Brian Allan Ludmer

Following a mid-trial motion for interim child support and parenting time, the court determined the costs payable by each party based on divided success.

The mother was successful on the child support motion and cross-motion, while the father was successful on the parenting and school registration motion.

The court awarded net costs of $3,555 payable by the mother to the father, finding the father entitled to partial indemnity and some full indemnity costs due to an offer to settle.

The applicant husband and respondent wife built a real estate corporate empire during their marriage.

Following their separation, the wife claimed her mother beneficially owned the subject corporations and relied on a 2007 marriage contract to exclude the assets from net family property.

The court found the husband was the beneficial owner of four of the corporations and a 50% owner of the fifth, determining the mother was merely a nominee.

The court also set aside the marriage contract, finding the parties had abandoned it by mutual agreement in 2008.

The wife's post-separation actions to seize control of the corporations were found to be oppressive under the Business Corporations Act.

The respondent husband brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a seven-year cohabitation and four-year marriage.

The applicant wife, a physician who had recently completed a medical fellowship and commenced a substantially higher-paying position, opposed the motion, disputing the respondent's compensatory and non-compensatory claims and arguing that no income increase should be shared.

The court found a prima facie entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, but declined to base quantum on the applicant's post-separation income increase due to the conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's contributions.

The court fixed the applicant's income at $85,490 for support purposes based on a five-year average, declined to impute income to the respondent, and ordered interim spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range at $2,254 per month.

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 applicant brought a motion to reopen the evidentiary portion of the trial to admit two documents concerning loans made to relevant corporations.

The documents were in the parties' possession prior to and throughout the trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was a collateral attack on a prior order that permitted a pleading amendment but expressly prohibited further trial evidence.

The court also held that issue estoppel applied and that the marginal probative value of the documents was outweighed by the prejudice of further delay and expense.

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.

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 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.

The applicant father brought a mid-trial motion for interim orders regarding the children's school enrolment and summer parenting schedule.

The father sought to keep the children at their current private Montessori school, while the respondent mother wished to transfer them to a local publicly funded Catholic school.

The court applied the factors for school placement and found it was in the children's best interests to maintain the status quo at the Montessori school to minimize disruption, given the high-conflict nature of the separation.

The court also ordered a compromise summer parenting schedule that expanded the father's parenting time, including overnight visits and long weekends, consistent with the maximum contact principle.

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 self-represented moving party sought a panel review of an appeal management direction in a high-conflict family matter.

The direction had imposed a deadline for ordering transcripts and affirmed the requirement that documents be filed in English.

The Court of Appeal stayed the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it frivolous and vexatious.

The court noted that panel reviews of appeal management directions are not explicitly permitted and that the motion was premature, as the moving party could still seek relief from transcript requirements by bringing a motion for directions to the appeal management judge.

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.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Divisional Court from a final family law order dealing with parenting time, child support, and mobility.

The respondent objected, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the order was made under the federal Divorce Act, not provincial legislation.

The court agreed, finding that the trial judge's orders stemmed from the Divorce Act, meaning the appeal must be heard by the Court of Appeal pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal to the Divisional Court was quashed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 22, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

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.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order dated March 20, 2024, as well as leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with no order as to costs.

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.