Michael Tweyman

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 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 respondent father brought a motion for a temporary nesting order and a section 30 assessment regarding the parties' 9-year-old child, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The applicant mother opposed the nesting order and sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that a nesting arrangement would minimize disruption to the child pending a full assessment.

The court also ordered a section 30 assessment and dismissed the father's request for a specific contact order for the paternal grandparents under the new provisions of the Divorce Act.

The parties were subject to a final consent order containing a dispute resolution clause that mandated mediation and arbitration for parenting disputes.

The applicant father refused to arbitrate, arguing the clause lacked the statutory formalities required for a valid family arbitration agreement.

The respondent mother commenced a Motion to Change but subsequently brought a motion to stay her own proceeding to enforce the arbitration clause.

The court held that while the clause lacked formal statutory requirements, it constituted a binding agreement to enter into secondary arbitration.

The court stayed the Motion to Change and ordered the parties to execute a formal family arbitration agreement.

Following a 16-day family law trial with divided success, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondent father was more successful on the parenting issues, which consumed the majority of the trial time, while the applicant mother was more successful on the financial issues.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering the parties' delicate financial situation, the court ordered the applicant to pay $22,000 in partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

Following a 25-year cohabitation and marriage, the parties separated.

The respondent husband had become permanently disabled during the marriage.

The court determined the remaining financial issues, including equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant wife, who had declared bankruptcy post-separation, was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $112,403.09 via pension transfer, ongoing set-off child support of $416 per month, and indefinite spousal support of $43 per month.

The court also ordered the applicant to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the respondent.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' 12-year-old child, alleging the respondent father was abusive and controlling.

The father sought joint custody and a shared parenting regime.

The court found the mother's allegations of abuse were unsupported by independent evidence and that she had actively resisted including the father as a co-parent.

Relying on the expert evidence of a court-appointed child psychiatrist who recommended co-parenting, the court ordered joint custody and a shared equal parenting schedule, with a detailed dispute resolution framework including a parenting coordinator.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship with access for the child.

The child had been in care for over four years following multiple apprehensions due to neglect and a physical incident involving the father's partner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the disposition of Crown wardship, relying on a parenting capacity assessment that concluded the father and his partner lacked the ability to meet the child's needs.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the specific terms of access and ordered a focused trial on that issue.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship of a young child without access.

The parents opposed the motion and sought the child’s return to their care under supervision, arguing that factual disputes required a full trial.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing the child’s serious prior neglect, extensive parental history of child protection involvement, missed access visits, and inability to address the child’s special needs.

Applying the best‑interests factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded that permanency planning was required and that Crown wardship was appropriate.

The court further held that the parents failed to establish that access would be meaningful and beneficial to the child or that it would not impair adoption prospects.

The applicant, who was pregnant with the deceased's child at the time of his death, brought a motion for interim support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased's ex-wife opposed the motion, arguing the applicant was not a dependant and that the deceased's life insurance policy was not available for support due to an irrevocable beneficiary designation in her favour.

The court held that the applicant was a dependant and that the life insurance proceeds were available to satisfy the support claim under s. 72 of the Act.

The court ordered $20,000 in interim support to be paid from the insurance proceeds.