Brian Allan Ludmer

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order due to the respondent mother's consistent failure to facilitate access to their two children.

The court found overwhelming evidence of parental alienation by the mother, concluding that the children were suffering emotional abuse.

Consequently, custody of both children was transferred to the father, reunification therapy was ordered, and child support payments were suspended pending a review of the children's adjustment and the parties' financial situation.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter involving custody of a child.

The respondent father sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $105,350.14 for the motion to stay, motion to admit fresh evidence, and the appeal.

The appellant mother sought either no costs or a modest award due to her strained financial circumstances, having already been ordered to pay $200,000 in trial costs and earning approximately $40,000 annually.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father in the reduced sum of $40,000, considering the length and complexity of the proceedings, the importance of the issues, proportionality, and the appellant's financial circumstances.

A 14-year-old boy had been systematically alienated from his father by his mother through years of denigration, false allegations, and manipulation.

The trial judge found the mother had engaged in parental alienation and ordered a reversal of custody, placing the child with the father and suspending contact with the mother for six months to allow for reconciliation.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the best interests test, imposing an extreme remedy without expert evidence or therapeutic support, improperly delegating decision-making to therapists, and ordering therapy without the child's consent in violation of the Health Care Consent Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and upholding the trial judge's discretionary decision-making in this difficult family law matter.

The applicant mother sought primary residence of the two children pending trial, while the respondent father sought an equal parenting schedule.

The court found the father had engaged in controlling and manipulative behaviour, including pressuring the children regarding equal time and unilaterally depleting home equity.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to have primary residence with the mother to provide stability, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time.

The court also ordered joint decision-making with the mother having final say in the event of an impasse, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

This is a costs decision following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time and compliance/enforcement.

The applicant father was substantially successful in defeating the respondent mother's motion for the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and securing relief on his cross-motion.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith by submitting evidence that amounted to a personal attack on the father's counsel, and acted unreasonably by expanding the scope of her motion without leave.

The father was awarded costs of $15,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 60 days.

The court declined to set-off the costs against the father's child support obligations, finding that the costs did not relate to support and there was no history of default.

This decision addresses two motions within a partition and sale application concerning the distribution of property sale proceeds.

Annette Curtis sought immediate one-third distribution to each party, while Lenn Curtis sought to preserve the funds in trust or court pending an oppression application.

The court found jurisdiction under Rule 66.03.

Lenn Curtis's request was akin to a Mareva injunction, but the court found the test not fully met due to delay and lack of evidence of asset dissipation risk.

However, the court exercised its discretion under the Partition Act, finding that the property issues were intertwined with the ongoing oppression application and that immediate distribution would be oppressive and cause hardship.

Consequently, Annette Curtis's motion for distribution was dismissed, and the funds were ordered to remain in trust or be paid into court, with the application adjourned to be heard with the oppression application.

Ana-Cristina Bors sought to re-open a previous motion to change a final custody and access order, requesting to introduce fresh evidence in the form of children's counselling progress reports.

The court declined to re-open the motion, finding that the proposed evidence was not sufficiently cogent to have changed the original outcome and that the reports were improperly obtained through unilateral action by Ana, undermining a prior court order for joint agreement on counselling.

The applicant father brought a motion for further orders to enforce a trial decision that granted him sole custody of his 13-year-old son and ordered no contact with the respondent mother due to severe parental alienation.

The child had been rebelling, running away, and refusing to comply with the father's authority or attend reconciliation therapy, while the mother continued to undermine the transition.

The court granted the father's motion, issuing specific orders to restrict the child's contact with the maternal family, enforce the father's parental authority, and compel the mother to cooperate with therapy and relinquish control over the child's cell phone and documents.

The mother's cross-motion for access was dismissed as premature.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the youngest child following a high-conflict separation where the respondent mother successfully alienated the three children from him.

Despite numerous attempts at reintegration therapy and various access schedules, the youngest child continued to refuse meaningful contact with the father.

The court found that the mother engaged in unilateral, deliberate, and successful parental alienation, which amounted to emotional abuse.

