COURT FILE NO. D11552/17
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
SAMANTHA REID
EFUA COBBINA, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and -
OMAR KAREEM FORTUNE
ACTING IN PERSON
RESPONDENT
HEARD: January 14, 2026
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Part One – Introduction
1On January 14, 2026, the court heard third party disclosure motions brought by the applicant (the mother) together with her motion to enforce the court’s order dated August 26, 2025, requiring the respondent (the father) to provide her with financial disclosure.
2The motions were brought within the mother’s motion to change the child support terms contained in the court’s order dated January 7, 2020. The mother is seeking to increase child support for the parties’ 10-year-old son, in accordance with the father’s annual income. She contends that the father is not accurately reporting his income to the Canada Revenue Agency or to the court.
3The third-party motions were unopposed by the third parties. The court made the orders sought by the mother. The court further ordered the father to provide the outstanding disclosure ordered on August 26, 2025 within 30 days.
4The mother seeks her full recovery costs of $7,535 for these motions. The father submitted that he cannot afford to pay any costs.
Part Two – General costs principles
5The Ontario Court of Appeal in Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867 set out that modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes:
(1) to partially indemnify successful litigants;
(2) to encourage settlement;
(3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants and;
(4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly under subrule 2 (2) (all references to rules in this decision are to the Family Law Rules).
6Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840.
7An award of costs is subject to the factors listed in subrule 24 (14), subrule 24 (7) pertaining to unreasonable conduct of a successful party, subrule 24 (10) pertaining to bad faith, subrule 24 (12) pertaining to offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the costs sought by the successful party. See: Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918, at paragraph 94.
Part Three – Did the mother’s offer to settle attract the costs consequences set out in subrule 24 (12)?
8Subrule 18 (4) sets out that an offer shall be signed personally by the party making it and also by the party’s lawyer, if any.
9The costs consequences of a party’s failure to accept an offer to settle that is as good as or better than the trial result of the person making the offer, is now set out in subrule 24 (12). It reads as follows:
COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ACCEPT OFFER
24 (12) A party who makes an offer is, unless the court orders otherwise, entitled to costs to the date the offer was served and full recovery of costs from that date, if the following conditions are met:
If the offer relates to a motion, it is made at least one day before the motion date.
If the offer relates to a trial or the hearing of a step other than a motion, it is made at least seven days before the trial or hearing date.
The offer does not expire and is not withdrawn before the hearing starts.
The offer is not accepted.
The party who made the offer obtains an order that is as good as or better than the offer.
10Subrule 24 (13) sets out that the onus of proving that the order is as good as or better than the offer to settle is on the party who claims the benefit of subrule 24 (12).
11The court is not required to examine each term of the offer as compared to the terms of the order and weigh with microscopic precision the equivalence of the terms. What is required is a general assessment of the overall comparability of the offer as contrasted with the order. See: Wilson v Kovalev, 2016 ONSC 163.
12Close is not good enough to attract the costs consequences of 24 (12). The offer must be as good as or better than the trial result. See: Gurley v. Gurley, 2013 ONCJ 482; Axford v. Axford, 2024 ONSC 2864.
13The mother made a severable offer to settle these motions dated December 8, 2025. The court made the orders proposed by the mother in Parts A through D of her offer to settle. The costs consequences set out in subrule 24 (12) apply to those Parts.
14The court has discretion under subrule 24 (12) not to apply the costs consequences. This is not a case where it is appropriate to exercise that discretion. The father did not provide the required disclosure for the mother to assess his income. He ignored the mother’s requests for directions to authorize her to obtain this disclosure from the third parties. He did not consent to the disclosure orders requested. He acted unreasonably and made the mother incur unnecessary costs.
15In Part E of her offer to settle the mother asked that the father comply with the August 26, 2025 disclosure order within 7 days. The court gave the father 30 days to comply. Part E of the offer to settle was not more favourable to the father than the final result. The costs consequences set out in subrule 24 (12) do not apply to that Part of her offer to settle.
16The court considered Part E of the mother’s offer to settle pursuant to clause (iii) of subrule 24 (14). The mother was successful in enforcing the disclosure order and is entitled to costs.
Part Four – Analysis of the amount of costs
17Subrule 24 (14) reads as follows:
24 (14) In setting the amount of costs, the court shall consider,
a) the reasonableness and proportionality of each of the following factors as it relates to the importance and complexity of the issues:
(i) each party’s behaviour,
(ii) the time spent by each party,
(iii) any written offers to settle including offers that do not meet the requirements of rule 18,
iv) any legal fees, including the number of lawyers and their rates,
v) any expert witness fees, including the number of experts and their rates,
vi) any other expenses properly paid or payable; and
(b) any other relevant matter.
18Even where the "full recovery" provisions of the Rules are triggered by an offer which meets subrule 24 (12) requirements quantification of costs still requires an overall sense of reasonableness and fairness. See: Goryn v. Neisner 2015 ONCJ 318 (OCJ).
