Skip to content

L. (A.G.) v. D. (K.B.) (2009), 93 O.R. (3d) 409 (Ont. S.C.J.)

Neutral citation: 2009 CanLII 943 (ON SC)
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Decided: 2009-01-16
Panel: The Hon. Justice Faye E. McWatt, sitting alone

Why this case matters

L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) is the foundational modern Canadian parental-alienation custody-reversal authority. McWatt J of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, after nine years of failed conventional contact remedies and on prediction-and-pattern expert evidence from Dr. Barbara Fidler dating back to 2000, found the mother had conducted 'a consistent and overwhelming campaign, for more than a decade, to alienate' the three daughters from their father, and that her unrelenting conduct was 'tantamount to emotional abuse.' The court reversed custody to the father, suspended the mother's access save for counselling, imposed a 300-metre geographic exclusion, and authorised enrolment in Dr. Randy Rand's out-of-country 'Family Workshop' reunification programme. The case is the standard reference point in subsequent Canadian alienation jurisprudence (Bala & Fidler) and the doctrinal high-water mark of the therapeutic-industrial reunification-programme model that Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 and BVerfG 1 BvR 1076/23 have since reined in elsewhere in the common-law and civil-law worlds.

Procedural history

Final trial of custody and access in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice following nine years of post-separation contact litigation. The parents had separated when the youngest child was an infant. A 2000 parenting assessment by Dr. Barbara Fidler had predicted that the three daughters were 'at significant risk for becoming aligned with their mother and in turn alienated from their father.' Over the following nine years, conventional access and contact remedies failed. By the time of trial the two older daughters' relationship with the father had broken down and their stated views were found by McWatt J to be 'not independent.' The court was asked to decide whether to reverse custody and, if so, what therapeutic and contact arrangements should accompany the reversal. Trial released 16 January 2009; children transferred to the father's custody the same day.

Counsel

  • Harold Niman (counsel) — Niman Gelgoot & Associates LLP, Toronto for applicant father (A.L.)
  • Donna Wowk (counsel) — Niman Gelgoot & Associates LLP, Toronto for applicant father (A.L.)
  • Charles Amissah-Ocran (counsel) for respondent mother (K.D.)
  • Elizabeth McCarty (counsel) — Office of the Children's Lawyer (Ontario) for the three children

Experts

  • Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler — Clinical and forensic psychologist (Toronto); leading Canadian PA researcher; co-author of Fidler & Bala (2010) 48 Family Court Review 10 (instructed by section 30 / parenting-capacity assessment line; her 2000 assessment predicted the alignment-and-alienation pattern that subsequently materialised)
  • Ms. Susan Chamberlain — Therapist (instructed by had worked with the eldest daughter (D.D.) in the years leading up to trial)
  • Dr. Yvonne Parnell — Psychologist (instructed by appointed by the court for post-order follow-up counselling)
  • Dr. Randy Rand — U.S.-based psychologist; designer of the 'Family Workshop' reunification programme conducted outside Canada (instructed by programme to which the father was authorised by the order to enrol the three children for intensive reunification work)

Holding

Where the trial record establishes a sustained multi-year campaign by one parent to alienate the children from the other, and where conventional contact remedies have failed, an Ontario superior court may (and on these facts will) (i) reverse sole custody to the targeted parent, (ii) suspend the alienating parent's access save for counselling pending review, (iii) impose geographic exclusion orders, and (iv) authorise enrolment in an intensive out-of-country reunification programme. Long-term alienating conduct of the kind found here is 'tantamount to emotional abuse' and cannot be allowed to continue under the guise of respecting the children's stated wishes, where those wishes are themselves the product of the alienating conduct and are therefore 'not independent.' Earlier expert prediction (Fidler 2000) borne out by subsequent events is admissible and weighty evidence of the alienating pattern.

Verbatim

[93] (en):

K.D. has conducted a consistent and overwhelming campaign, for more than a decade, to alienate A.L.'s three children from him.

https://ctdj.ca/en/jurisprudence/l-a-g-v-d-k-b/

[151] (en):

Her unrelenting behaviour toward the children is tantamount to emotional abuse as described by Dr. Fidler.

https://ctdj.ca/en/jurisprudence/l-a-g-v-d-k-b/

[153] (en):

The applicant, A.L., shall have sole custody of the children... The respondent shall have no access to the children pending a review of this matter, save and except for the purpose of counselling...

https://ctdj.ca/en/jurisprudence/l-a-g-v-d-k-b/

Outcome

Sole custody of all three daughters granted to the father (A.L.) effective 16 January 2009; children transferred to the father's custody the same day. Respondent mother (K.D.) denied access save for the purpose of counselling, pending review. Geographic exclusion: mother prohibited from coming within 300 metres of specified locations. Father authorised to enrol the three children in Dr. Randy Rand's 'Family Workshop' intensive reunification programme conducted outside Canada. Dr. Yvonne Parnell appointed for follow-up counselling.

