Court File and Parties
Ontario Court of Justice
Between:
Fadamilare Anthony Oshungbemi Deborah Adebayo, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
Fatimah Taylor Stephanie Okola, for the Respondent
Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Justice: S.B. Sherr
Costs Endorsement
Part One – Introduction
1On September 22, 2025, the court released its endorsement regarding the parties' motions for temporary parenting and child support orders for their daughter (the child). See: Oshungbemi v. Taylor, 2025 ONCJ 483.
2The court permitted the parties to make written costs submissions. The respondent (the mother) seeks her costs of $4,809. The applicant (the father) seeks his costs of $3,164, or in the alternative, an order that each party bear its own costs.
Part Two – General Costs Principles
3The Ontario Court of Appeal in Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867 set out that modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes:
a) to partially indemnify successful litigants;
b) to encourage settlement;
c) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and
d) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly under subrule 2(2) of the Family Law Rules (all references to the rules in this decision are to the Family Law Rules).
4Costs can be used to sanction behaviour that increases the duration and expense of litigation or is otherwise unreasonable or vexatious. In short, it has become a routine matter for courts to employ the power to order costs as a tool in the furtherance of the efficient and orderly administration of justice. See: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, paragraph 25.
5Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840.
6An 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
7Neither party made an offer to settle that attracted the costs consequences set out in subrule 24(12).
8Subrule 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] O.J. No. 330 (SCJ- Family Court).
9Subrule 24(4) sets out that if success in a step in a case is divided, the court may apportion costs as appropriate.
10Divided success does not equate with equal success. It requires a comparative analysis. Most family cases have multiple issues. They are not equally important, time-consuming or expensive to determine. See: Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556, paragraph 66.
11Where there are multiple issues before the court, the court should have regard to the dominant issue at trial in determining success. See: Firth v. Allerton, [2013] O.J. No. 3992 (SCJ); Mondino v. Mondino, 2014 ONSC 1102.
12The mother was completely successful on the issues of travelling with the child outside of Canada and obtaining government documentation for the child, without the father's consent. The mother is entitled to costs for these issues. However, these were secondary issues on the motions.
13There was divided success on the parenting time issues. The court ordered a gradually increasing alternate weekend parenting schedule that was close to what the father sought. It did not order the Tuesday overnight parenting time he requested. The court graduated the parenting time schedule more quickly than the mother wanted. It also increased the weekend visits to Friday to Monday morning, starting on December 5, 2025. The mother had opposed that increase. The court finds the father was slightly more successful on the parenting time issues.
14The mother was more successful than the father on the temporary child support issues. She obtained a significant increase in child support. The court imputed an annual income of $120,000 to the father for the purpose of the support calculation. He had asked the court to accept his stated annual income at $52,578. The mother had sought to impute his annual income at $236,167. This was too high. However, it was difficult for her to assess his income because the father provided incomplete financial disclosure.
15The mother was the more successful party on these motions. The father did not rebut the presumption that she is entitled to costs.
Part Four – Legal Considerations for the Amount of Costs
16Subrule 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;
b) each party's behaviour;
c) the time spent by each party;
d) any written offers to settle including offers that do not meet the requirements of rule 18;
e) any legal fees, including the number of lawyers and their rates;
f) any expert witness fees, including the number of experts and their rates;
g) any other expenses properly paid or payable; and
h) any other relevant matter.
17The 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. The court may award elevated costs where one party's conduct has been unreasonable. See: Barrett v. Watson, 2024 ONSC 1118 (SCJ); Houston v. Houston, 2025 ONSC 2824.
18Conduct which unduly complicates or unduly lengthens and increases the cost of a proceeding constitutes unreasonable conduct under subrule 24(7). See: Goldstein v. Walsh, 2019 ONSC 3174 (SCJ); Hutchinson v. Peever, 2021 ONSC 4587 (SCJ); Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556 (SCJ).
19In 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.
Part Five – Analysis
20This case was important to the parties. It was made more complex and difficult because the father did not provide clear or timely financial disclosure regarding his solely-held corporation and his income.
21The mother acted reasonably. She made attempts to resolve the motions.
22The father acted reasonably by making a rule 18 offer to settle dated July 31, 2025. That offer expired on August 4, 2025, and was not in effect when the motions were argued. His offer was not as good for the mother as the motions result.
23The father acted unreasonably regarding the financial issues. His financial disclosure was inadequate and raised more questions than answers. The court set out its concerns with his disclosure in paragraph 70 of its endorsement. The court strongly recommends that he address these concerns as soon as possible to avoid future costs consequences.
24The mother's counsel's rates claimed of $400 per hour are very reasonable for a 2014 call to the bar.
25The time claimed by the mother's counsel was reasonable and proportionate. She only claimed time for the motions step.
26The father did not challenge the reasonableness of the rates and time claimed by the mother. The amount he claimed for costs represented 50% of his actual fees. They were very close to the amounts claimed by the mother.
27The mother recognized she was not completely successful. Her full recovery bill of costs was $7,246. She seeks a portion of those costs.
28The father can afford to pay the costs that will be ordered.
29The father should have reasonably expected to pay the costs that will be ordered if he was unsuccessful.
30The court finds that the father should pay total costs to the mother of $3,600, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
Part Six – The Order
31An order shall go as follows:
a) The father shall pay the mother's costs fixed at $3,600, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
b) The costs are due and payable in 30 days.
Released: October 21, 2025
Justice S.B. Sherr