19The Rules do not require the court to allow the successful party to demand a blank cheque for their costs. See: Slongo v Slongo 2015 ONSC 3327 (SCJ). The court retains a residual discretion to make costs awards which are proportional, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. See: M.(C.A.) v. M.(D.), [2003] O.J. No. 3707; Scipione v Scipione 2015 ONSC 5982, [2015] O.J. No. 5130 (supra). See: Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556.
20This case is important to the parties. The father is making it more complex and difficult because he is not complying with his disclosure obligations. The father is the sole director and shareholder of a numbered corporation. The mother provided evidence that the corporation is operating cleaning and security businesses.
21The reasonableness of the parties’ positions, arguments and conduct are relevant to the issue of costs. An important function of costs is to uphold the integrity of our justice system. Costs are one way of ensuring the resources of the justice system are not unduly drained by clearly unreasonable claims and ill-advised litigation strategy. See: Weber v. Weber, 2020 ONSC 6855.
22The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing. Failure to abide by this fundamental principle impedes the progress of the action, causes delay and generally acts to the disadvantage of the opposite party. It also impacts the administration of justice. Unnecessary judicial time is spent, and the final adjudication is stalled. Financial disclosure is automatic. It should not require court orders to obtain production. See: Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450.
23The mother has acted reasonably.
24The father has not acted reasonably. He has provided incomplete financial disclosure. He has breached financial disclosure orders. He has ignored multiple requests by the mother to provide the disclosure she requires to properly assess his income.
25On June 13, 2025, the mother sought to find the father in default. The father asked for and obtained an extension to serve and file his responding materials. The court ordered him to pay the mother’s costs of $1,500. He has not paid anything towards those costs. That is unreasonable behaviour.
26The father did not provide an acceptable reason for his conduct. He claimed to be overwhelmed because he is dealing with two support cases at the same time (he has another child support case in Brampton). He also claimed that he was preoccupied with his father’s illness. He said he has been unable to pay for a lawyer to represent him on both cases.
27The father is an experienced litigant. The parties have been before the court since 2017. They have had two previous trials regarding the father’s child support obligations. He knows or ought to know his disclosure obligations and the importance of complying with court orders.
28The mother properly restricted the time claimed in her bill of costs to the Form 14B motion seeking leave to bring these motions and the costs of these motions.
29The court reviewed the mother’s bill of costs. The time claimed by her is reasonable and proportionate. She had to spend additional time on this matter serving six third parties.
30The rates of $450 per hour claimed by the mother’s lawyer are reasonable for a 2009 call to the bar.
31The court considered the father’s ability to pay costs. See: MacDonald v. Magel (2003), 67 O.R. (3d) 181 (Ont. C.A.). Ability to pay will be less of a mitigating factor when the impecunious party has acted unreasonably. See: Gobin v. Gobin, 2009 ONCJ 278; D.D. and F.D. v. H.G., 2020 ONSC 1919. Those who can least afford to litigate should be most motivated to seriously pursue settlement and avoid unnecessary proceedings. See: Mohr v. Sweeney, 2016 ONSC 3338; Balsmeier v Balsmeier, 2016 ONSC 3485.
32The father filed his 2023 income tax return. This is his most recent income disclosure. The father declared annual income of $114,793 in that return. The mother believes he earns much more. His financial circumstances were a minor factor in this decision.
33In determining the appropriate quantum, the court should consider the amount that the unsuccessful party could reasonably have expected to pay in the event of lack of success in the litigation. See: Arthur v. Arthur, 2019 ONSC 938. The court finds that the father should have reasonably expected to pay the amount of costs that will be ordered if he was unsuccessful.
34The mother’s costs until the date of her offer to settle were $1,737 plus HST at 13% for a total of $1,963. She will be awarded $1,400 for these costs.
35The mother’s costs after the date of her offer to settle were $3,803 plus HST at 13% for a total of $4,297. She will be awarded full recovery costs arising from Parts A through D of her offer to settle and costs for her motion to enforce the disclosure order. The court will grant her $4,000 for those costs.
36The mother incurred disbursements of $1,128 serving the third parties with her motion materials. These were reasonable and necessary disbursements. The mother will be awarded these disbursements plus HST at 13% for a total of $1,275.
Part Five – Conclusion
37The court orders as follows:
a) The father shall pay costs to the mother of $6,675 for her third party disclosure motions, her motion to enforce the disclosure order and her Form 14B motion seeking permission to bring these motions. This amount is inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
b) The father shall pay these costs, and the $1,800 costs previously ordered by March 1, 2026.
38The case has been scheduled for a trial management conference for March 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. It will be an in-person appearance. A focused hearing will be scheduled and organized on that day.
39This decision is intended to send the following messages to the father:
a) He must provide complete and transparent disclosure about his income – particularly his business income.
b) He is expected to comply with court orders.
c) If he fails to provide complete and transparent financial disclosure and does not comply with court orders the financial consequences will be significant.
d) If his strategy in this case is obstruction, this is a poor strategy that is not working. It is time to change his approach.
40The court urges the father to obtain legal assistance.
Released: January 15, 2026
Justice S.B. Sherr