Court File and Parties

Citation: Bolton v. Desrochers, 2026 ONSC 393 Divisional Court File No.: DC-25-1667 Date: 2026-01-20

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Gary Michael Bolton, Appellant And: Paule Mireille Desrochers, Respondent

Before: Fitzpatrick, O’Brien, Tranquilli JJ.

Counsel: Ramez Ghaly, for the Appellant Lauren Harvey, for the Respondent

Heard at Oshawa: January 19, 2026

Endorsement

[1] This appeal of a June 6, 2025 final order arises from a binding judicial dispute resolution hearing held pursuant to rule 43 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 439/07, as amended. The hearing addressed the disposition of various property issues between the parties, including the validity of a promissory note.

[2] The appeal was perfected and scheduled for hearing today. However, the court is advised that Mr. Bolton unfortunately passed away in December 2025. Apart from this resulting in an automatic stay of the proceeding, there are various issues that must be addressed concerning his estate. This includes questions as to whether there is an original will and if so, whether it is still valid. The respondent has filed two affidavits with the court, which sets out various inquiries and efforts made by the respondent, the appellant’s father and the appellant’s children as to the identification of a will and whether any individual intends to apply for a certificate of appointment. The affidavits included some hearsay discussion among various interested parties that raised whether there was a will that named the respondent as estate trustee, and if so, whether it was revoked prior to the appellant’s death. The respondent also had concerns about individuals dealing with the deceased’s property that may be subject to this order while this appeal remained outstanding.

[3] In an updated affidavit filed with the court on the morning of the scheduled hearing, the respondent advised that her estate lawyer, William Parker, had been in communication with Ms. Marie Hynes, who has consulted with or is representing the appellant’s father on these estate issues. Communications among counsel on or about January 15, 2026, reported that an original will is located, which names the respondent as estate trustee and a primary beneficiary of the estate. The respondent advised she intended to apply for a certificate of appointment pursuant to this will.

[4] Counsel of record for the appellant advises the court he is in a difficult position, where no one has come forward on behalf of his late client’s estate and he is unable to obtain instructions about whether the estate wishes to proceed with the appeal. He is of the view he is unlikely to get such instructions in the foreseeable future given the circumstances of the estate. He brings a motion in court today asking for removal from the record.

[5] In the interim, this appeal is subject to a stay pending an order to continue. The respondent advised she was ready to proceed with the appeal today but understood that circumstances may require an adjournment. The respondent takes no position regarding counsel’s removal from the record for the appellant.

[6] In the circumstances of the appellant’s recent passing, where counsel has been unable to obtain instructions regarding this appeal from an authorized estate representative and where the status of the estate remains to be determined, the panel is of the view this appeal must be adjourned, subject to some administrative orders that can be made today to facilitate the progress of the appeal. This adjournment is intended to allow for a reasonable period in which matters pertaining to the appellant’s estate can be clarified, instructions regarding this appeal provided, and the court updated, with further directions as the local administrative justice for the Divisional Court may provide in his discretion. This is also without prejudice to the respondent’s ability to ask the court for direction in the event of ongoing delay in the disposition of the appeal.

Orders

[7] Pursuant to rule 10.02, this appeal shall continue with the appellant “The Estate of Gary Michael Bolton” in the absence of a person representing the estate and this proceeding binds the Estate of Gary Michael Bolton as if the executor or administrator of the Estate of Gary Michael Bolton had been a party to the proceeding.

[8] By no later than 90 days from the date of the release of this endorsement, the respondent shall provide an update to the court to the attention of the Local Administrative Justice for Divisional Court, Central East Region, regarding the status of the appellant’s estate, whether a representative is appointed, the status of instructions, if any, from the estate and an update on the anticipated timeframe for the resolution of any issues that may remain outstanding at that time. The update should be copied to Marie Hynes, Krista Hannivan, Ryan Bolton, and any person who has filed or who has advised they intend to file an appearance and/or objection in respect of the estate and/or its administration in the update provided to the court.

[9] The appellant’s law firm, Ramez Ghlay Law, is removed from the record as counsel for the appellant. Counsel shall provide a draft order that complies with Rule 15 as to form and content, with the exception of reference to subrule 15.04. Our reasons for dispensing with compliance with that subrule recognizes the unique circumstances of this appeal and that the requirement to provide an update to this court addresses the expectation that the estate deal with this appeal in a timely way.

Fitzpatrick J.

O’Brien J.

Tranquilli J.

Date: January 20, 2026