Michael Harris Tweyman

Family law trial involving equalization of net family property, spousal support, post-separation adjustments, and intentional tort claims.

The court found that the applicant wife owed the respondent husband a nominal equalization payment of $973.70, which was set off against post-separation rent adjustments of $14,364.63 owed by the husband, resulting in a net payment of $13,390.93 to the wife.

Spousal support was awarded at $4,000.00 per month commencing March 1, 2026, front-end loaded, with the court accepting a cohabitation start date of November 7, 2011 following credibility findings against both parties.

The wife's claim for damages in tort (battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress) was dismissed in its entirety.

The mother appealed parenting-time and child-support rulings from a family change motion after prior child-abduction findings.

The court upheld supervised parenting and child-support determinations, with only a minor variation to one paragraph of the order.

This decision concerns a high-conflict family law re-trial regarding the relocation of a five-year-old child from Toronto to Ireland, decision-making responsibility, and parenting time.

The court found a long-standing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the Respondent, Aamir Saleem Shipton, toward the Applicant, Kathleen Marie Shipton, including family violence, financial control, and isolation.

The court permitted the relocation to Ireland, granted the Applicant sole decision-making authority, and set out a detailed parenting schedule to ensure the child maintains a relationship with both parents and her multicultural heritage.

The decision applies a blended best interests analysis, referencing recent appellate and Supreme Court guidance on relocation, family violence, and the importance of stability and parental well-being.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the main appeal and cross-appeal in a dispute over the beneficial ownership and occupation of a house acquired during a brief marriage.

The court upheld the application judge’s finding that Ms. Qu was the 100% beneficial owner of the house by way of resulting trust, rejecting Mr. Zhang’s arguments regarding the presumption of joint tenancy and the sufficiency of evidence.

The court also upheld the award of occupation rent to Ms. Qu and declined to order additional security for potential future repairs, finding no error in the application judge’s approach or findings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by the moving party, M.H., to adjourn and stay the appeal of O.K. until O.K. paid support arrears and security for costs.

The court found that O.K. was required to pay support for January to March 2025 and had not done so, and that he had no assets in Ontario and a history of failing to meet support obligations.

The court ordered the appeal stayed until O.K. paid $24,396 in support arrears and $35,000 as security for costs, with the appeal to be administratively dismissed if payment was not made by June 6, 2025.

The court also awarded M.H. $3,200 in costs for the motion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Sheri Thom’s appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred by imputing income to her for support purposes without considering the impact of family violence on her earning capacity.

The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to deny her request to relocate with her child to New Brunswick, finding no reversible error in the best interests analysis.

The court recalculated support obligations, holding that no income should be imputed to the appellant, and awarded her costs of the appeal.

The court issued supplementary reasons in a family law application, correcting and clarifying its earlier order.

The decision addresses mistakes and omissions in the original reasons, including the division of property, entitlement to compensation for beneficial interests, limitation periods for trust claims, and the effect of post-separation mortgage refinancing.

The court orders compensation for the applicant’s share of the Bashundhara plot, finds the claim for the Australian properties limitations-barred, and clarifies the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father sought an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to conduct a parenting assessment under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing it was necessary due to differing views on parenting and the child's best interests, and proposing a "focused" report.

The applicant mother opposed, citing potential delays to the expedited new trial (ordered by the Court of Appeal after overturning the initial trial decision on relocation) and arguing that an OCL report would not materially assist the court on the relocation issue.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that an OCL report would not add value, especially given the child's young age (5 years), the absence of third-party involvement or clinical issues, and the imperative to avoid further trial delays as mandated by the Court of Appeal.

The court emphasized that the OCL cannot opine on relocation, which is solely the court's purview.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a 17-year marriage.

The applicant brought a family law application to resolve complex financial issues, including the equalization of properties and businesses in Canada, Bangladesh, and Australia.

The court first held that an unsigned separation agreement was unenforceable under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the beneficial ownership and valuation of various assets, including the matrimonial home, foreign properties, and business debts, ultimately finding that both parties had negative net family properties, resulting in no equalization payment.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $130,000 and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant liable for the torts of battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to a prolonged pattern of intimate partner violence, awarding the respondent $175,000 in compensatory and aggravated damages, plus $25,000 in punitive damages.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outline was uploaded to Case Center.

