Brian Allan Ludmer

The applicant brought a motion for outstanding financial disclosure in a long-running family law matter involving child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, a self-employed dentist operating multiple dental practices, brought a cross-motion for disclosure regarding the matrimonial home.

The court granted the majority of the applicant's disclosure requests, finding the respondent's financial records relevant to assessing whether a disconnect exists between his reported income and lifestyle, and noting that two prior disclosure orders remained unfulfilled.

The court declined certain requests as premature, including those affecting non-parties who had not been served.

The respondent's cross-motion regarding the matrimonial home was granted.

Ninety days was provided for compliance with most items.

The father brought a motion alleging that the mother had failed to comply with multiple court orders regarding parenting time and related matters spanning from 2017 to 2025.

The child, age 10, was at the centre of a dispute involving allegations of parental alienation, relocation attempts, and non-compliance with therapy orders.

The court found repeated and ongoing breaches of parenting orders and declined to exercise discretion in favour of the non-complying mother.

The court granted the majority of the father's motion, ordering compliance with parenting time schedules, family therapy participation, and various parental covenants designed to facilitate the child's relationship with both parents.

This is a costs decision arising from a mid-trial motion in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought interim orders regarding parenting time and fall school enrolment for two children.

The applicant was successful on the school enrolment issue but the parenting time award was a compromise between the parties' positions.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, considering the applicant's success on one of two issues, the reasonableness of both parties' conduct, the disparity in incomes, and the time spent by counsel.

A post-settlement costs determination in a family law matter involving a parenting dispute.

The applicant father sought costs of $344,656.72 on a full indemnity basis, alleging the respondent mother acted in bad faith, made false allegations, and unreasonably prolonged litigation over seven years.

The respondent opposed any costs award, arguing the case settled through compromise and that the applicant drove the conflict.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that objective benchmarks of success are lacking in negotiated settlements and that determining reasonableness on a written record without trial findings would require a mini-trial inappropriate to the costs process.

This appeal concerns the costs consequences of protracted family law litigation between K.K. (the husband) and M.M. (the wife).

The Court of Appeal addresses whether the trial judge erred in awarding full recovery costs to the wife, staying prior costs orders made in favour of the husband, and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The majority upholds the trial judge’s costs award and the stay of prior costs orders, finding exceptional circumstances due to the husband’s bad faith.

A dissent would reinstate the stayed costs orders, holding that the trial judge exceeded her authority under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

This decision addresses the enforceability of a Swiss parenting order in Ontario and the obligations of a primary caregiver to facilitate parenting time under a voluntary, informal parenting-time arrangement.

The court finds that, absent recognition of the foreign order or a registered domestic agreement, it lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Swiss order under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court sets out interim terms for facilitating parenting time and clarifies the positive obligations of a parent to ensure a child complies with parenting arrangements, including the imposition of consequences for non-compliance.

The applicant father sought a court order for family reconciliation therapy involving himself, the respondent mother, and their child, E. The mother opposed, arguing it was not in E.'s best interests, citing E.'s expressed views against it.

The court, relying on a Voice of the Child report, found E. to be a mature teenager whose wishes, while considered, were not determinative.

The court noted the mother's problematic behavior in hindering the father-child relationship and her failure to propose alternatives.

Concluding that reconciliation therapy was in E.'s best interests to restore contact and address family dynamics, the court granted the father's motion and ordered all parties to participate in therapy under specific terms.

This is an appeal from a trial decision concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

The appellant father sought to change the shared parenting arrangement, alleging parental alienation, and requested a 90-day "protective separation" for the children to reside solely with him.

The trial judge dismissed this request, finding the existing arrangement to be in the children's best interests, and awarded costs to the mother.

The father appealed the trial decision and the costs award, also seeking to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upheld the trial judge's findings, declined to admit fresh evidence, and refused leave to appeal the costs award, emphasizing the narrow scope of appellate review in parenting disputes and the principle that post-trial events are typically addressed through variation procedures rather than appeal.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a finding that the applicant was in contempt of a September 13, 2023 order by Munroe J., which mandated shared parenting time for their two children.

The applicant acknowledged non-compliance but argued she had made reasonable efforts to ensure the children's attendance.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an intentional act or omission breaching a clear order with knowledge.

Despite the children's continued refusal to reside with the respondent, the court found the applicant had undertaken substantial, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to facilitate compliance, including imposing consequences and seeking professional assistance.

The court was left in doubt as to whether the applicant's actions constituted an intentional failure to comply.

Consequently, the motion for contempt was dismissed.

This family law trial addressed complex issues of decision-making authority, parenting time, mobility, spousal support, child support, equalization, and a restraining order.

The court found the respondent engaged in parental alienation and obstructive litigation conduct, including refusing therapy and sharing court documents with the children.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the two minor children, with a 120-day no-contact restraining order against the respondent to facilitate reunification therapy.

The respondent's request to relocate the children to Switzerland was denied.

Spousal support claims were dismissed for both parties, and child support was ordered from the respondent based on imputed income.

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Applicant Mother was in breach of previous court orders, a compliance order, and parenting orders, including changing the summer holiday schedule and prohibiting the child from sleeping in the same bed as either parent.

The court found that the Father had not proven material non-compliance by the Mother, noting only isolated incidents of minor non-compliance.

