Solomon v. Grange, 2026 ONCJ 408
COURT FILE NO. D45908/25
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
KERSHEL SOLOMON
FERNANDO PIETRAMALA, acting for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and –
VIJAY GRANGE
ACTING IN PERSON
RESPONDENT
HEARD: In Chambers
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Part One – Introduction
1On June 4, 2026, the court delivered a written endorsement after conducting a hearing on June 3, 2026 about child support for the parties’ 5-year-old child. The respondent (the father) did not file materials for the hearing. He did not attend the hearing.
2The applicant (the mother) sought and was granted the opportunity to make written costs submissions. They were served on the father. He did not respond to them.
3The mother seeks her costs of $10,757.50.
Part Two – General costs principles
4The 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).
5Costs can be used to sanction behaviour that increases the duration and expense of litigation or is otherwise unreasonable or vexatious. In short, it has become a routine matter for courts to employ the power to order costs as a tool in the furtherance of the efficient and orderly administration of justice. See: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, 2003 S.C.C. 71, paragraph 25.
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 Two – Did the mother’s offer to settle attract the costs consequences set out in subrule 24 (12)?
2.1 Legal considerations
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.
9Subrule 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.
16Subrule 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).
10The 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.
11Close is not good enough to attract the costs consequences of 24 (12). The offer must be as good as or more favourable than the trial result. See: Gurley v. Gurley, 2013 ONCJ 482; Axford v. Axford, 2024 ONSC 2864.
2.2 Analysis
12The mother made a severable offer to settle dated April 20, 2026. She obtained an order at trial that was better than her offer.
13The mother proposed to settle child support arrears as of December 31, 2025 at $9,147. The court set the arrears at $9,296.
14The mother proposed that the father pay child support to her of $409 each month, starting on January 1, 2026, based on an imputed annual income to him of $46,072. The court imputed annual income to the father of $50,000 and ordered him to pay child support to the mother of $450 each month, starting on January 1, 2026.
15The father did not make an offer to settle.
16The mother complied with the technical requirements set out in subrule 24 (12). The court will apply the costs consequences set out in the subrule. The mother will receive her costs until April 20, 2026, and her full recovery costs after that date.
Part Three – The amount of costs and the order
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.
18This case was important to the parties. It was made more difficult because the father did not provide complete or prompt financial disclosure. It was not a complex case.
19The 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. The court may award elevated costs where one party's conduct has been unreasonable. See: Barrett v. Watson, 2024 ONSC 1118 (SCJ); Houston v. Houston, 2025 ONSC 2824.
20Conduct which unduly complicates or unduly lengthens and increases the cost of a proceeding constitutes unreasonable conduct under subrule 24 (14) (a) (i). See: Goldstein v. Walsh, 2019 ONSC 3174 (SCJ); Hutchinson v. Peever, 2021 ONSC 4587 (SCJ); Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556 (SCJ).
21Being unsuccessful does not equate necessarily to being unreasonable. See: Wauthier v. McAuliff, 2019 ONSC 5302; W.H.C. v. W.C.M.C., 2021 ONCJ 363.
22The mother acted very reasonably and followed all court directions. She made a reasonable offer to settle.
23The father did not act reasonably. He breached financial disclosure orders. He only provided partial financial disclosure to the mother. He was not transparent about his income. He did not follow filing directions for trial and did not attend the trial. He put the mother to considerable unnecessary cost.
24The rates of $325 per hour claimed by counsel for the mother are very reasonable for a 1994 call to the bar.
25The mother claimed costs for the conference where the trial was organized. Costs were reserved for this step. She also claimed costs for the trial step. The time claimed for these steps was reasonable and will be ordered.
26The mother claimed full recovery costs for work done prior to her offer to settle on April 20, 2026. This work was attributable to the conference step. Under subrule 24 (12) she will receive costs for this work but not full recovery costs.
27The court considered the father’s ability to pay costs. See: MacDonald v. Magel (2003) 2003 CanLII 18880 (ON CA), 67 O.R. (3d) 181 (Ont. C.A.). He was imputed with a modest income. However, family law litigants are responsible for and accountable for the positions they take in the litigation: See: Heuss v. Surkos, 2004 ONCJ 141. 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.
28In determining the appropriate quantum, the court should consider the amount that the unsuccessful party should 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 costs that will be ordered.
29The court finds that the father can afford to pay the costs that will be ordered, if a reasonable payment plan is ordered.
30The court orders as follows:
a) The father shall pay the mother’s costs of $9,500.
b) The father may pay the costs at $500 each month, starting on August 1, 2026. However, if he is more than 30 days late in making any costs payment, any ongoing child support payment, or any child support arrears payment due after this date, the entire amount of costs then owing shall immediately become due and payable.
Released: July 8, 2026
Justice Stanley B. Sherr