Kenneth Vincent Duggan

The applicant, M.P.M., sought costs on a full recovery basis after being largely successful on parenting issues in a fiercely contested trial.

The respondent, A.L.M., opposed, arguing mixed success and seeking costs in her favour.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith regarding custody and access issues, justifying full recovery costs for those aspects.

However, the applicant's offer to settle did not meet the criteria for presumptive full recovery, and costs for earlier steps where no orders were made were disallowed.

The court also considered the respondent's impecuniosity but found it did not shield her from the consequences of her bad faith conduct.

A cost award of $70,000 for fees and $8,160.20 for disbursements plus HST was ordered in favour of the applicant.

Following a family law proceeding in which the parties resolved nearly all substantive issues through Minutes of Settlement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The judge held that costs for earlier motions could not be determined by the trial judge because Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules requires the judge who heard the step to determine costs promptly after that step.

Given that the substantive issues were resolved through settlement and the record did not permit a clear determination of success by either party, the court declined to find either party more successful.

The court concluded the settlement represented a compromise and that determining a winner or loser would amount to speculation.

Each party was therefore ordered to bear their own costs.