Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Wright v. Wright, 2010 ONCA 349

DATE: 20100514

DOCKET: C49347

MacFarland, Rouleau and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Alexander Simon Fraser Wright

Applicant (Appellant/Respondent by way of cross-appeal)

and

Mary Dorinda Wright

Respondent (Respondent/Appellant by way of cross-appeal)

Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. and Michael Zalev, for the appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal

Thomas Bastedo, Q.C. and Adam Black, for the respondent/appellant by way of cross-appeal

Heard: December 16, 2009

On appeal and cross-appeal from the order of Justice Kenneth A. Langdon of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 11, 2008, with reasons reported at 2008 40140.

ENDORSEMENT RE COSTS

[1] In the judgment dated February 5, 2010, we dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal. The parties have now provided submissions on the issue of costs.

[2] The respondent submits that she should be awarded $15,000 in costs on the basis that more costs were incurred in the unsuccessful appeal than were incurred in the unsuccessful cross-appeal. Specifically, the respondent argues that the appeal was more complex, involved more money and was more time consuming than the cross-appeal.

[3] The appellant submits that there should be no award as to costs. In the appellant’s view, the appeal and the cross-appeal did not present significantly different levels of complexity, did not involve significantly different amounts of money and the time expended on both was relatively equal. As a result, the appellant argues that this is a classic case of divided success.

[4] We agree with the appellant that the appropriate disposition in this matter is to make no award as to costs and we so order.

“J. MacFarland J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”