Comparative jurisprudence

  • Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38 (UK-EWS) — re-y-2026-ewfc-38 — English Family Court (McFarlane P) set aside first-instance findings of 'alienating behaviour' built on the report of an unregulated PA 'specialist' — the modern English correction of exactly the prediction-and-pattern, expert-deference model that L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) institutionalised in Canada. Re Y is critiquing the system that L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) in many ways helped to construct.
  • Cassazione Civile, Sez. I, ord. n. 9691/2022 (24 March 2022) (IT) — cassazione-9691-2022-italy — Italian Court of Cassation ruling that PAS-based reasoning is not a scientifically recognised pathology and cannot ground custody reversal or forced-removal orders — the civil-law counterpart critique of the same reversal-plus-reunification template that L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) endorsed in 2009 Ontario.
  • BVerfG 17.11.2023 — 1 BvR 1076/23 (DE) — bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023 — German Federal Constitutional Court constitutional critique of PAS-based Sachverständigengutachten on Art. 6 Abs. 2 GG / Kindeswohl grounds — sister-jurisdiction recalibration away from the long-range-expert-prediction-plus-decisive-remedy pattern exemplified by L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.).

Subsequent reception

  • The Globe and Mail (Canadian national press) (2009) — Kirk Makin, 'Courts can rescue kids from an alienating parent,' 26 January 2009 — https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/courts-can-rescue-kids-from-an-alienating-parent/article1343343/
  • First Canadian national-press treatment of the order. Framed the case as the first time a Canadian court had used such firm remedial measures and had explicitly endorsed an out-of-country reunification programme.
  • Family Court Review (2010) — Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2010). 'Children resisting post-separation contact with a parent: Concepts, controversies, and conundrums,' Family Court Review, 48(1), 10–47 — https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01287.x
  • The standard Bala-and-Fidler synthesis of the Canadian PA case-law canon; uses L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) as the paradigm modern Canadian alienation custody-reversal authority.
  • CanLII Commentary (2024) — Bala, Hunt et al., 'Children Resisting Contact & Parental Alienation: Strategies for Lawyers in High Conflict Parenting Cases' (2024) 2024 CanLIIDocs 921 — https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2024CanLIIDocs921
  • Practitioner commentary that continues to cite L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) as the leading Ontario alienation-reversal authority fifteen years after the decision.
  • Department of Justice Canada (2020) — Family-Violence Cases — References list (Justice.gc.ca) — https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/mapafvc-cbapcvf/references.html
  • Federal Department of Justice reference list includes L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) as a touchpoint in the Canadian family-violence and high-conflict-parenting case-law landscape.
  • NBC Bay Area (U.S. investigative journalism) (2019) — 'Family reunification camp controversy: children being forced' — NBC Bay Area investigation into Dr. Randy Rand's Family Workshop — https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/family-reunification-camp-controversy-children-being-forced/2110456/
  • Investigative coverage establishing that Dr. Randy Rand's California psychology licence has been inactive since 2009 following California Board of Psychology disciplinary findings of 'gross negligence, unprofessional conduct, and dishonesty,' and that the Family Workshop has subsequently been reframed as an 'educational workshop' operating outside the licensed-psychologist regulatory framework. This regulatory context was not before McWatt J at the time of the 2009 order.

See also

  • case-study:re-y-2026-ewfc-38
  • case-study:cassazione-9691-2022-italy
  • case-study:bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023
  • practitioner:ca.niman-harold
  • practitioner:ca.wowk-donna
  • practitioner:ca.amissah-ocran-charles
  • practitioner:ca.mccarty-elizabeth
  • jurisdiction:canada

