Reddick v. Turner, 2026 ONCJ 38

CITATION: Reddick v. Turner, 2026 ONCJ 38

DATE: January 26, 2026

COURT FILE NO. D10912/13

and –

HEARD: In Chambers

Part One – Introduction

1On December 2, 2025, the court released its reasons for decision following the trial of the parties’ motions to change the final parenting and child support orders contained in the July 9, 2014 and September 19, 2016 orders of Justice Brian Scully. The orders related to the parties’ 12-year-old son (the child). See: Reddick v. Turner, 2025 ONCJ 631.

2The court changed the parenting orders as follows:

a) The respondent’s (the father’s) Thursday evening parenting time with the child was terminated.

b) The father was permitted to attend the child’s football practices and games.

c) The father’s alternate weekend visits with the child now end on Sunday at 6 p.m., extending to Monday at 6 p.m. if the Monday is a statutory holiday.

d) Each party shall have three exclusive weeks with the child during the summer vacation. The father’s weeks will be non-consecutive. In odd-numbered years, the father will choose his weeks by May 1^st and the applicant (the mother) will choose her weeks by May 15^th. In even-numbered years, the mother will choose her weeks by May 1^st, and the father will choose his weeks by May 15^th.

e) The parties shall equally divide the two-week winter school break. In odd-numbered years, the child will be with the mother during the first week and with the father during the second week. In even-numbered years, the child shall be with the father during the first week and with the mother during the second week.

f) The parties may agree on additional holiday parenting time between the father and the child, taking into consideration the views and wishes of the child.

3The court changed the child support orders as follows:

a) The father shall pay the mother child support of $527 each month, starting on January 1, 2026. This is comprised of the guidelines table amount of $458 each month, based on the father’s imputed annual income of $50,674 and the father’s monthly share of the child’s section 7 football expenses of $69 each month.

b) The father shall pay 36% of the child’s future section 7 expenses. The mother shall first consult with the father before incurring these expenses. She does not have to consult with him regarding the football expenses.

c) The $1,000 cap for the father’s annual contribution to the child’s section 7 expenses, contained in the second order, was terminated.

d) The term limiting the mother to claim contribution from the father to one activity for the child was terminated.

e) The father has overpaid child support to the mother in the amount of $9,983.

f) The Director of the Family Responsibility Office was requested to record the overpayment of $9,983 as a support credit for the father in its records and to apply it against the father’s monthly child support obligations, starting on January 1, 2026, until the credit is eliminated.

4The court dismissed all other claims made by the parties.

5The parties were given the opportunity to make written costs submissions. The father seeks costs of $26,048. The mother asks that no costs be ordered.

Part Two – General legal considerations

6The 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).

7Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840.

Part Three – Success

3.1 Legal considerations

8Subrule 24 (3) creates a presumption of costs in favour of the successful party. Consideration of success is the starting point in determining costs. See: Sims-Howarth v. Bilcliffe, [2000] O.J. No. 330 (SCJ-Family Court).

9To determine whether a party has been successful, the court should examine who was the successful party, based on the positions taken in the litigation. See: Lazare v. Heitner, 2018 ONSC 4861. This assessment includes the positions taken in the pleadings, and the specific relief sought at the hearing, if different. See: Kyriacou v. Zikos, 2022 ONSC 401. The court may also take into account how the order compares to any settlement offers that were made. See: Lawson v. Lawson, [2008] O.J. No. 1978 (SCJ); Todor v. Todor, 2021 ONSC 3463; G.E. v. J.E., 2023 ONSC 1743; Reichert v. Bandola, 2024 ONSC 4573.Kyriacou v. Zikos, supra;

10Subrule 24 (4) sets out that if success in a step in a case is divided, the court may apportion costs as appropriate.

11Divided success does not equate with equal success. It requires a comparative analysis. Most family cases have multiple issues. They are not equally important, time-consuming or expensive to determine. See: Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556, paragraph 66.

12Where there are multiple issues before the court, the court should have regard to the dominant issue at trial in determining success. See: Firth v. Allerton, [2013] O.J. No. 3992 (SCJ); Mondino v. Mondino, 2014 ONSC 1102.

3.2 Offers to settle

13Subrule 24 (12) sets out the 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. 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.

14The mother produced several offers to settle in her costs submissions. None of them were more favourable to the father than the final result. The costs consequences in subrule 24 (14) do not apply.

15The father did not submit an offer to settle with his costs submissions, although the mother mentioned in her submissions that he had made one.

3.3 Analysis of success

16The financial issues were the dominant issues at trial.

17The mother sought an additional child support payment of $3,943 from the father for past special and extraordinary expenses pursuant to section 7 of the Child Support Guideline (section 7 expenses). The father sought reimbursement of $34,154 from the mother for overpayment of childcare expenses. The court found the mother owed the father $9,983 and ordered this amount to be treated as a credit against the father’s ongoing child support payments. Although success was divided, the father was the more successful party on this issue.

18The mother asked to impute the father’s annual income at $50,674 on an ongoing basis. The father asked for it to be imputed at $32,200. The court imputed the income sought by the mother. She was the successful party on this issue.

19The mother was the successful party on minor issues related to the child’s section 7 expenses as follows:

a) The court eliminated a $1,000 cap for section 7 expenses.

b) The court eliminated a term that the father only had to contribute to one activity for the child.

c) The court denied the father’s request to reduce his contribution to section 7 expenses from 36% to 33%.

20The mother was more successful than the father on the parenting issues. The father sought an order for joint decision-making responsibility for the child. This was dismissed.

21There was equally divided success on the issue of holiday parenting time.

22The father consented to minor changes to the parenting schedule sought by the mother. He waited until the trial to do this. The mother was the more successful party on these issues.

23Overall, the court finds that neither party was more successful than the other at trial.

Part Four – Other considerations

4.1 Legal considerations

24Subrule 24 (14) reads as follows:

24 (12) 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.

25The 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.

26Conduct which unduly complicates or unduly lengthens and increases the cost of a proceeding constitutes unreasonable conduct under subrule 24 (7). See: Goldstein v. Walsh, 2019 ONSC 3174 (SCJ); Hutchinson v. Peever, 2021 ONSC 4587 (SCJ); Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556 (SCJ).

4.2 Analysis

27Both parties, at times, acted unreasonably.

28The mother failed to advise the father when the child’s childcare expenses were significantly reduced. This is why she owes him money for overpayment of child support.

29The father wasted court time by making a late request for joint decision-making responsibility for the child. The claim had no merit. He also provided incomplete financial disclosure regarding his 2025 income.

30Both parties acted unreasonably by failing to exchange annual financial disclosure as required in Justice Scully’s order.

31Most of the father’s costs claim was attributable to legal fees he incurred when he was represented by counsel during 2024. Those costs, for the most part, were attributable to prior steps in the case. The costs for those were not reserved to the trial judge. The case management judges were in a better position to determine those costs than the trial judge. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case that warrant ordering costs for prior steps in the case. The court would not have awarded most of these costs, even if he had been the successful party. See: Laidman v. Pasalic and Laidman, 2020 ONSC 7068; Berge v. Soerensen, 2020 ONCJ 265.

Part Five – Conclusion

32A final order shall go that there is no order for costs.

Released: January 26, 2026

__________________________

Justice Stanley B. Sherr