COURT FILE NO. D46776/25
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WHITNEY ANN MARGARET PEDICAN
ACTING IN PERSON
APPLICANT
- and -
ALEXEY KARPOV
ACTING IN PERSON
RESPONDENT
HEARD: IN CHAMBERS
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Part One – Introduction
1On June 29, 2026, the court delivered written reasons for decision following contested motions about the temporary parenting and child support arrangements for the parties’ six-year-old son (the child).
2The parties were given the opportunity to make written costs submissions. The applicant (the mother) seeks costs of $5,500, inclusive of her fees, disbursements and HST. The respondent (the father) asks that no costs be payable.
Part Two – General costs principles
3The 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).
4Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840.
5An 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 – The offers to settle
6The parties both made offers to settle.
7Subrule 24 (12) sets out the costs consequences for the failure to accept an offer that is as good as or better than the order. 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The offer does not expire and is not withdrawn before the hearing starts.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.
8Subrule 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).
9The 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.
10Close 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.
11The technical requirements of subrules 18 (4) and 24 (12) must be met to attract the costs consequences in subrule 24 (12). See: Sader v. Kekki, 2014, ONCJ 41; Jakubowski v. Kopacz-Jakubowski, [2008] O.J. No. 1442 (SCJ); Weber v. Weber, 2020 ONSC 6855; Clancy v. Hansman, 2013 ONCJ 702; Ajiboye v. Ajiboye, 2019 ONCJ 894.
12The costs presumption set out in subrule 24 (12) can have significant repercussions – full recovery costs from the date of the offer. That is why full technical compliance with subrules 18 (4) and (14) is required. See: Mussa v. Iman, 2021 ONCJ 92; T.R. v. S.G., 2025 ONCJ 284.
13The parties’ offers to settle did not attract the costs consequences set out in subrule 24 (12). Neither offer was as good as or better than the order.
14The mother made a severable offer to settle. She proposed that the child live primarily with her and go to school in Toronto. She proposed that the father have parenting time with the child on alternate weekends and two evenings each week.
15The father made a non-severable offer to settle. He proposed that the child live with him and go to school in Ajax, and have weekend and Wednesday evening parenting time with the mother.
16The court ordered an equal shared parenting arrangement and maintained the child’s school in Toronto.
17The father proposed to waive his claim for child support against the mother. He offered to pay all reasonable and mutually agreed-upon special and extraordinary expenses (section 7 expenses) for the child under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines). He did not offer to pay her any support in addition to these payments. He was ordered to pay the mother child support of $925 each month, based on the assumption he would also pay all daycare expenses for the child.
18The mother sought the guidelines table amount of child support from the father. The court ordered a lesser amount after conducting a shared parenting support analysis under section 9 of the guidelines.
19The mother also proposed that the father pay his proportionate share of the child’s section 7 expenses. However, she did set out the parties’ annual incomes for the purpose of this analysis. She did not specify what section 7 expenses the father should contribute to, set out the net amount of these expenses after tax deductions and credits, or propose a specific monthly contribution. Her support proposal was far too vague to be considered as good as or better than the final result.
20Lastly, the father’s offer to settle expired prior to the hearing. Under paragraph 3 of subrule 24 (12), the offer must still be open when the motions start for the costs consequences in the subrule to apply.
21The offers to settle were considered under sub-clause (iii) of subrule 24 (14) (a) when determining the amount of the costs award, particularly related to the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct and the extent of success. See: Gjorsovski v. Krajisnik, 2026 ONSC 220.
Part Three – Success
22Subrule 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 CanLII 22584 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 330 (SCJ- Family Court).
23To 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.
24Subrule 24 (4) sets out that if success in a step in a case is divided, the court may apportion costs as appropriate.
25Divided 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.
26Where 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 Analysis of success
27The dominant issues on the motions were the child’s primary residence, the parenting schedule, the school the child would attend in September 2026, and child support.
28Both parties sought orders that the child’s primary residence be with them and that the other parent would have defined parenting time. The court ordered an equal shared parenting arrangement. There was equally divided success on these issues.
29The father sought an order that the child attend school in Ajax, starting in September 2026. The mother sought an order that the child continue to attend school in Toronto. The mother was successful on this issue.
30The parties sought child support from each other. The father was ordered to pay temporary child support to the mother of $925 each month, starting on July 1, 2026, based on the assumption he would also pay all daycare expenses for the child. The mother was successful on this issue.
31The father sought an order for joint decision-making responsibility for the child. The court did not make that order. It set out where the child would attend school and that the child would continue to see his present doctor and dentist in Toronto. It required the parties to consult on any major medical or academic issue regarding the child, with the mother having the right to make the final decision if the parties disagreed. The mother was more successful on this issue.
32Overall, the mother was the more successful party on the motions. The presumption that she is entitled to costs was not rebutted.
Part Four – The amount of costs and the order
33Subrule 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.
34This case was important to the parties. It was not complex or difficult.
35Both parties made offers to settle. They both acted reasonably in the litigation. However, the mother filed two additional affidavits on the motions without leave of the court. The parties had agreed that they would only file their own affidavits for the motions. The additional affidavits were not helpful. The mother will not receive costs for her time spent preparing them.
36A self-represented litigant may be entitled to costs for legal fees they pay to counsel who assisted them on a limited scope basis, provided the time claimed is for the step or steps in the case being considered by the court. See: McNamara v. McNamara, 2026 ONCJ 157.
37The mother retained counsel, Laura Settani, on a limited scope basis, to assist her. Ms. Settani prepared the mother’s motion materials, factum, book of authorities and her closing submissions. She prepared questions for the mother’s cross-examination of the father at the hearing. Ms. Settani did not attend on the hearing date.
38The mother is only claiming costs for the fees she incurred for Ms. Settani. She is not claiming costs for her own time. The court finds this is a reasonable approach.
39The mother filed a bill of costs from Ms. Settani. The total costs claimed were $8,243.35, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
40The court reviewed Ms. Settani’s bill of costs. The time claimed by her was reasonable and proportionate.
41The rates of $350 per hour claimed by Ms. Settani are reasonable for a 2019 call to the bar. The rates of $200 per hour charged by her law clerk are high. For instance, in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 2169, the court stated that $125 per hour was the going rate for a senior law clerk.
42The 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.). His annual income was assessed by the court at $143,000. The court finds that he can afford the costs that will be ordered.
43In 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 costs that will be ordered.
44The court orders are as follows:
a) The father shall pay the mother’s costs of $4,200, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
b) The costs are due and payable within 30 days.
Released: July 29, 2026
_____________________ Justice S.B. Sherr