Brian Allan Ludmer

Following protracted custody and access litigation involving two trials and a prior appeal, a costs award of $200,000 was made in favour of the father.

The mother subsequently filed for bankruptcy before the costs could be enforced.

The father sought to lift the automatic stay of bankruptcy under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to enforce the costs award against the mother's exempt assets (RRSPs).

The motion judge granted the order, finding material prejudice and equitable grounds.

The mother appealed, arguing the lift-stay remedy applies only to equalization claims, not costs awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the lift-stay remedy applies to costs awards in appropriate circumstances and that the motion judge properly found material prejudice and equitable grounds based on the mother's breach of representations to the court and the protracted nature of the family litigation.

The moving party sought to set aside an administrative dismissal of his appeal for delay.

The appeal arose from a motion to change child and spousal support in a long-running family law matter.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion to change due to the moving party's failure to produce required financial disclosure and lack of demonstrated material change in circumstances.

The moving party failed to perfect his appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal was administratively dismissed.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding weak grounds of appeal, inadequate explanation for failure to perfect, unjustified delay in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support, and imputation of income to the respondent husband.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for income imputation to the applicant and disclosure, and a separate motion for costs.

The court imputed an annual income of $375,000 to the respondent due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and attend questioning, despite court orders.

The court found the applicant's income for support purposes to be $200,000.

Interim child support was ordered at $4,577 per month, and interim spousal support at $456 per month, both retroactive to July 29, 2016.

Section 7 expenses were to be shared proportionately.

The respondent's motion for costs was dismissed, and other motions were adjourned.

The applicant, Anna Maria Fiorito, made an assignment in bankruptcy after being ordered to pay $200,000 in costs to the respondent, Jefferson Ross Wiggins, arising from protracted family law litigation.

The respondent moved for an order annulling the bankruptcy or, alternatively, lifting the stay of proceedings under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) to enforce the costs award against the applicant's exempt assets (RRSPs and other investment assets).

The court found that the applicant had misled the court and the respondent regarding her intention to pay costs and not file for bankruptcy.

The court granted the respondent's motion to lift the stay of proceedings, allowing enforcement against exempt assets, and stayed the applicant's bankruptcy discharge for eight months to facilitate enforcement.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim order by removing or suspending the requirement for supervised access visits with his children.

The respondent mother consented to the removal of supervision but conditioned it on a variation of the access schedule, bringing a cross-motion for this purpose based on a psychologist's recommendation.

The court granted the father's motion to suspend supervision, finding it in the children's best interests to optimize contact and noting the supervision had become problematic and costly.

However, the court dismissed the mother's cross-motion to vary the access schedule, determining that the psychologist's report was intended for trial and that changing the schedule six weeks before trial would create instability for the children.

The court ordered a gradual transition to unsupervised access and mandated parental consultation with the psychologist for assistance.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day trial regarding parenting time for the parties' child.

The respondent mother was completely successful at trial, obtaining an order for continuation of the temporary parenting arrangement while the applicant father's request for equal parenting time was denied.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent, considering factors including the importance and complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of each party's behaviour, counsel's hourly rates, time properly spent, and the existence of settlement offers.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that costs should not be awarded and instead fixed costs at a level approaching full recovery, accounting for deductions related to prior cost orders and adjustments for duplicate counsel attendance.

The respondent, Y, brought a motion to substitute her psychiatrist for the Family Bridges Aftercare worker, Ms. J. Vanbetlehem, alleging a conflict of interest due to Ms. Vanbetlehem's prior therapeutic services to the applicant, X. The court dismissed Y's motion, finding the issue was res judicata as Y knew or ought to have known about the alleged conflict before trial.

Furthermore, the court found no actual conflict of interest, as Ms. Vanbetlehem's services to X were not therapeutic but advisory, and the Family Bridges program is non-evaluative, with all professionals' goals aligned with the children's best interests.

Y was ordered to comply with the original order to participate in the Family Bridges Program.

A focused Family Law Rule 1 trial concerning custody and access of a child born February 5, 2012.

The parties settled custody (sole to mother), child support, and mobility restrictions during trial.

The remaining issue was access.

The applicant sought equal time sharing on a 2-2-3 schedule; the respondent sought continuation of the existing temporary order.

The court found the respondent to be the more credible witness and determined that the current access schedule (Wednesday overnight and alternate weekends) was in the child's best interests.

The court rejected the applicant's proposal for equal shared parenting, finding that the child has significant anxiety and difficulty with transitions, and that the respondent is better positioned to meet the child's emotional and developmental needs.

The court also found the applicant lacked insight into the child's needs and had engaged in aggressive litigation tactics.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following several motions concerning a final consent order in a family law matter.

The original order granted custody of two sons to the father and prevented the mother's access.

The motions involved the Chief of Police seeking to remove a police enforcement clause, the mother seeking to change custody or have no custody order, and the father seeking enforcement and disclosure.

The court ultimately rescinded the final order in its entirety, declaring no person had statutory or non-statutory custody or access rights.

The mother, deemed successful in setting aside the order, sought full costs from the father.

The father argued for no costs, citing divided success and the mother's past parental alienation.

The court, exercising its discretion, awarded no costs, considering the mother's success but also her lack of effort to promote compliance with the previous order and her history of alienation.

A temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place three children in the care of their respective parents subject to extensive terms of supervision.

The children had been exposed to significant parental conflict, domestic violence, physical discipline, and emotional harm.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of both physical and emotional harm and granted the society's application with 65 detailed terms and conditions governing parental conduct, access arrangements, counselling, school attendance, and communication protocols.

Following two family law trials concerning custody and access of three children, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court had previously found the mother in contempt of an access order and concluded that she acted in bad faith by emotionally manipulating the children and undermining their relationship with their father.

The father was successful at both the original trial and the subsequent review.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the mother’s bad faith litigation conduct, the court ordered full recovery costs.

The mother was required to pay a substantial costs award reflecting extensive legal work and professional involvement necessitated by the litigation.

A motion brought by counsel for the mother seeking to be removed as solicitor of record in a child protection proceeding scheduled for trial.

The mother's counsel sought removal due to financial hardship, as the mother had no capacity to pay further legal fees and did not qualify for legal aid.

The court dismissed the motion, balancing the hardship to counsel against the potential prejudice to the mother and the administration of justice.

The court found that the mother would be at a considerable disadvantage if forced to represent herself, particularly given the complexity of the case, the mother's limited English proficiency, and the fact that she would be facing experienced counsel for both the society and the father.

A child protection society sought an order placing two children in the temporary care and custody of their mother subject to society supervision, with the father to have access at the society's discretion.

The father opposed the motion and sought the children be returned to both parents on a week-on, week-off basis.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced risk of sexual and emotional harm based on evidence of sexually inappropriate behaviour by both parents, the father's history of sexual violence convictions in Utah, allegations of domestic violence, and the father's lack of insight into protection concerns.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the children with the mother under supervision and ordering the father's access remain discretionary pending full disclosure of his criminal and therapeutic records.