Court File and Parties

Date: August 8, 2018 Court File No.: D48590/09

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

E.H. Applicant

-and-

O.K. Respondent

Counsel:

• Annette Di Nardo, for the Applicant
• Lisa A. Johnson, for the Respondent
• Mary Kodric, on behalf of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, for the child

Heard: In Chambers

Justice: S.B. Sherr

Endorsement

[1] On June 18, 2018, the court released its reasons for decision arising out of motions to change the parenting terms for the parties' 12-year-old child, contained in the court's order dated June 30, 2010 (the existing order). See: E.H. v. O.K., 2018 ONCJ 412.

[2] The court changed the existing order by granting the respondent (the mother) sole custody of the child and ordering no access for the applicant (the father).

[3] The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, on behalf of the child (the OCL), were given the right to make costs submissions.

[4] The court ordered that the mother and the OCL were to make their costs submissions by July 4, 2018. The mother brought a Form 14B motion, on consent, seeking an extension of time to file her costs submissions until July 11, 2018. This order was made on June 22, 2018.

[5] The mother did not serve her costs submissions until July 16, 2018. She is seeking costs of $33,948.47.

[6] The OCL is not seeking costs.

[7] The mother has brought a Form 14B motion seeking an extension of time to late-file her costs submissions. The OCL consents to her motion.

[8] The father served and filed costs submissions in response to those of the mother's. He asks that the court not consider the mother's late costs submissions.

[9] Subrule 3(5) of the Family Law Rules permits the court to lengthen any time set out in the rules or in an order.

[10] The court will lengthen the time for the mother to file her costs submissions for the following reasons:

a) A short delay in providing costs submissions should not preclude a party from having their position considered, especially when there is no prejudice to the other side. See: Sidhu v. Knight, 2016 ONSC 8166, paragraph 19.

b) The mother was only 5 days late in serving her costs submissions.

c) The mother provided a reasonable explanation for the late service of her costs submissions. The legal assistant for the mother's counsel deposed that the late service was due to her inadvertence. She mistakenly thought that the court had extended the filing deadline for the costs submissions until July 18, 2018 – when it had only been extended until July 11, 2018. The filing extension had been sought because the mother's counsel had been on vacation until July 16, 2018.

d) There is no prejudice to the father in granting the extension sought by the mother.

e) It would not be just to deprive the mother of her costs due to the inadvertence of her counsel.

[11] The father will be given time to make additional costs submissions, if he so chooses.

[12] An order will go as follows:

a) The mother may file her costs submissions by August 13, 2018.

b) The father will have until August 23, 2018, to serve and file any additional costs submissions, if he so chooses.

Released: August 8, 2018

Justice S.B. Sherr