parenting time was dismissed without prejudice.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following an underlying motion.

The court considered a pre-litigation settlement offer made by the responding party, Lise Partanen, to the moving party, Edward Sorozan Jr., which was more favourable than the outcome achieved by Mr. Sorozan Jr. Despite not being a formal Rule 49 offer, the court gave it significant weight.

The court ordered Mr. Sorozan Jr. to pay Ms. Partanen $2,500 in costs, balancing the principle of indemnity, reasonable expectations, and the unique circumstances, including the early settlement offer.

The court addressed competing claims to life insurance proceeds between the deceased's spouse and son, following the insurer's payment of disputed funds into court.

The son moved for payment to him, while the spouse cross-moved for payment to her.

The court inferred the existence of a lost beneficiary designation form naming the spouse as the sole beneficiary, based on circumstantial evidence including a superseded prior designation, a subsequent "Retiree Group Life Insurance Record" confirming the spouse as sole beneficiary, and the deceased's consistent testamentary intentions.

The court dismissed the son's motion and granted the spouse's cross-motion, ordering the funds paid to her.

The father brought a motion for contempt after the mother unilaterally suspended court‑ordered access following two incidental encounters between the child and a third party referenced in the prior access order.

The mother asserted the encounters breached the order and raised concerns about the child’s emotional well‑being and moral objections to the relationship involving the third party.

The court held that the order did not prohibit chance encounters and that the father’s conduct did not breach the access restriction.

The mother’s refusal to facilitate four scheduled visits constituted a deliberate breach of the 2008 access order.

The court found the mother in contempt, ordered four make‑up access weekends, but declined to impose a fine while reserving costs.