Skip to content

L. (A.G.) v. D. (K.B.), 2009 — Justice McWatt's Ontario Custody Reversal

Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date: 16 January 2009 (release date) Judge: The Hon. Justice Faye E. McWatt Reported at: 93 O.R. (3d) 409 | CanLII (indexed under L.(A.G.) v. D.(K.B.)) | The Globe and Mail coverage (Kirk Makin), 26 Jan 2009

Parties

Anonymised in the reported style (per Ontario family-law convention) but the facts are substantially in the public record:

  • A.L. (father) – vascular surgeon, age 56 at the time of trial
  • K.D. (mother) – chiropodist, age 42 at the time of trial
  • Three daughters: D.D. (born 11 November 1994, age 14 at trial), J.L. (born 19 August 1997, age 11 at trial), and K.D.M.D.L. (born 16 September 1999, age 9 at trial)

Although this is a Canadian case from 2009 (just outside a strict ten-year window) it is included because (a) it has had outsized influence on the modern Canadian PA case-law canon, (b) it is the case Bala & Fidler and subsequent commentators repeatedly return to as the paradigm of judicial intervention in entrenched alienation, and (c) it sets up the methodological frame – including the Family Workshop "reunification camp" model – that has shaped North American PA practice ever since.

Background

The parents had separated when the youngest child was an infant. A Dr Barbara Fidler assessment in 2000 had predicted that the daughters were "at significant risk for becoming aligned with their mother and in turn alienated from their father." Over the following nine years, the mother engaged in what Justice McWatt would later describe as a "consistent and overwhelming campaign, for more than a decade, to alienate" the children from their father. By the time of trial, the two older daughters' relationship with the father had broken down; their stated views were found by the court to be "not independent."

Key facts

  • 9-year history of progressive alienation following Dr Fidler's early warning
  • Mother's conduct was found to be "tantamount to emotional abuse"
  • Two older girls' views were treated as products of alienation, not independent preferences
  • Father had consistently sought to maintain a relationship; the breakdown was attributed to the mother's conduct, not the father's parenting
  • The court considered – and ordered – the use of an out-of-country reunification programme as part of the remedy

Procedural posture

Final trial of custody and access in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The court was asked to decide whether to reverse custody and, if so, what therapeutic and contact arrangements should accompany the reversal.

The judgment

Justice McWatt ordered:

  • Sole custody to the father of all three daughters
  • Children transferred to the father's custody on 16 January 2009
  • Mother's access denied except for counselling purposes, pending review
  • Geographic exclusion: mother prohibited from coming within 300 metres of specified locations
  • Family Workshop programme: the father was authorised to enrol the children in Dr Randy Rand's Family Workshop, an intensive reunification programme conducted outside Canada

The judge's reasoning emphasised that allowing the existing arrangement to continue would entrench the alienation and constitute ongoing emotional abuse. She accepted the prediction-and-pattern evidence that Dr Fidler had offered as far back as 2000 had been borne out.

Who else was involved

Expert witnesses:

  • Dr Barbara Fidler – Toronto clinical psychologist; one of the most cited PA researchers in Canada; co-author with Prof Nicholas Bala of Children Resisting Post-separation Contact With A Parent: Concepts, Controversies And Conundrums (2010) 48 Family Court Review 10
  • Ms Susan Chamberlain – therapist who had worked with the eldest daughter
  • Dr Yvonne Parnell – appointed for follow-up counselling
  • Dr Randy Rand – US-based psychologist specialising in reunification of severely alienated children; designed and ran the Family Workshop programme referenced in the order

Counsel:

  • For the father: Harold Niman and Donna Wowk (Niman Gelgoot & Associates, Toronto)
  • For the mother: Charles Amissah-Ocran
  • For the children: Elizabeth McCarty, Office of the Children's Lawyer

