COURT FILE NO.: 351/08
DATE: 20090526
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
GUNNAR S. PAULSSON
Applicant/Respondent
- and -
GAEL L. PAULSSON
Respondent/Applicant
In Person
Julie K. Hannaford, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: May 26, 2009
JANET WILSON J.:
[1] The husband, Gunnar S. Paulsson seeks leave to appeal for the order of costs granted by Greer J. on June 27, 2008 in an interim motion is this family law proceeding.
[2] I conclude that the husband has failed to meet either of the required two part tests as enunciated in s.62.02(4)(a) or (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Background Facts
[3] The motions court judge dismissed the husband’s motion for interim support, disbursements and other relief on April 10, 2008. She provided lengthy reasons. The parties had entered into a separation agreement after their seventeen year marriage resolving all issues and releasing all rights to future support.
[4] The husband seeks, in this proceeding, to set aside that agreement and seeks to conduct an accounting into the wife’s financial affairs.
[5] The motions court judge denied the husband’s request for funds to retain an accountant and further denied his request for interim support. She concluded “under these circumstances I am not prepared to grant interim support. It would be a folly to do so”.
[6] After dismissing the motion for interim relief the motions judge ordered an early trial date, and ordered costs against the husband with the right to file written submissions if the parties were unable to agree with respect to costs.
[7] The husband, although self represented in this motion for leave to appeal had been represented throughout by counsel. His counsel filed lengthy written submissions with the motions court judge raising all issues that were argued before this Court in the motion for leave to appeal.
[8] The motions judge, as reflected in her reasons, clearly considered the submissions made by the husband’s counsel and in fact accepted some of those submissions.
[9] The wife sought full indemnity costs in the amount of $38,706.32. The motions court judge ordered partial indemnity costs. She concluded that she would have ordered partial indemnity costs in the amount of $25,000.00 with respect to the failed motion. She reduced the costs that she would normally award in the amount of $25,000.00 by some $7,000.00 to take into account the husband’s allegations of impecuniosity. The total award that she granted in favour of the wife, payable by the husband including disbursements was $19,636.16.
Conclusion
[10] I conclude that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the discretionary costs decision of the motions judge. She considered the relevant factors and applied them in this case. She accepted some of the submissions made by counsel on behalf of the husband. There are no issues of public importance justifying this matter being heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court. There are no conflicting cases requiring clarification.
[11] For these reasons, the motion for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[12] Costs payable by the husband to the wife fixed in the amount of $1,500.00 payable within 30 days.
JANET WILSON J.
Date of Release: June 2, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 351/08
DATE: 20090526
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
GUNNAR S. PAULSSON
Applicant/Respondent
- and -
GAEL L. PAULSSON
Respondent/Applicant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JANET WILSON J.
Date of Release: June 2, 2009