Tiveron v. Collins
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 797
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 20 November 2025
- Posture
- Family / Appeal to Court of Appeal; Motions for Fresh Evidence and Review of Single Judge Decision
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 20 November 2025
- Posture
- Family / Appeal to Court of Appeal; Motions for Fresh Evidence and Review of Single Judge Decision
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion as irrelevant, dismissed the Review Motion as lacking merit, and dismissed the appeal because there was no basis for appellate intervention and, in the absence of evidence the appellant had paid outstanding court-ordered obligations, the Court would exercise its discretion to refuse to entertain the appeal due to ongoing disobedience of court orders; costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $6,000, enforceable by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office if unpaid within 30 days.
Court disposition
Fresh evidence motion dismissed; Review Motion dismissed; appeal dismissed; costs to Ms. Tiveron fixed at $6,000, all inclusive; unpaid costs to be enforced by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office after 30 days.
Orders
- Fresh evidence motion dismissed
- Review Motion dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to Ms. Tiveron fixed at $6,000, all inclusive
- If costs are not paid within 30 days, they shall be enforced by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office
02
Material facts
Parties
Amber Crystal Tiveron
Applicant/respondent Counsel: Katherine Robinson (agent)Eric Richard Collins
Respondent/appellant Counsel: self-representedAmounts and remedies
- Costs Award: CAD 6,000
- Outstanding Costs Owed: CAD 33,000
- Child Support Arrears: CAD 20,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Family / Appeal to Court of Appeal; Motions for Fresh Evidence and Review of Single Judge Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether proposed fresh evidence is admissible and relevant on appeal
- 02
Whether the single-judge decision of this Court should be reviewed
- 03
Whether the appeal should be quashed or refused for abuse of process or non‑payment of court‑ordered financial obligations
- 04
Allegations of bias and breaches of procedural fairness by the Superior Court judge
- 05
Whether there is any basis for appellate intervention in the underlying orders
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant (Mr. Collins) raised about 16 issues including alleged bias and breaches of procedural fairness, sought leave to amend his notice of appeal, sought to adduce fresh evidence (correspondence and text messages), sought review of the single-judge decision and orders requiring leave from case management, asserted impecuniosity for non‑payment and sought costs against opposing counsel.
- Respondent
- Respondent (Ms. Tiveron) and her counsel opposed all motions as meritless, submitted the proposed fresh evidence was irrelevant, defended the single-judge decision as correct, argued the appeal is an abuse of process given a long history of unmeritorious motions and non‑compliance with orders, and sought costs and enforcement of existing awards.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Brophy v. Brophy (2004), 45 R.F.L. (5th) 56 (Ont. C.A.)
A court may quash or refuse to entertain an appeal where continuation would constitute an abuse of process due to non‑compliance with court orders.
- 02
Dickie v. Dickie, 2007 SCC 8, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 346
Appellate courts have discretion to refuse to hear appeals where the appellant persistently disobeys court orders; non‑payment of obligations can justify refusal to entertain an appeal.
- 03
Appellate practice and principles applied by the Court of Appeal in these reasons
Fresh evidence on appeal must be relevant to the issues before the appellate court; irrelevant material should be refused.
- 04
Appellate standards of review expressed in the Court's reasons
A single-judge decision should only be overturned on review if there is error in principle or misapprehension of material facts; deference is owed to careful reasoning of motion judges.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion as irrelevant, dismissed the Review Motion as lacking merit, and dismissed the appeal because there was no basis for appellate intervention and, in the absence of evidence the appellant had paid outstanding court-ordered obligations, the Court would exercise its discretion to refuse to entertain the appeal due to ongoing disobedience of court orders; costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $6,000, enforceable by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office if unpaid within 30 days.
Obiter and limits
- The Superior Court judge correctly noted the appellant's long history of pursuing unmeritorious steps in the litigation and his willful breach of outstanding costs orders, including a failure to provide any explanation beyond a claim of impecuniosity.
- The Court reiterated that impecuniosity alone, without demonstrable efforts to comply, is insufficient to prevent enforcement of financial court orders or to prevent the dismissal of appeals on account of abuse of process.
Court disposition
Fresh evidence motion dismissed; Review Motion dismissed; appeal dismissed; costs to Ms. Tiveron fixed at $6,000, all inclusive; unpaid costs to be enforced by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office after 30 days.
- Fresh evidence motion dismissed
- Review Motion dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to Ms. Tiveron fixed at $6,000, all inclusive
- If costs are not paid within 30 days, they shall be enforced by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 20 November 2025
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 20 November 2025
Tiveron v. Collins Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-11-20 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 797 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0435, M56432 Judges Gillese, Eileen E.; Pepall, Sarah E.; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Family Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Tiveron v. Collins, 2025 ONCA 797 DATE: 20251120 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0435 & M56432 Gillese, Pepall and Zarnett JJ.A.
