Michael Harris Tweyman

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,000 all inclusive.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking the appointment of an assessor under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act to assess the needs of the children and the parents' ability to meet those needs.

She argued the father's behaviour was escalating and cited inappropriate communications.

The father opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary, intrusive, and sought for control.

The court applied the criteria from Glick v. Cale and found that the mother failed to demonstrate that an assessment was reasonably necessary, noting the parents had previously made major decisions without court intervention and the children were not exhibiting issues requiring expert evidence.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

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 father brought a motion for increased and overnight parenting time with the parties' 14-month-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing for a more gradual increase due to unsubstantiated allegations and the child's breastfeeding schedule.

The court found the mother's allegations unsubstantiated and noted the father's adherence to a previous temporary order.

The court granted the motion, ordering a phased increase in parenting time including overnights, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The appellant appealed a final order varying spousal support, arguing the trial judge erred by excluding the respondent's post-separation income increases, setting the retroactivity date to 2018 instead of 2016, determining the separation income at $117,000, and using the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and discretionary decisions.

The court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent's income increases were unrelated to the marriage and that the appellant's evidentiary gaps justified a low-range SSAG award.

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dictated at the conclusion of a family mediation.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing there was no final agreement and that mediation communications were protected by settlement privilege.

The court applied the settlement privilege exception from Bouvier, allowing the communications to be reviewed to determine if an agreement existed.

However, the court found the MOU was unenforceable as it did not comply with s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act and there was no meeting of the minds, given the late hour of dictation and the mother's prompt objections.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with the parties' three children from Mt Albert to Orillia, approximately 100 kilometres away.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for a parenting time schedule based on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report.

The court applied the relocation factors under section 16.92(1) of the Divorce Act, finding the move was in the children's best interests due to the mother's medical needs and support system in Orillia.

The relocation was permitted, and a modified parenting schedule was ordered to accommodate the distance.

The applicant mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following her successful application to declare the respondent father a vexatious litigant and his unsuccessful motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

The mother argued that the father's bad conduct in previous proceedings justified an elevated scale of costs.

The court rejected this argument, holding that conduct in prior proceedings cannot be used to punish a party in the current proceeding.

Costs were awarded to the mother on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $15,181.07, based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

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.

The appellant sought to appeal a Superior Court decision denying him leave to appeal a family law arbitration award.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing there is no right to appeal a denial of leave.

The Divisional Court reviewed conflicting jurisprudence and followed the general rule that an order refusing leave to appeal is not appealable, except in narrow circumstances where a judge mistakenly declines jurisdiction.

As the appellant did not allege the judge declined jurisdiction, the notice of appeal was quashed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to change child support.

He argued the motion judge erred by failing to impute income to the respondent and by refusing to order her to pay a proportionate share of his childcare and transportation costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the test for intentional under-employment or in the finding that the childcare costs were neither necessary nor reasonable.

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.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The mother was found in contempt of prior parenting orders, leading to the father being deprived of access.

The court imposed a $5,000 penalty on the mother and continued a temporary order placing the child in the father's primary care with specific parenting time for the mother.

The court also addressed an urgent motion to change parenting arrangements, finding jurisdiction to make temporary orders in the child's best interests, and requested a section 112 investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The child's stated wishes were given little weight due to concerns about independence and potential influence.