Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-93577 DATE: 20200423
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Clifford Booth, Applicant AND: Michelle Yvette Marie Bilek, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice D. Baltman
COUNSEL: Shawn Philbert, for the Applicant Carolyn J. Chambers, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 3, 2020 (In writing)
Costs Endorsement
[1] In my written decision of April 6, 2020, I dismissed Ms. Bilek’s motion to stay the order of Justice Miller of March 10, 2020 that removes the preservation order in place against Mr. Booth.
[2] At the end of my endorsement, I directed that the “parties should make every effort to resolve costs of this motion.” (emphasis in original)
[3] Regrettably, that has not happened. I have now received written costs submissions from both parties. Ms. Chambers, counsel for Ms. Bilek, proposes to pay $3,000, a very reasonable reflection of the time and effort required for this motion.
[4] However, Mr. Philbert seeks nearly triple that amount: $6,780 in fees; disbursements of $35.60; and costs to prepare costs submissions in the amount of $1,800, for an aggregate total of $8,615.60.
[5] It is apparent that, contrary to my instructions, Mr. Philbert made little, if any, sincere attempt to resolve costs. His position on costs is highly unreasonable, in several ways.
[6] First, he served an Offer to Settle for $10,000, which is in excess of what he is seeking from the court, and in excess of his own bill of costs.
[7] Second, the amount he is seeking is highly disproportionate to the motion. The motion was argued and decided entirely on the basis of written materials. Ms. Bilek’s materials consisted of a 2.5 page statement of argument and a 1.5 page Affidavit (with necessary exhibits that included the trial decision and a consent order of the parties). Yet Mr. Philbert docketed 7.1 hours in reviewing those four pages of material.
[8] Third, I do not accept Mr. Philbert’s allegations that Ms. Bilek acted in bad faith by cashing the cheque for the equalization award that she received at trial.
[9] Counsel must know that in the wake of the Covid-19 epidemic, court resources are severely strained. That is why, more than ever, we expect counsel to resolve as many issues as reasonably possible, including costs. Outrageous cost demands which predictably will require further adjudication by the court completely frustrate that objective, and must be discouraged.
[10] For all those reasons, I fix Mr. Booth’s costs at $3,000, inclusive.
Baltman J.