Reactions and commentary

  • Kirk Makin in The Globe and Mail (26 January 2009) – the case was reported prominently in Canadian national press as the first time a court had used such firm remedial measures and explicitly endorsed an out-of-country reunification programme
  • The case is heavily cited in Bala, Hunt & McCarney's subsequent empirical work on Canadian alienation case law, and in the CanLII Commentary "Children Resisting Contact & Parental Alienation: Strategies for Lawyers in High Conflict Parenting Cases" (2024)
  • The Department of Justice Canada's reference list on family-violence cases includes the case as a touchpoint: Justice.gc.ca references
  • The case is controversial. Critics (including some domestic-abuse advocates) have argued that the kind of reunification camp ordered (Dr Rand's Family Workshop) lacks a robust evidence base and that the court's reliance on Dr Fidler's 2000 "prediction" risked confirmation bias. Supporters argue it remains one of the clearest examples of Canadian family-court willingness to act decisively when alienation is entrenched
  • ⚠️ Critical disclosure on Dr Randy Rand's regulatory status (added 2026-05-26): Subsequent to L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.), Dr Randy Rand's California psychology license has been inactive since 2009 following California Board of Psychology disciplinary action for "gross negligence, unprofessional conduct, and dishonesty." The Family Workshop has subsequently been reframed as an "educational workshop" — operating specifically outside the licensed-psychologist regulatory framework that would otherwise apply (NBC Bay Area investigation). This regulatory context was not in the public record at the time of Justice McWatt's 2009 order and would not have been before the court. Any contemporary reading of this case must take account of the fact that the central therapeutic-industrial intervention the order endorsed was, even at the time, run by a clinician under unresolved licensure scrutiny that crystallised into formal inactive status the same year. The case-study presentation here does not retrospectively impugn Justice McWatt's reasoning — the disciplinary information was not before her — but it changes how the case reads for any practitioner now considering similar orders. See also our practitioner directory entry classifying Rand as an excluded practitioner at /practitioners/therapists/us.md.
  • The Canadian academic literature notes that LexisNexis searches show roughly 5 reported Ontario alienation cases per year between 1995-2005, rising to 41 in 2014 and 38 in 2015 – the L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) judgment is widely credited (or blamed) for catalysing that rise

Why this case matters

For Canadian PA jurisprudence, this is the foundational modern case. It established that an Ontario superior court will reverse custody and impose intensive reunification measures where the evidence of long-term, multi-year alienation is clear and where conventional contact remedies have failed. The judgment is the standard reference point in subsequent Canadian alienation case law and academic commentary, and it is the model case Bala and Fidler have used in their writing to illustrate what an evidence-led remedial response looks like.

Internationally, L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) is significant for three reasons. First, it endorsed and embedded a particular therapeutic-industrial response – Dr Rand's Family Workshop – which subsequently became the template for the wave of "reunification therapy" programmes in the US (Family Bridges, Overcoming Barriers, Turning Points for Families). The credibility of those programmes is now itself a subject of major debate, with critics arguing that no peer-reviewed RCT supports them and that they can be traumatic for children. The case is therefore a key node in any history of how that model spread from clinical advocacy into court orders.

Second, it set the methodological template of "long-range expert prediction followed by judicial vindication." Dr Fidler's 2000 assessment predicted what happened; Justice McWatt's 2009 ruling treated that fulfilled prediction as confirming expert authority. This pattern – expert evidence, judicial deference, decisive remedy – is exactly what Re Y [2026] in England has now subjected to much sharper scrutiny. Re Y did not arise in a Canadian-doctrine vacuum: the system Re Y is critiquing is the system L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) in many ways helped to construct.

Third, the case matters as a contrast point for cross-jurisdictional analysis. Canada (Ontario) in 2009 was willing to do what English courts have only sometimes been willing to do: order outright reversal of custody plus international reunification programming. Comparing the trajectories – Ontario embracing the model, then later case law tempering it; England slower to embrace, then Re Y reining it in – is one of the most useful exercises for anyone trying to understand how alienation doctrine actually moves through common-law family-court systems. Both lines of jurisprudence are now converging on a more cautious, fact-finding-first, evidence-skeptical posture.

Sources