Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Justice Bisson previously found that Brian Ludmer's oppression application and the resulting trial were abusive under article 51 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Determining the quantum of Irving Ludmer's extrajudicial fees required the Court to review IMK's invoices line by line for overbilling, exaggerated rates, or duplicated work.
• Reasonableness of the legal fees claimed had to be assessed against the criteria set out by the Court of Appeal in Groupe Van Houtte inc. (A.L. Van Houtte ltée) c. Développements industriels et commerciaux de Montréal inc.
• Brian sought a punitive sanction of at least $75,000 against Irving, alleging Irving lacked capacity to sign a May 2023 affidavit.
• Only one billing discrepancy was identified: a $502.50 charge in a September 2024 invoice with no corresponding time entry.
• Ultimately, the Court condemned Brian to pay Irving's extrajudicial fees, finding the rates, staffing, and time spent by IMK reasonable.

Facts of the case

This judgment follows an earlier ruling by Justice Bisson dated January 27, 2026, which dismissed Brian Ludmer's Further Modified Application to Court re oppression, including winding-up, brought against his father, Irving Ludmer, and related to the affairs of 3488055 Canada Inc. (055) and the Irving Ludmer Family Foundation. The assets at issue were valued at approximately $12.6 million. The Bisson Judgment dismissed Brian's motion for abuse against Irving but granted Irving's motion, declaring Brian's application and the trial abusive under article 51 and following of the C.C.P., and ordering Brian to pay Irving's extrajudicial fees, with the amount to be determined at a later hearing. Justice Bisson described Brian's conduct in strong terms, citing Brian's own statements that he would be "litigating perpetually until I get my money" and would "litigate what I assert my rights are fiercely and to the end of time." The present hearing, before Justice Karen M. Rogers, addressed the quantum of those fees. Irving sought to recover a total of $280,553.10 in extrajudicial fees from Brian. Brian, representing himself, submitted over 800 pages of material opposing the claim and also asked the Court to impose a punitive sanction of at least $75,000 against Irving, alleging Irving lacked the capacity to sign a May 2023 affidavit under oath.

Policy terms or contractual clauses at issue

The case did not turn on an insurance policy or contract, but on the legal framework governing abusive proceedings under article 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a court to order a party to pay damages covering the professional fees and disbursements incurred by another party once an application or pleading is found abusive, and to summarily determine that amount if it is not admitted or easily calculated. The Court also applied the criteria from Groupe Van Houtte inc. (A.L. Van Houtte ltée) c. Développements industriels et commerciaux de Montréal inc., which directs courts to consider the importance and difficulty of the litigation, the time it required, the conduct of the party claiming reimbursement, the reasonableness of the hourly rate or billing arrangement, and the proportionality of the fees claimed relative to the judgment rendered.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court reviewed IMK's invoices covering the period from March 2024 through the end of trial on January 16, 2026, dividing its analysis into the period before November 2025 and the trial preparation and trial period that followed. The Court found that lead counsel Me Douglas Mitchell's hourly rate of $775 was reasonable given his experience, and that work delegated to junior counsel Me Alexandre Thibault (at $335 per hour), and later to Me Olga Redko ($375) and Me Bianca Annie Marcelin ($300), reflected efficient allocation rather than duplication. The Court rejected Brian's arguments that onboarding between Me Thibault and Me Redko caused unnecessary fees, that overlap existed between attorneys' tasks, or that fees should be reduced because IMK had also represented Irving in a similar proceeding brought by Brian's brother. The Court also rejected Brian's request for a punitive sanction against Irving, finding the argument speculative and unsupported by the Bisson Judgment, noting Brian himself had treated Irving as capable of swearing an affidavit during an April 2024 examination. The Court further noted Brian had made inaccurate factual assertions in his submissions, including a mistaken claim that he had prevailed before Justice Collier in December 2024, when in fact Justice Collier had granted Irving's motion. The sole adjustment the Court made to IMK's invoices was the removal of a $502.50 charge from a September 2024 invoice that lacked a supporting time entry.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court granted Irving Ludmer's application for extrajudicial fees in part, condemning Brian Ludmer to pay Irving $279,975.35, representing the damages suffered by Irving as a result of Brian's abuse of procedure under article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This figure reflects the $280,553.10 claimed, less $577.75 (the $502.50 deduction plus applicable sales tax). The Court ordered the amount be paid within 15 days, with legal interest and the additional indemnity running from the 16th day after judgment, and awarded costs against Brian Ludmer.