CITATION: C.M.M. v. D.G.C., 2015 ONSC 2114
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: No. 57-14
DATE: 20150407
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Frank and D. Brown JJ.
BETWEEN:
C.M.M. Appellant
– and –
D.G.C. Respondent
– and –
J.M. Respondent
COUNSEL:
J. Wilson, for the Appellant
V. Ambrosino, for the Respondent
S. Preshner, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
J. Hunter, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario
A. Luey and M. Birdsell, for the intervenor, Justice for Children and Youth
HEARD at Toronto: March 5, 2015, with written cost submissions dated March 18, 23 and 24, 2015.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - COSTS
D. Brown J.
[1] Pursuant to the directions contained in our reasons released March 16, 2015 (2015 ONSC 1681), the appellant daughter, C.M.M., and the respondent father, D.G.C., filed cost submissions. C.M.M. seeks her costs thrown away in respect of the hearing of the appeal before this panel on November 28, 2014, in the amount of $11,581.00, representing the costs of the time spent at the hearing and preparation for that day. On his part, D.G.C. submits that the issue of costs relating to the appeal heard by this panel and the subsequent motion to set aside the January 13, 2015 appeal decision should be determined by the new panel which will re-hear the appeal in the near future. In the alternative, D.G.C. submits that, as the successful party on the motion to set aside the January 13, 2015 appeal decision, he should recover from those parties who opposed his motion to set aside costs in the amount of $12,959.00, plus disbursements.
[2] In our March 16 reasons we granted the father’s motion to set aside the January 13, 2015 appeal decision on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias. Consequently, the parties’ requests for costs have been considered and decided by two members of the panel, Frank and D. Brown JJ.
[3] As noted in our March 16 reasons, the paramount consideration on the motion to set aside was the principle of the appearance of the impartiality of the courts. The result of the motion was not connected in any way to the merits of the parties’ respective positions on the underlying dispute in this proceeding or to their conduct in the litigation. There was no winner or loser of the motion to set aside in the sense those terms are normally used when considering awards of costs. Consequently, we conclude that there should be no award of costs for the motion to set aside. Nor should there be an award of costs to either party for the time spent at the hearing on November 28, 2014 or the immediate preparation for that day because we have set aside the decision which flowed from that hearing.
[4] The parties incurred costs to prepare the appeal record, responding record, and factums used at the hearing on November 28, 2014. Since that work-product will be used again at the re-hearing of the appeal, we leave to the panel which will re-hear the appeal the determination of any request for costs in respect of that work.
D. Brown J.
Frank J.
Released: April 7, 2015
CITATION: C.M.M. v. D.G.C., 2015 ONSC 2114
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: No. 57-14
DATE: 20150407
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Frank and D. Brown JJ.
BETWEEN:
C.M.M. Appellant
– and –
D.G.C. Respondent
– and –
J.M. Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - COSTS
D. Brown J.
Released: April 7, 2015