The court also ruled that the Father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances required to vary an interim parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the requested substantive relief was not in the child's best interests and lacked expert evidence.

This is a high-conflict family law trial concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for 16-year-old twins.

The father alleged parental alienation by the mother and sought a "protective separation" order, granting him sole parenting time and decision-making with no contact between the mother and children for 90-120 days to facilitate reconciliation therapy.

The mother sought to continue the existing 50/50 shared parenting and decision-making arrangement.

The court rejected the father's request for "protective separation," finding it extreme and not in the children's best interests, especially given recent positive progress in the children's relationship with the father under the current 50/50 arrangement.

The court found the mother did not engage in parental alienation but erred by allowing the children to dictate parenting time.

The court also found the father's expert witness, a social worker, to be biased and not neutral.

The court ordered the continuation of shared decision-making and equal parenting time, and awarded costs to the mother.

The Applicant Mother sought primary residency of her son, Franky, and orders related to the Respondent Father's alleged breaches of prior orders and Franky's counselling.

The court dismissed the Mother's motion, maintaining Franky's primary residence with the Father.

The court found that Franky's stated views and preferences, his success in the Father's care, and the potential harm of forced counselling on an adolescent outweighed the Mother's claims of parental alienation and the findings of a non-court-appointed counselling centre.

The court declined to make findings of breach due to insufficient and untested evidence.

The applicant father initiated a parenting review seeking joint parental decision-making, week-about equal parenting time for their 13-year-old son J.K., J.K.'s enrollment in a Brampton high school, international travel permission, and modification of a restraining order.

The respondent mother opposed these requests, seeking to preserve her exclusive decision-making authority, maintain the current parenting schedule, and enroll J.K. in a Toronto school.

The court, conducting a fresh inquiry into J.K.'s best interests under the Divorce Act, found the father had made efforts to address past family violence and parental alienation but still exhibited problematic behaviors undermining the mother's parenting.

The court increased the father's parenting time incrementally but denied his request for joint decision-making and J.K.'s transfer to a Brampton school, citing the need for stability and the mother's demonstrated child-focused decision-making.

Travel restrictions were partially lifted for the father (within Ontario) and fully for the mother.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a dismissed motion to change a 2014 final order concerning child support and s. 7 expenses.

The respondent father, as the successful party on the underlying motion, sought costs on a full recovery basis, claiming over $303,000.

The court upheld the presumptive entitlement of the respondent father to costs, finding the applicant mother's challenge to the 2014 settlement to be groundless and unreasonable.

After considering factors such as the parties' behaviour, time spent, and offers to settle (none of which triggered cost consequences), the court fixed the respondent father's costs at $89,896.13, significantly less than claimed, and disallowed certain disbursements.

The costs award was made enforceable as a support order.

The court addressed cross-motions between separated parents concerning parenting time, decision-making, and support for their two children.

The applicant mother sought compliance with a prior consent order for shared parenting of their 14-year-old son (C.) and remedies for alleged non-compliance, including reconciliation therapy.

The respondent father sought to vary the order for C. to reside primarily with him, reflecting C.'s wishes.

The court dismissed the mother's non-compliance claim, finding a credible explanation for the father's actions given the interim nature of the prior order and the mother's contradictory stance.

The court varied the order for C. to reside primarily with the father, giving significant weight to C.'s strong and consistent views and preferences, citing a breakdown of trust with the mother.

The mother's request for reconciliation therapy was dismissed due to C.'s resistance and lack of compelling evidence for its benefit at this stage.

The court also dismissed the mother's request for sole decision-making authority for their 12-year-old daughter (G.), noting no imminent significant decisions and poor parental communication.

Support variation claims from both parties were dismissed due to non-compliance with Family Law Rules regarding financial disclosure, with these issues deferred to trial.

The court ordered the father to provide financial disclosure and both parents to refrain from derogatory remarks about each other to the children.

This endorsement addresses the admissibility of extensive hearsay evidence, particularly statements attributed to children, presented via affidavit in a family law trial.

The court reiterated that while evidentiary rules may be flexible for children's best interests, the hearsay rule is not relaxed for trial affidavits.

It emphasized the "necessity and reliability" test for admitting children's hearsay, finding that the impugned statements lacked sufficient procedural and substantive reliability, especially given the children's vulnerabilities and the absence of independent corroboration.

The court largely disallowed the admission of the contested hearsay evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion for an order compelling family therapy for his 16-year-old daughter, D, to support their relationship, which had deteriorated significantly.

The respondent mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, representing the child, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, giving considerable weight to the mature minor's strong and consistent opposition to forced therapy.

The court found that while it had jurisdiction to order therapy, the potential benefits did not outweigh the risks of exacerbating the child's physical and mental health issues, and that such an order would be practically unenforceable given the child's age and maturity.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the Applicant's motion to change a consent order regarding child and spousal support.

The Respondent, Kenneth Forbes, sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the Applicant, Lisa Forbes, engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct, including making false allegations and pursuing an ill-conceived claim under Family Law Rule 1(8).

Despite the Respondent being self-represented, he received significant assistance from counsel, and the court found his costs claim reasonable.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 to the Respondent, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 30 days, rejecting the Applicant's arguments for reduced costs based on her financial circumstances.