Concluding that leaving the child with the mother would permanently sever the father-child relationship, the court ordered a custody reversal, granting sole custody to the father and suspending all contact between the child and the mother for a minimum of six months to facilitate reconciliation therapy.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 35-day trial concerning parenting and financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial costs for a contempt motion and financial issues, while the respondent also claimed costs.

The court awarded the applicant $45,000 in full recovery costs for the contempt motion and $10,000 in partial recovery costs for financial issues, both payable by the respondent.

However, no costs were awarded to either party for the parenting issues due to both parties' limited success and unreasonable litigation conduct.

The court also ordered a reapportionment of supervised access fees, to be paid proportionately to income, finding both parents contributed to its necessity.

The respondent mother brought a motion to suspend a final parenting order that mandated equal time-sharing for the parties' eldest child, A.K.H., with the applicant father.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking dismissal and compliance with the existing order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to an altercation between A.K.H. and the father, and A.K.H.'s worsening anxiety and consistent refusal to return to the father's care.

Prioritizing A.K.H.'s best interests and expressed wishes, the court suspended the equal time-sharing order, allowing A.K.H. to choose her residential arrangements.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to provide ongoing legal representation for both children.

The Respondent, Keith Carter, was substantially successful in an enforcement motion against the Applicant, Deirdre Michener, regarding compliance with access and communication orders.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The Respondent sought over $50,000 in costs, including his own time as a self-represented litigant and his lawyer's fees.

The court found the Respondent was substantially successful but declined to find bad faith or unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court disallowed the Respondent's claim for costs as a self-represented litigant, as he was represented by counsel under a limited scope retainer, deeming it an impermissible "doubling up" of costs.

The court also found the lawyer's claimed hours (90 hours for a long motion) to be excessive and disproportionate to the complexity of the issues.

The court awarded the Respondent $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The father brought a motion for disclosure of the mother's and child's cell phone records and devices, alleging the mother was texting the child to sabotage his parenting time.

The court found the request was properly framed under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court partially granted the motion, ordering limited disclosure of the mother's text messages and Telus records for specific dates, but refused to order production of the child's devices to protect her privacy.

In this costs endorsement following a motion for access and parenting orders, the court found that success was divided between the parties and awarded no costs.

The father sought partial indemnity costs of $27,794.71, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the mother.

The mother sought no costs.

The court determined that both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour leading up to the motion, and that the mother's conduct, while unreasonable, did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The access order granted represented mixed success for both parties, with the father obtaining increased access but not the aggressive restoration of status quo or parenting covenants he sought, while the mother was ordered to equally share therapeutic costs.

In Part Two of a family law trial, the court determined the remaining property and support issues between the parties.

The court calculated the equalization of net family property, ordering the respondent to pay $54,023.39.

The court also addressed child support, ordering the respondent to pay $237 per month based on a hybrid shared parenting arrangement, and apportioned section 7 expenses.

The applicant was awarded a lump sum of $45,000 in spousal support based on non-compensatory entitlement due to the economic disadvantage arising from the marriage breakdown.

Finally, the court awarded the applicant $8,500 in occupation rent for the respondent's exclusive use of the mortgage-free matrimonial home.

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.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court addressed parenting issues, custody, access, and a motion for contempt.

The mother had repeatedly and unilaterally denied the father access to the children, citing concerns about his anger and past domestic violence.

The court found the mother in civil contempt for breaching access orders, noting she lacked an objectively reasonable basis to terminate access and failed to take reasonable steps to comply.

The court ordered her to pay a $15,000 penalty into the children's RESPs and provide make-up time.

Given the severe parental conflict and the deteriorating mental health of the eldest child, the court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime with limited joint decision-making, an alternating-week residential schedule for the daughter, and alternate weekends for the son, along with mandatory therapeutic interventions for both parents.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim relief regarding child custody and access while the trial decision was under reserve by the trial judge.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion.

The motions judge dismissed both motions, holding that it is highly improper for a motions judge to intervene and make findings of fact or interim orders on issues with which the trial judge is seized.

The parties were directed to bring any motions to re-open the trial or alter temporary orders before the trial judge.

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.