COURT FILE NO. D44650/23
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ANN-MARIE FILAZZOLA
PAMILA BHARDWAJ for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and -
MARQUEL BEECHER-ELLIOTT
ACTING IN PERSON
RESPONDENT
HEARD: IN CHAMBERS
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Part One – Introduction
[1] On July 6, 2026, the court delivered oral reasons for decision after hearing the respondent’s (the father’s) motion to change his child support obligations for the parties’ two children. His support obligations were set out in the court’s order dated August 26, 2024 (the existing order). The father was required to pay the applicant (the mother) child support of $1,188 each month, based on his annual income of $85,000.
[2] The court granted the father’s motion to change, in part. It changed the existing order by requiring him to pay the mother child support of $997 each month, starting on July 1, 2026. This is the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) table amount for two children based on an imputed annual income of $65,000 to the father.
[3] The parties were given the opportunity to make written costs submissions. The mother seeks costs of $7,232, inclusive of her fees, disbursements and HST. The father did not make costs submissions.
Part Two – General costs principles
[4] The 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).
[5] Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840.
[6] An 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 – Success
[7] Subrule 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).
[8] To 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.
[9] Subrule 24 (4) sets out that if success in a step in a case is divided, the court may apportion costs as appropriate.
3.2 Analysis of success
[10] The mother was more successful on the motion to change than the father. At the hearing, the father sought to pay child support of $100 each month based on an annual income of $17,000. The court imputed annual income of $65,000 to him. It found he was deliberately unemployed or underemployed.
[11] The mother was not completely successful at trial. She asked the court to impute the father’s annual income at $85,000.
[12] The presumption that the mother is entitled to costs was not rebutted.
Part Four – The amount of costs and the order
[13] Subrule 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.
[14] This case was important to the parties. It was not complex or difficult.
[15] The mother made an offer to settle. She offered to impute the father’s annual income at $81,000 for the purpose of the support analysis. This offer was not as good as or better than the final order. However, the court considered the offer 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.
[16] The father did not make an offer to settle.
[17] The 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.
[18] The 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.
[19] The mother acted reasonably throughout the case.
[20] The father did not act reasonably. He took an unreasonable position about his income at the hearing. He did not make an offer to settle. He did not reveal in his financial statement cash income he was earning or reveal all his sources of income.
[21] The mother is only claiming costs for the trial step. The parties settled the parenting issues earlier in this case. The mother is not seeking costs for those issues.
[22] The rates claimed by the mother’s counsel ($550 per hour) are reasonable for a 1994 call to the bar.
[23] The mother’s full recovery bill of costs totaled $12,265. She is only claiming part of those fees.
[24] The court reviewed the mother’s bill of costs. The 22 hours claimed for this step by the mother is reasonable.
[25] The 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 at $65,000. The court finds that he can afford the costs that will be ordered, particularly if he is given a reasonable amount of time to pay them.
[26] In 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.
[27] In summary, the court has considered that the mother was successful, although not completely successful. It also considered the conduct of the parties, the mother’s offer to settle, the importance, difficulty and complexity of the case, the reasonableness and proportionality of the rates and time claimed by the mother, the father’s ability to pay costs and his reasonable expectation of costs in determining the costs amount.
[28] The court orders are as follows:
a) The father shall pay the mother’s costs of 6,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
b) The father may pay the costs at $300 each month, starting on September 1, 2026. If the father is more than 30 days late in making any costs payment, or ongoing support payment after this date, the entire amount of arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.
Released: August 6, 2026
_____________________ Justice S.B. Sherr