Court File and Parties

CITATION: Spiegel v. Zigelstein, 2016 ONSC 1682

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 435/15

DATE: 20160324

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: HEIDEE SPIEGEL, Applicant

AND:

DAVID ZIGELSTEIN, Respondent

BEFORE: M.A. SANDERSON J.

COUNSEL: Elliot Birnboim, for the Applicant

Stephen M. Grant, Melanie Battaglia, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: In Writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] On December 7, 2015, I released reasons dismissing the applicant’s motion for leave to appeal.

[2] This endorsement addresses costs of the motion.

[3] Counsel for Ms. Spiegel submitted that if she were unsuccessful on the motion, no costs should be ordered. If successful, costs of $750 should be ordered.

[4] Ms. Spiegel was unsuccessful on the motion.

[5] Counsel for Mr. Zigelstein submitted that Ms. Spiegel’s motion was meritless and improperly brought.

[6] Under s131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 57.01, Rule 57.03(1) and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, in my view a costs order against Ms. Spiegel is warranted.

[7] The issues on the motion did not transcend the interest of the parties. Given that the motion for leave was heard after the case conference was held, the issues were no longer highly important, even to the parties themselves.

[8] Total fees and disbursements sought on a substantial indemnity basis were $3,504.13 and on a partial indemnity basis were $2,704.66.

[9] Although the motion was unsuccessful, I am not convinced that Ms. Spiegel’s actions were such as to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

[10] In all the circumstances therefore, I award costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

M.A. SANDERSON J.

Date: March 24, 2016