Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Mudronja v. Mudronja, 2020 ONCA 702

Date: 2020-11-03

Docket: C67802

Judges: van Rensburg, Pardu and Huscroft JJ.A.

Between:

Eddy Mudronja

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

and

Marijana Mudronja

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

Counsel:

Evelyn K. Rayson, for Eddy Mudronja

Avneet Virk, for Marijana Mudronja

Heard: in writing

On appeal from the order of Justice Kofi N. Barnes of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 25, 2019, with reasons reported at 2019 ONSC 6811.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] The issue of costs of the appeal remains. Ms. Mudronja was largely successful in her defence of her former husband’s appeal, and in her pursuit of her cross appeal. Costs should follow the result: Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, r. 24(1). These proceedings were a continuation of efforts to have Mr. Mudronja comply with a trial judgment of October 30, 2014, and efforts on his part to resist compliance with that judgment, although he appears to have had the financial means to satisfy the judgment. Mr. Mudronja also sought leave to appeal from a costs award against him in post judgment proceedings to determine what was owing on the earlier judgment. This court refused leave to appeal that costs order. Ms. Mudronja was awarded full recovery costs below because the motion judge found that Mr. Mudronja had acted unreasonably and in bad faith, and had deliberately attempted to frustrate payment of the judgment.

[2] Ms. Mudronja seeks full recovery costs of $40,422.60 as well as an order, pursuant to s. 1(1) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 31,that the Family Responsibility Office enforce 25% of any costs award in her favour, as that percentage is proportionate to the support-related issues at stake in the appeal.

[3] Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules provides that the following factors are relevant when deciding costs:

(a) the reasonableness and proportionality of each of the following factors as it relates to the importance and complexity of the issues:

(i) each party’s behavior,

(ii) the time spent by each party,

(iii) any written offers to settle, including offers that do not meet the requirements of rule 18,

(iv) any legal fees, including the number of lawyers and their rates,

(v) any other expenses properly paid or payable; and

(b) any other relevant matter.

[4] There was no misconduct in Mr. Mudronja’s pursuit of the appeal. Although he initially alleged bias on the part of the motion judge below for which there was no foundation, he did not pursue that argument. The appeal was delayed because of his request to seek leave to appeal the costs order against him.

[5] The matter was moderately complex and involved multiple issues. The amounts in issue were significant. We weigh that against the importance of allowing appellate review.

[6] In all of the circumstances, we award costs to Ms. Mudronja in the sum of $38,000, and order that, of that amount, 25% or $9500.00 shall be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office.

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“G. Pardu J.A.”

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”