Sources

  1. L. (A.G.) v. D. (K.B.), 93 O.R. (3d) 409 (Ont. S.C.J.) — CTDJ Canadian Trial-Decisions Jurisprudence case page (verbatim McWatt J judgment extracts) — https://ctdj.ca/en/jurisprudence/l-a-g-v-d-k-b/ (Centre for the Treatment of Domestic Violence / Canadian trial-decisions jurisprudence database) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  2. CanLII — Ontario Superior Court of Justice decisions index (L.(A.G.) v. D.(K.B.) 2009 CanLII 943) — https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/ (Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  3. Kirk Makin, 'Courts can rescue kids from an alienating parent,' The Globe and Mail, 26 January 2009 — https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/courts-can-rescue-kids-from-an-alienating-parent/article1343343/ (The Globe and Mail) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  4. Canadian Children's Rights Council — case summary of L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) (mother loses custody — enforcement of parenting time / access) — https://canadiancrc.com/PARENTAL-ALIENATION-MOTHER-LOSES-CUSTODY-ENFORCEMENT-COURT-ORDERED-PARENTING-TIME-ACCESS-VISITATION.aspx (Canadian Children's Rights Council) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  5. Bala, Hunt et al., 'Children Resisting Contact & Parental Alienation: Strategies for Lawyers in High Conflict Parenting Cases' (2024) 2024 CanLIIDocs 921 — https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2024CanLIIDocs921 (CanLII Commentary) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  6. Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2010). 'Children resisting post-separation contact with a parent: Concepts, controversies, and conundrums.' Family Court Review, 48(1), 10–47 — https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01287.x (Family Court Review / Wiley) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  7. Department of Justice Canada — references list (family-violence and high-conflict parenting cases) — https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/mapafvc-cbapcvf/references.html (Department of Justice Canada) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  8. Iqbal Law — Parental Alienation in Ontario: Evidence and Strategy — https://www.iqbalslaw.com/parental-alienation-ontario-evidence-strategy/ (Iqbal Law (Ontario family-law practice resource)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  9. NBC Bay Area — 'Family reunification camp controversy: children being forced' (investigation into Dr. Randy Rand's Family Workshop and his post-2009 inactive California psychology licence) — https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/family-reunification-camp-controversy-children-being-forced/2110456/ (NBC Bay Area) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30

Editorial notes

  • Anonymisation: party initials A.L. (father) and K.D. (mother), and children's initials D.D. / J.L. / K.D.M.D.L., are preserved exactly as the Ontario Superior Court of Justice anonymised them in the reported style L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.); no further re-identifying information has been added beyond what is on the face of the reported judgment and the Globe and Mail / Canadian Children's Rights Council secondary sources.
  • Primary citation: 93 O.R. (3d) 409 is the official Ontario Reports citation; the CanLII neutral identifier 2009 CanLII 943 (ON SC) is the database neutral citation. The CTDJ page (https://ctdj.ca/en/jurisprudence/l-a-g-v-d-k-b/) was used to retrieve verbatim McWatt J paragraph text at paras [93], [151] and [153].
  • Verbatim holdings on the PA framework at paras [93] ('campaign... to alienate') and [151] ('tantamount to emotional abuse') are quoted exactly as they appear on the CTDJ jurisprudence transcript of the McWatt J judgment; operative order text at [153] is reproduced with ellipses where the order disposes of subsidiary procedural matters that are not material to the PA holding.
  • Inclusion rationale: although L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) sits outside a strict ten-year window from current decision-date, it is included in the AntiAlienate case-study set because it is the paradigm modern Canadian PA custody-reversal authority, the methodological template (long-range expert prediction → judicial vindication → decisive remedy + out-of-country reunification programme) that Re Y [2026] EWFC 38, Cassazione 9691/2022 and BVerfG 1 BvR 1076/23 are now correcting in their respective jurisdictions, and the standing reference point in Bala-and-Fidler's subsequent empirical and doctrinal commentary.
  • Critical Randy Rand disclosure (added 2026-05-26): Subsequent to L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.), Dr. Randy Rand's California psychology licence has been inactive since 2009 following California Board of Psychology disciplinary findings of 'gross negligence, unprofessional conduct, and dishonesty,' and the Family Workshop has subsequently been reframed as an 'educational workshop' operating outside the licensed-psychologist regulatory framework. That regulatory context was not in the public record at the time of McWatt J's 16 January 2009 order and would not have been before the court. The case-study does not retrospectively impugn the trial judge's reasoning; it does change how the case reads for any contemporary Canadian practitioner considering similar therapeutic-industrial remedies. See Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 (England) and the BVerfG / OLG Frankfurt German line for the modern regulated-expert correction.
  • Comparative cross-links: re-y-2026-ewfc-38 (UK-EWS — expert-quality set-aside), cassazione-9691-2022-italy (IT — PAS-not-a-recognised-pathology), bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023 (DE — constitutional critique of PAS-based Sachverständigengutachten). All three operate as the modern doctrinal correction to the L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) template.
  • Practitioner cross-links: ca.niman-harold and ca.wowk-donna (counsel for the father, Niman Gelgoot & Associates, Toronto), ca.amissah-ocran-charles (counsel for the mother), ca.mccarty-elizabeth (Office of the Children's Lawyer for the children). Jurisdiction cross-link: jurisdiction:canada.
  • Subsequent Ontario case-volume data: 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 — L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) is widely credited (or, depending on one's view of the reunification-programme model, blamed) for catalysing that rise.

Author: Alan Markson.

Licensed CC BY 4.0 — AntiAlienate Knowledge. Source of truth is the sibling .json; this .md is rendered. Do not hand-edit.