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 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 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.

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.

The court issued supplementary reasons for judgment regarding support calculations and parenting time, following an earlier trial decision.

The key issues were the inclusion of the respondent's severance income for spousal support, imputation of income to the applicant, and the appropriate Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range.

The court ruled that the respondent's severance income would not be included for spousal support calculations, declined to impute income to the applicant, and confirmed the spousal support award at the middle of the SSAG range, with the respondent also responsible for 50% of the applicant's future educational expenses.

This motion addresses a dispute between unmarried parents regarding parenting time, a s.30 parenting assessment, and s.7 special expenses for their two children, one of whom has significant special needs (autism, intellectual disability, ADHD).

The applicant father sought to increase his parenting time, obtain a s.30 assessment, and establish ancillary parenting orders.

The respondent mother opposed these changes and sought reimbursement for past s.7 expenses and prepayment for future ones.

The court found a material change in circumstances, increased the father's temporary parenting time, ordered a s.30 assessment (to be paid by the father), and granted several ancillary parenting orders.

The court also ordered reconciliation of past s.7 expenses, disallowing some of the mother's claims, and dismissed her request for prepayment of future s.7 expenses, establishing a consent-based mechanism instead.

The court issued supplementary reasons for judgment regarding the parenting schedule following a trial.

The Respondent's motion to reopen the trial to submit fresh evidence was denied, as the court found discussions between counsel should be a safe space and post-trial conduct should not lead to a never-ending trial.

The Applicant sought a phased-in, unequal parenting schedule and a stay of any immediate substantial change pending her appeal of the relocation decision.

The court rejected the Applicant's arguments, finding her reliance on the "status quo" disingenuous and her appeal not a basis to tailor the trial judge's remedy.

The court ordered an accelerated transition to the Respondent's proposed "2-2-3" equal parenting schedule, effective June 4, 2023, and denied the stay request.

The father appealed a Superior Court order declaring him a vexatious litigant and denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal previous summary judgment and costs orders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding no error in the analysis that the father had persistently and without reasonable grounds conducted court proceedings in a vexatious manner, and that the mother would be severely prejudiced by an extension of time given the father's unpaid costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant mother sought an order declaring the respondent father a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, prohibiting him from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave.

The father opposed this and brought a cross-motion to extend time to perfect his appeal from a previous order dismissing his motion to change.

The court found the father had persistently conducted proceedings vexatiously, citing his unreasonable litigation approach, voluminous materials, and failure to pay substantial costs.

The court declared the father a vexatious litigant and ordered that he require leave for any future proceedings.

The father's motion to extend time to perfect his appeal was dismissed due to the overwhelming prejudice to the mother from outstanding costs and the lack of compelling merits in the appeal.

The applicant father sought full recovery of costs related to a contempt motion where the respondent mother was found in contempt of prior court orders regarding parenting time and information sharing.

The mother's non-compliance led to the father having no contact with the child and unilateral decisions by the mother.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith due to her intentional breaches and efforts to alienate the child.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court ordered her to pay $55,000 in costs to the father, emphasizing the seriousness of contempt and the need to sanction inappropriate litigation behaviour.

This appeal concerned minor modifications to a final order respecting parenting and child support issues.

The parties, who had been involved in high-conflict litigation, consented to the motion judge determining outstanding issues by way of summary judgment to avoid a full trial.

The motion judge made minor amendments to parenting time, child support, and the shared Christmas holiday schedule.

The appellant challenged the motion judge's decision on several grounds, including the absence of a material change in circumstances and the judge's role as case manager.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the parties' express consent to the procedure negated claims of error or unfairness, and that the motion judge's decision was sensible, practical, and in the child's best interests.