B. Ludmer

The respondent father brought a motion alleging the applicant mother breached a previous trial decision regarding family therapy, information sharing, and parenting time.

The father sought financial penalties and further directions on therapy protocols.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother was in compliance with the trial decision and that the father was attempting to re-litigate trial issues.

The mother was awarded full indemnity costs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to enforce parenting time orders, alleging the applicant was alienating their daughter.

The motion was dismissed, as was the applicant's verbal request for a section 30 assessment.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $17,972.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,000 to the applicant, finding the respondent did not act unreasonably in bringing the motion and noting the applicant's divided success regarding the section 30 assessment.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce existing shared parenting orders and for makeup time, alleging the applicant mother was alienating their 14-year-old daughter, who refused to attend parenting time.

The daughter suffered from severe anxiety and had threatened suicide.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it could not determine on untested affidavit evidence whether the mother was responsible for the non-compliance or whether forcing compliance would be in the child's best interests given her mental health issues.

The mother's informal request for a section 30 assessment was also dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant father brought a motion alleging the respondent mother breached a final parenting order and seeking make-up time and reunification therapy.

The court found the mother breached the order by withholding the child for a weekend in September based on an unreasonable interpretation of the summer schedule.

The court ordered four days of make-up time for the father but declined to order reunification therapy due to a lack of expert evidence demonstrating its benefit.

The respondent mother in a high-conflict custody dispute moved to add the applicant father's new partner, sister, and mother as collateral respondents to her motion to change.

She sought a restraining order against them, alleging they colluded with the father to alienate the children from her.

The court granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules and the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court applied the Worrall factors, concluding the collateral respondents were necessary parties and that the exceptional circumstances of the case justified their addition despite the impending trial date.