BETWEEN Amber Crystal Tiveron Applicant (Respondent/ Responding Party) and Eric Richard Collins Respondent (Appellant/ Moving Party) Eric Richard Collins, acting in person Amber Crystal Tiveron, acting in person Katherine Robinson, counsel as agent for the respondent/responding party Heard: November 18, 2025 On appeal from the order of Justice Lauren Bale of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 14, 2025, and from the costs order dated April 23, 2025. On review of the order of Justice Jonathon C. George of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated October 30, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION Overview [1] The parties to this appeal have been engaged in family law litigation since 2014. In the matters now before the court, Mr. Collins brings two motions and an appeal from the most recent order of the Superior Court of Justice (the “SCJ”) and its associated costs order. After hearing Mr. Collins’ oral submissions, the court advised the parties that it was unnecessary to hear from the respondent, the appeal was dismissed, and brief reasons would follow. These are the promised reasons. Background [2] On October 29, 2014, a final order was made which required, among other things, that Mr. Collins pay Ms. Tiveron child support (the “2014 Final Order”). Mr. Collins unsuccessfully appealed the 2014 Final Order first to the SCJ and then to this court. [3] In 2022, the parties brought competing motions to change the 2014 Final Order as it related to parenting time and child support. The child support issue was scheduled for trial in the Ontario Court of Justice (the “OCJ”) in December 2024. [4] Two weeks before trial, Mr. Collins brought motions seeking leave to bring a further motion to set aside the 2014 Final Order on the basis of fraud or mistake and to bring a motion for summary judgment. [5] On December 11, 2024, the OCJ judge denied leave, finding both proposed motions were meritless. [6] In January 2025, Mr. Collins brought a motion to “cancel”
the requirement that he obtain leave of the case management judge before taking further steps in the litigation. That motion was dismissed on February 11, 2025. [7] Mr. Collins appealed the orders of December 11, 2024, and February 11, 2025, to the SCJ. At the time that the SCJ heard the appeals, Mr. Collins owed more than $33,000 in outstanding costs awards to Ms. Tiveron and was in arrears of child support in excess of $20,000. [8] The SCJ quashed Mr. Collins’ appeals because the SCJ judge found that to permit them to continue would constitute an abuse of process and, in any event, there was no merit to them. She awarded Ms. Tiveron, as the successful party, $6,000 in costs. [9] The SCJ judge also noted that the court has the discretion to quash an appeal when the appellant is in breach of court orders relating to financial obligations: Brophy v. Brophy (2004), 45 R.F.L. (5th) 56 (Ont. C.A.). She found Mr. Collins was in willful breach of the outstanding costs orders, having made no demonstrable effort to comply with them, and having given no explanation for his failure to pay them, apart from his claim he was impecunious. The SCJ judge further found Mr. Collins had a long history of taking unmeritorious steps in the litigation, having brought at least ten motions in the OCJ. [10] In this appeal, Mr. Collins raises some 16 issues, including allegations of bias on the part of
the SCJ judge and various breaches of his right to procedural fairness. Matters before the Court [11] In addition to his appeal, Mr. Collins brings two motions to this court. One motion is for the court to receive fresh evidence of correspondence among the parties and text messages from his daughters. The second motion is to review the decision of a single judge of this court, dated October 30, 2025, dismissing Mr. Collins’ motion for, among other things, leave to amend his notice of appeal and supporting documents, and an order requiring counsel for Ms. Tiveron to pay his costs in “each proceeding where an Order was made” (the “Review Motion”). Analysis [12] We dismiss the fresh evidence motion because the proposed fresh evidence is not relevant to the issues in this appeal. [13] We dismiss the Review Motion because it is wholly lacking in merit. Contrary to Mr. Collins’ submission, there is no error in the decision of the motion judge of this court. On the contrary, that decision reflects a careful consideration, and soundly reasoned rejection, of the matters Mr. Collins raised on the motion. [14] In the absence of any evidence that Mr. Collins has paid the outstanding costs awards and arrears of child support referred to by the SCJ judge, we would exercise our discretion to refuse to entertain the appeal because of Mr. Collins’ continuing disobedience of court orders: Dickie v. Dickie, 2007 SCC 8, [2007] 1 S.C.R.
346. Further, and in any event, there is no basis for appellate intervention in the orders under appeal. Disposition [15] For these reasons, the fresh evidence motion, the Review Motion, and the appeal are dismissed with costs to Ms. Tiveron fixed at $6,000, all inclusive. Since the costs order is related to support, if the costs are not paid within thirty (30) days of the date of these reasons, they shall be enforced by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office. “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “S.E. Pepall J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.