WARNING

The child in this case is the subject of proceedings under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. This judgment is subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87(8) Prohibition re identifying child — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142(3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Court Information

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-11-28

Docket: C66170

Judges: Pardu, Paciocco and Zarnett JJ.A.

Parties

Between

A.M. (Applicant/Respondent)

and

C.H. (Respondent/Appellant)

Counsel

• John Phillips and Julia Tremain, for the appellant
• Brian Ludmer, for the respondent
• Catherine Bellinger and Suzanne Stern, for the Office of the Children's Lawyer

Hearing and Appeal Information

Heard: August 14, 2019

On appeal from: The judgment of Justice Paul W. Nicholson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 30, 2018 with reasons reported at 2018 ONSC 6472.

Costs Endorsement

[1] The successful respondent seeks costs from the appellant on a full recovery basis in the net sum of $105,350.14 for the motion to stay, the motion to admit fresh evidence, and the appeal, less $3,500 in costs awarded to the appellant on a motion for directions.

[2] The appellant submits that each party should bear his or her own costs, or that alternatively the court should award a modest amount of costs in the respondent's favour, because of her strained financial circumstances. Her own counsel's account totaled $66,932.73. She has been ordered to pay costs of $200,000 for the trial. She earns approximately $40,000 a year.

[3] B., the child in issue in the litigation, has apologized to his father and is now living with him, on the consent of the father and B.

[4] I would not characterize the mother's appeal as frivolous. She raised arguable points and nothing in her conduct of the appeal warrants a costs sanction.

[5] In determining a fair and reasonable amount to be paid in costs, I take into consideration the length of the appeal and the motions, the complexity of the issues, the importance of the issues to the parties, as well as an amount that a losing party might reasonably expect to pay on an appeal like this, keeping in mind proportionality.

[6] Considering these factors together, I would award costs to the respondent father in the sum of $40,000 for the motion to stay, the motion to admit fresh evidence, and the appeal, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, and net of the $3,500 costs awarded to the appellant mother on the motion for directions.

G. Pardu J.A.

David M. Paciocco J.A.

B. Zarnett J.A.