The applicant appealed an order granting the interim partition and sale of a jointly owned home prior to trial.

The parties, former spouses, separated in 2016, with the applicant remaining in the home.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's application of the principles governing partition and sale, noting the applicant failed to establish prejudice and the respondent had been deprived of her equity for over seven years.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant father, residing in Georgia, sought leave to appeal orders granting the respondent mother primary care of their child and requiring the child's return to Ontario.

The father had previously caused the mother's arrest at the US border and retained the child in Georgia in defiance of Ontario court orders.

The Divisional Court refused to schedule an urgent case conference or hear the applicant's procedural motions, holding that he could not seek the assistance of the Ontario courts while actively and defiantly breaching their orders.

The mother appealed an order denying her permission to relocate her three-year-old daughter from Toronto to Ennis, Ireland.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made material errors, seriously misapprehended evidence, and committed legal errors in his "best interests of the child" analysis under the Divorce Act.

Specifically, the trial judge erred in assessing family violence allegations, making unfounded assumptions about the mother's family's attitude towards the child's biracial heritage, and concluding that the mother manipulated the court system.

The trial judge also erred by re-characterizing the relocation case as a "support case" and misapplying the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed, the trial decision set aside, and a new trial ordered on an expedited basis, with costs awarded to the mother.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for the parties' four-year-old child.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, and child support.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, and no child support.

The court found it in the child's best interests to be in the primary care of the father with sole decision-making responsibility, citing the mother's emotional fragility, contempt for the father, unwillingness to cooperate, and attempts to alienate the child from the father.

The court also imputed income to the father for retroactive child support from the date of separation but terminated ongoing child support due to the father having primary residence and not seeking support from the mother.

The applicant sought to sever the divorce from corollary relief, allowing it to proceed uncontested.

The respondent opposed, arguing potential legal disadvantage if the applicant died intestate, and brought a cross-motion for extensive financial disclosure.

The court granted the severance, finding no legal disadvantage to the respondent, as claims under the Family Law Act and Succession Law Reform Act could continue, and the respondent's argument was speculative.

The court also found that reasonable arrangements for child support had been made.

Regarding disclosure, the court granted a more proportionate disclosure order, limiting the scope of the respondent's extensive request.

The Applicant sought to have a separation agreement made a final order, retroactive application of the order, findings of breach against the Respondent, and financial penalties.

The Respondent filed a cross-motion for costs.

The court granted the request to make the separation agreement a final order but denied retroactive application.

It found the Respondent breached communication and ancillary terms of the agreement but declined to impose financial penalties under Rule 1(8) as the agreement was not yet a court order.

The court also denied the Respondent's request for costs for a previous ex-parte motion.

Further submissions on a temporary enforcement order and costs for the current motion were directed.

This appeal concerned a contempt finding from the Superior Court of Justice.

Based on a settlement reached by the parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The requirement for an apology letter, as stipulated in the original order, was set aside.

Instead, the appellant was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine to the Minister of Finance.

No costs were awarded for the appeal.

The appellant father appealed a finding of contempt and the resulting sanctions for breaching parenting terms in a final consent order.

The motion judge had suspended the respondent mother's child support obligations and barred the father from bringing further proceedings until he complied.

The Divisional Court upheld the contempt finding, noting the father's deliberate and financially motivated breaches.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the sanctions, finding that suspending ongoing child support and imposing an unbounded penalty were errors in principle.

The court substituted a fixed penalty of $36,000 against the father, stayed pending his commencement of a motion to change support.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 29, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500.

This decision concerns the costs award following a trial where the applicant's request to relocate the child from Toronto to Ireland was dismissed.

The court had previously ordered compensatory spousal support for the applicant to facilitate her Canadian optometry registration.

The respondent, successful on the main relocation issue, sought significant costs.

The court awarded the respondent $70,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, but deferred payment until the applicant achieves self-sufficiency, specifically by December 31, 2026, or three months after obtaining full-time employment as an Ontario Doctor of Optometry.

The court considered the applicant's strategic allegations of abuse and the need to avoid frustrating the primary judgment's purpose.