Ilana I. Zylberman

Following a 15‑day custody and access trial, the successful party sought $493,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of a settlement offer and full indemnity thereafter.

The court analyzed success at trial, the parties’ settlement offers, litigation conduct, and reasonableness of the claimed fees under the Family Law Rules.

The court found the moving party clearly more successful and that his settlement offers were more closely aligned with the trial outcome than the opposing party’s offers.

However, the court reduced the recovery due to unreasonable conduct, including surreptitious recording of the opposing party during disputes involving the children.

Costs were fixed at $345,000 on a partial recovery basis and ordered payable within 90 days.

A high-conflict custody trial concerning three teenage children where each parent alleged parental alienation by the other.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of all children and suspension of the father’s access pending therapeutic intervention.

The respondent father sought sole custody of two children and joint custody of the third.

The court accepted the assessor’s opinion that the case was a “mixed” alienation scenario involving problematic parenting behaviour by both parties rather than pure parental alienation by one parent.

Given the children’s ages, experiences with each parent, and entrenched conflict, the court declined to change residential custody as requested and instead structured a divided custody arrangement combined with extensive therapeutic intervention and detailed parenting orders designed to repair parent‑child and sibling relationships.

During an ongoing family law trial, the applicant sought to call two witnesses in reply concerning a child's mental health events and communications that emerged from late-produced emails.

The court considered the principles governing reply evidence, including whether the evidence addressed new matters arising from the defence or whether it constituted impermissible splitting of a party’s case.

The court held that limited reply evidence from the child’s therapist was permissible regarding specific events in June–July 2011 and related emails that gained new significance during the defence case.

However, broader inquiries into the child’s ongoing mental health and alleged information‑withholding could have been addressed in the applicant’s case in chief and were therefore excluded.

The proposed testimony of the guidance counsellor was not proper reply evidence, and the applicant’s request to reopen her case in chief was denied.

In a family law proceeding involving allegations of parental alienation, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of proposed expert evidence from a developmental psychologist retained to provide a generic report on parental alienation theory.

Applying the admissibility framework from R. v. Mohan and the two‑stage analysis articulated in R. v. Abbey, the court considered necessity, reliability, and the balance between probative value and potential prejudice.

The court concluded that limited portions of the expert’s report explaining common alienating strategies and behaviours of alienated children would assist the trier of fact.

However, other portions—including general discussions of prevalence, cult analogies, therapeutic practices, and proposed remedial solutions—were excluded as lacking sufficient relevance or probative value.

The expert was also prohibited from answering fact‑based hypothetical questions because the retainer was limited to providing generic educational evidence rather than case‑specific opinions.

During a custody and access trial, the applicant brought a motion seeking to redact portions of a custody assessor’s notes, records, and report that referenced communications from a prior closed mediation.

The applicant argued that mediation privilege had not been clearly waived when she consented to the assessor obtaining information from the mediator.

The court found that the applicant knowingly signed a release permitting disclosure to the assessor and understood that information provided to the assessor could be disclosed in court under the assessor’s retainer terms.

The court further held that the applicant impliedly waived mediation privilege by later providing submissions discussing the mediation for the assessor’s consideration.

Given the parties’ consent and the potential prejudice to the integrity of the assessment if extensive redactions were allowed, the motion to redact was denied.