Brian Allan Ludmer

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.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant father sought 37 heads of relief against the Respondent mother.

The court had previously granted the father's motion in part, finding the mother in breach of a prior order and granting some make-up time, while dismissing other requests.

Both parties sought costs on different indemnity bases.

Applying the modern law on costs, the court found that success was fairly evenly divided between the parties.

Despite offers to settle from both sides, neither met the criteria under Rule 18(14) or significantly influenced the decision under Rule 18(16) of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court ordered that there would be no costs awarded to either side, with each party bearing their own expenses.

This endorsement from a settlement conference in a high-conflict family law case primarily addresses parenting issues.

The court vacated the respondent father's scheduled long motion concerning parenting arrangements, citing his non-compliance with procedural rules (failure to serve notice of motion and file a timetable agreement) and the principle of proportionality.

The court emphasized that bringing multiple motions on the same issue in quick succession, especially after a prior interim order, is contrary to the Family Law Rules and the access to justice principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The judge also noted the high bar for varying interim parenting orders and the application of issue estoppel.

The case was reluctantly placed on the fall 2022 trial blitz, and any future motions require leave of the court.

Directions were also given for questioning and financial disclosure related to a jointly owned cottage.

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 applicant brought a motion to change a 2017 consent order, seeking the retroactive reinstatement of indefinite spousal support.

She alleged the respondent breached the order by failing to reconcile her with their estranged children during court-ordered counselling sessions.

The court found that the respondent made no representations promising reconciliation and had complied with the order by attending the sessions and offering parenting updates.

The court held that the applicant herself had refused to attend further meetings, and therefore the respondent did not breach the letter or spirit of the order.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The mother brought a motion to enforce prior orders for parenting time and family reconciliation therapy, alleging the father alienated their 17-year-old daughter.

The daughter, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, adamantly refused to participate in therapy or see her mother.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to enforce the orders, finding it would be futile and counterproductive given the child's age and entrenched views.

However, finding the father partly responsible for the therapy's failure, the court ordered him to reimburse the mother for half the therapy costs as a sanction for non-compliance.

Following a review meeting in a family law proceeding, the court ordered the child to be placed in the father's full-time care immediately, adding a police enforcement clause due to the mother's ongoing alienating behaviour.

The court denied the mother's request for unsupervised access as she had not meaningfully engaged in therapy to address her role in the alienation.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for undue hardship regarding child support, finding that the garnishment of her wages was for a costs order resulting directly from her own alienating actions, and ordered her to pay full table support.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent father and the appellant's trial counsel, payable by the appellant mother.

As the parties could not agree on the amounts, the court reviewed submissions and fixed the respondent father's costs at $22,500 and the appellant's trial counsel's costs at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court rejected the appellant mother's arguments for no costs or nominal costs, finding no circumstances to justify such an award, and noted that her offer to settle on different terms was irrelevant to the costs determination.

The mother appealed an order granting sole custody of the children to the father, which was issued after the trial judge concluded the mother had engaged in parental alienation.

The appeal challenged the finding of parental alienation, the terms of the custody reversal and access restriction, and alleged a lack of fair trial due to ineffective counsel and judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's conclusions on parental alienation, the necessity of the custody order for the children's best interests, and finding no evidence of ineffective counsel or judicial bias.

The applicant mother, who had sole custody of the parties' 15-year-old daughter, brought a motion under Family Law Rule 1(8) seeking relief against the respondent father for failing to comply with custody orders.

The child had refused to return to the mother's home and began residing with the father.

The court found that the father breached the orders by failing to take reasonable steps to compel the child's return and by failing to participate in court-ordered family reconciliation therapy.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child, suspended the father's parenting time for 60 days, and prohibited him from proceeding with his own motions until he complied with the orders.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding parenting time and decision-making for a child.

The applicant and respondent both sought costs.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs totaling over $83,000, while the applicant sought $7,500.

The court applied Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, considering factors such as the importance and difficulty of issues, parties' behaviour, and proportionality.

While the respondent was largely successful on the main issue in the July 2020 motion, the court noted both parties contributed to the acrimony and excessive materials.

The court awarded the respondent $25,000 in all-inclusive costs, significantly less than sought, reflecting the applicant's partial success on an earlier motion and the principle of proportionality.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a finding that the applicant mother was in non-compliance with a temporary access order, along with requests for make-up time and various behavioural orders.

The children had been refusing to attend parenting time with the father, which the father alleged was due to parental alienation by the mother, while the mother alleged it was due to the father's past behaviour.

The court reviewed the efforts of multiple professionals and the mother's disciplinary actions, concluding that on an interim record, it could not find the mother in non-compliance.

The court dismissed the non-compliance motion but varied the temporary order to require psychological assessments of the children and participation in an intensive therapy program to facilitate access.

The father brought a motion arguing that the continuation of the child protection application constituted an abuse of process due to concurrent proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice regarding a motion to change the divorce order.

The court found that while there was overlap between the two proceedings, dismissing the protection application would be inappropriate given the public policy considerations underlying child protection proceedings, the society's unique investigative role and mandate to protect the child, and the mother's inability to replicate the society's resources.

The court dismissed the father's abuse of process motion and adjourned the society's summary judgment motion sine die, allowing the Superior Court motion to change to proceed while encouraging the society's participation.

The Applicant and Respondent brought motions and cross-motions concerning interim parenting time and parental decision-making for their two-year-old son.

The Applicant sought sole custody and a restricted parenting schedule for the Respondent, while the Respondent sought equal shared parenting time and joint custody.

The court rejected the Applicant's argument for maintaining the status quo, emphasizing the child's right to maximum contact with both parents.

The court ordered a gradual expansion of the Respondent's parenting time, culminating in a 2-2-3 rotating weekly schedule, and declined to make an order regarding parental decision-making at that interim stage.

The applicant, Robert Robertson, brought a second motion to change his child and spousal support obligations and to rescind over $700,000 in arrears.

The respondent, Karen McKenzie, conceded to a termination of spousal support and an adjustment of child support due to her increased income, but opposed the rescission of arrears and sought to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant.

The court found no material change in the applicant's circumstances since the last order, rejecting his claims of inability to earn imputed income or health issues.

While acknowledging the respondent's increased income as a material change, the court declined to rescind the applicant's arrears, citing his lack of transparency, unwillingness to voluntarily support his children, and history of litigation.

The court also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant but imposed a requirement for leave before bringing future motions to change, to ensure fairness and efficient use of court resources.

The father brought an urgent motion to enforce a child access order, which was subsequently dismissed as moot because access had resumed.

The motion then proceeded on the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party acted entirely reasonably in their communications during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to the escalation of the dispute.

No costs were awarded to either party, and the court encouraged the parties to engage a third-party professional for communication and co-operation.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to have the names of the parties and their daughter identified only by their initials in court endorsements and orders, citing the nature of the applicant's occupation.

The respondent consented to the request.

The court found the request reasonable and granted the order, with no costs awarded.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior parenting order, alleging the respondent mother was withholding their child in breach of the order, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the urgent motion, emphasizing the need for child-focused behaviour and adherence to public health guidelines.

The court provided specific directions for the teleconference motion, including strict page limits for submissions and argument times, and deemed the directions an immediately operative order.

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.