Brian Ludmer

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 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 brought a motion for costs under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the respondent mother breached multiple terms of a prior order regarding virtual parenting time.

The court found the mother's evidence unreliable, relying on previous findings of her manipulative and alienating behaviour.

The court concluded the mother breached several provisions by undermining the father's parenting time, failing to ensure the children were visible, and failing to document and address the children's resistance.

The court ordered the mother to pay $10,000 in costs as a sanction and incentive for future compliance.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought competing motions within a motion to change.

The mother sought a private parenting capacity assessment under section 30 of the CLRA, while the father sought a finding of non-compliance against the mother for failing to facilitate his parenting time, as well as orders for OCL involvement and reconciliation therapy.

The court found that both parents had contributed to the high-conflict dynamic and that the mother had failed to make best efforts to ensure the children attended parenting time.

However, the court declined to order reconciliation therapy without an expert recommendation, noting the potential risk to the children's well-being.

The court ordered a private section 30 assessment and imposed a gradual reintegration schedule to resume the children's contact with the father.

The applicant father brought a motion for non-compliance against the respondent mother regarding her failure to obey court orders relating to parenting time, therapy for the children, her own therapy, and costs.

The mother brought a cross-motion alleging the father failed to pay child support arrears.

The court found the mother non-compliant with multiple orders, noting her ongoing alienating behaviour and failure to facilitate the children's relationship with the father.

The mother's cross-motion was dismissed as no arrears were owed.

The court ordered specific remedies under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, including the resumption of virtual parenting time, the appointment of specific therapists for the children, and an order restricting the mother from bringing further motions without leave of the court.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2014 final consent order regarding child support and section 7 expenses.

She sought to set aside the fixed child support provisions, arguing she did not understand the settlement due to cognitive distress and financial pressure.

The court dismissed her claims, finding her evidence not credible and upholding the settlement agreement.

The court also imputed an annual income of $90,000 to the applicant for 2017 and 2018 due to intentional under-employment, and ordered her to pay her 50 percent share of section 7 expenses totaling $8,060.82.

The respondent father brought a motion for compliance against the applicant mother, alleging she failed to obey a final parenting order when their two children refused to attend scheduled parenting time.

The mother argued the children, aged 14 and 11, were refusing to go and she could not force them.

The court found the mother failed to meet her positive obligation to actively encourage and facilitate the parenting time, instead leaving the decision up to the children and emboldening their non-compliance.

The court granted the father's motion in part, finding a breach of the order and imposing sanctions under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The father applied for a protective separation and sole decision-making authority to repair his relationship with his two children, alleging parental alienation by the mother.

The court found that the mother had engaged in alienating behaviours and failed to authentically support the children's relationship with their father.

The court ordered a 90-day protective separation during which the children will reside solely with the father and have no contact with the mother.

The father and children were ordered to participate in the Turning Points for Families intensive reunification program.

The mother's claim for unjust enrichment regarding the jointly owned home was dismissed, and various financial and child support orders were made.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.