Jonathan Mark Coffey

Following a family law application involving custody, decision‑making authority, schooling, and child support, the court determined costs.

The court found that success on the underlying application was somewhat divided but that the applicant was more successful overall, having obtained confirmation of sole custody and final decision‑making authority as well as an appropriate level of child support.

The court also noted that some of the relief was effectively consented to by the respondent at the hearing.

After considering the parties’ settlement offers and the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs to the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $6,200 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

Following a successful motion to change a child support order, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting that the applicant failed to discuss post-secondary expenses in advance and had claimed excessive amounts without proper receipts.

The court found the respondent had been unsuccessful on the substantive motion and had unreasonably opposed contributions to the child’s post-secondary education expenses despite significant income.

However, the court determined the applicant’s bill of costs was excessive given the simplicity of the matter and the hours claimed.

Applying the principles governing costs and the factors in Rule 24(11), the court awarded a reduced amount of costs.

The court determined costs arising from two family law motion attendances concerning custody, support, and related interim issues.

The moving party sought substantial recovery after expending significant legal fees, including retaining out-of-town counsel and multiple lawyers.

The court held that litigation costs must remain reasonable and proportionate, emphasizing that a losing litigant should not be burdened with inflated fees resulting from a party’s choice to retain expensive metropolitan counsel or excessive legal staffing.

While the moving party was more successful on the core interim issues and the responding party’s unilateral removal of the children precipitated the litigation, the court reduced the claimed costs substantially.

The court awarded fixed costs for each attendance and imposed a significant costs sanction reflecting the responding party’s self-help conduct.