Brian Allan Ludmer

The court issued a corrigenda to an endorsement released on August 18, 2016.

The amendment added a sub-paragraph adjourning the applicant's motion for an order removing the prevention of the parents attending the children's events while in the care of the other parent.

The motion was adjourned to be brought back in accordance with the Family Law Rules.

The parties attended a motion and cross-motion regarding the suspension of supervised access.

The father was successful on his motion and sought costs on a full indemnity basis for multiple events, totaling $63,662.67.

The court declined to award costs for the case conferences, finding neither party achieved particular success.

For the motion, the court awarded the father costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the mother's conduct, which unreasonably delayed the suspension of supervision and increased costs.

After reviewing the dockets and reducing excessive time and disbursements, the court fixed the costs payable by the mother to the father at $10,889.81.

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.

Following a high-conflict custody trial where the respondent mother was found to have alienated the children, the applicant father sought costs of over $785,000.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the main action and full recovery for specific motions, finding the respondent engaged in unreasonable and bad faith conduct.

The court also apportioned the costs of the section 30 assessment and reintegration therapy, ordering the respondent to pay the majority of these expenses due to her alienating behaviour.

Total costs of $625,337.40 were awarded to the applicant.

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.

The applicant was substantially successful on a motion to vary a temporary access order.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent argued that because the applicant's counsel was retained on a Legal Aid Certificate, costs should be limited to the Legal Aid rate.

The court rejected this argument, holding that Legal Aid status does not limit the costs recoverable to the Legal Aid rate.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $7,886.73.

The mother and the Chief of Police brought motions to change a final custody order that granted the father sole custody of two teenage sons and required police enforcement to compel the sons to attend a reunification program.

The sons, aged 16 and 18, had consistently refused contact with the father and actively evaded police enforcement.

The court found a material change in circumstances, removed the police enforcement clause, and rescinded the custody order entirely, concluding that it was impossible to enforce and no longer in the children's best interests.

No new custody order was made, leaving the sons to determine their own residential and contact arrangements.

The children and the Chief of Police were represented by separate counsel on the motions.

The mother appealed a 2011 order finding her in contempt and a 2013 order reversing custody of the parties' three children to the father and limiting her access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The contempt finding was set aside because the interim orders allegedly breached had been superseded by Minutes of Settlement.

The court found the trial judge erred in relying on the Child and Family Services Act and parens patriae jurisdiction, but upheld the decision to reverse custody based on the trial judge's finding of emotional abuse by the mother.

However, the court found the trial judge erred by not setting a fixed timeframe for an access review.

The court ordered a review of access arrangements and increased the mother's access in the interim.

Costs payable by the mother for the proceedings below were reduced from $400,000 to $200,000.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order to allow the children to transfer to schools near her residence, based on the recommendations of an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) clinical investigation report.

The respondent father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for various relief, arguing the OCL report should be tested at trial.

The court found that the completion of the OCL report and the father's undermining behaviour constituted a material change in circumstances.

Finding exceptional circumstances that required immediate action in the children's best interests, the court granted the mother's motion, ordered the school transfer, and adjusted the father's access schedule accordingly.

The court convened a clarification hearing concerning an earlier family law endorsement dealing with parenting time and interim support.

The issues were the detailed timing and logistics of two weekly periods of unsupervised access, the holiday and summer schedule, and the duration of the suspension of interim child support and s. 7 expenses.

The court replaced portions of the earlier endorsement with detailed terms governing weekday, weekend, summer, birthday, Thanksgiving, and Christmas access.

The suspension of support and s. 7 payments was limited to April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015, after which payments were to resume, without disturbing prior adjustment provisions for 2014.

No costs were ordered.

On a family law motion in the Court of Appeal, the appellant sought appointment of the Children’s Lawyer to represent three children on a custody appeal and to potentially obtain further expert assessment evidence.

The court held that the appeal would focus on whether the trial judge erred in transferring custody, a determination entitled to significant appellate deference, and that introducing further investigation at the appellate stage risked distorting the appeal process.

The court found that the children had already been the subject of extensive professional intervention and that any involvement by the Children’s Lawyer would likely cause delay and further polarization.

The motion was dismissed, with costs fixed in favour of the respondent.

Following a ten‑day family law trial concerning custody and access of two children and an unsuccessful contempt motion, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $69,000, while the respondent argued success was divided and requested no costs or set‑offs for prior awards and assessment expenses.

Applying the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules but recognizing the court’s discretion, the court found partial success for both parties but greater success for the applicant.

The court rejected certain claimed costs, required the parties to share the expense of an expert assessment, and considered the potential financial impact of a costs award on the children.

A reduced lump‑sum costs award of $20,000 was ordered payable by the respondent.

A mother brought an application to vary a prior custody order and sought sole custody of two adolescent children amid a high-conflict parenting dispute marked by allegations of parental alienation.

The father sought a finding of contempt alleging the mother failed to ensure the children attended access visits.

The court found elements of both alienation and justified estrangement, concluding the children’s reluctance to see the father was influenced by both parents’ conduct and the father’s rigid parenting style.

Given the parents’ inability to cooperate and the children’s expressed preferences, sole custody was granted to the mother with defined access to the father.

The contempt motion was dismissed because the father failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother intentionally breached prior access orders.

Following the dismissal of the respondent’s motion in family litigation, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had been fully successful and sought substantial indemnity costs after prolonged litigation, multiple unsuccessful offers, and the respondent’s continued attempts to relitigate issues contrary to prior orders.

The court found the respondent’s conduct unreasonable, including bringing unnecessary motions and failing to comply with previous orders.

Applying proportionality and the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay $33,900 within 30 days and barred from bringing further motions until all costs were paid.

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.

The court determined costs following a lengthy custody and access dispute where the applicant mother was found to have emotionally abused the children and engaged in severe parental alienation against the respondent father.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings, litigating with impunity to excise the father from the children's lives.

Applying Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the successful father full recovery costs fixed at $400,000.