Court File and Parties

Date: September 2, 2025

Court File No.: D80219/15

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Ayanda Green

Applicant

- and -

Andre Dyer

Respondent

Counsel:

• Pamila Bhardwaj for the Applicant
• Mara Clarke for the Respondent

Heard: August 29, 2025

Justice: S.B. Sherr

Costs Endorsement

Part One – Overview

[1] This case is primarily about the applicant's (the mother's) request to relocate with the parties' 12-year-old child (the child) to Dominica. The mother is also seeking a retroactive increase in child support from the respondent (the father). The father opposes the mother's claims.

[2] The first case conference in this case was held on July 4, 2025. The parties consented to an order for a Voice of the Child Report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer. The parties also consented to a temporary child support order. The father agreed to produce specified financial disclosure by August 15, 2025.

[3] The mother was hoping to relocate with the child to Dominica over the upcoming winter school break so the child could start her new school term there. A settlement conference was scheduled for August 29, 2025, with the intention of moving the case forward to trial if it was not resolved.

[4] On August 15, 2025, the Office of the Children's Lawyer sent a letter to the parties and the court declining to provide services because the father had failed to provide it with the required intake form. The mother had provided her intake form.

[5] The father also did not provide the required financial disclosure to the mother by August 15, 2025. Important financial disclosure remains outstanding.

[6] The parties attended court on August 29, 2025. The father advised the court that he has now submitted his intake form to the Office of the Children's Lawyer. The parties have not heard whether the Office of the Children's Lawyer will accept the referral. The court made a fresh order with a request to the Office of the Children's Lawyer to expedite the matter. The father promised to provide the remaining financial disclosure to the mother very soon.

[7] The parties agreed that a productive settlement conference could not be conducted without first ascertaining the views and wishes of the child and the mother having had the opportunity to review the father's financial disclosure. The settlement conference was not held and was adjourned.

[8] The mother seeks costs of $1,000 for this appearance. The father asks that no costs be ordered.

Part Two – Legal Considerations

[9] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867 set out that modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes:

(1) to partially indemnify successful litigants;

(2) to encourage settlement;

(3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and

(4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly under subrule 2(2) (all references in these rules are to the Family Law Rules).

[10] Costs 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.

[11] Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840.

[12] Subrule 17(18) addresses costs where one party is not prepared, does not serve the required documents, does not make the required disclosure, or otherwise contributed to the conference being unproductive or otherwise did not follow the rules. If this happens the subrule sets out that the court shall:

(a) order the party to pay the costs of the conference immediately;

(b) decide the amount of the costs; and

(c) give any directions that are needed.

[13] Subrule 24(14) addresses factors in determining the amount of costs. It 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:

(i) each party's behaviour,

(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 expert witness fees, including the number of experts and their rates,

[14] The court may award elevated costs where one party's conduct has been unreasonable. See: Barrett v. Watson, 2024 ONSC 1118; Houston v. Houston, 2025 ONSC 2824.

[15] Conduct which unduly complicates or unduly lengthens and increases the cost of a proceeding constitutes unreasonable conduct under subrule 24(14)(a)(i). See: Goldstein v. Walsh, 2019 ONSC 3174; Hutchinson v. Peever, 2021 ONSC 4587; Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556.

[16] In determining the appropriate quantum, the court should consider the amount that the unsuccessful party could reasonably have expected to pay if they were unsuccessful. See: Arthur v. Arthur, 2019 ONSC 938.

Part Three – Analysis

[17] The court finds that the costs consequences set out in subrule 17(18) apply because:

(a) The father did not make the required disclosure.

(b) The father failed to complete the intake form for the Office of the Children's Lawyer in a timely manner causing it to decline services.

(c) The father's actions meant that the scheduled settlement conference was unproductive. It had to be adjourned.

[18] The father submitted that the mother should have sought an adjournment of the court appearance and saved costs. The court disagrees. The father's failure to comply with his obligations has delayed a time-sensitive case. The mother was correct in coming to court to seek directions and to ensure the case moved forward.

[19] This case is important to the parties. It is being made more difficult due to the father's conduct.

[20] The rates and time claimed by the mother are reasonable and proportionate.

[21] The mother has acted reasonably. The father acted unreasonably. At best, he took a cavalier approach to the litigation. At worst, he intentionally delayed the determination of the relocation issue.

[22] The mother has been prejudiced by the father's conduct. She had hoped to have the relocation issue determined by December 2025. Now, the court will not be able to try the case until February 2026. This creates a litigation disadvantage for the mother as a trial judge may be reluctant to relocate the child in the middle of a school term.

[23] The father should have reasonably expected to pay the level of costs requested by the mother.

[24] The father can afford to pay the costs that will be ordered.

Part Four – Conclusion

[25] An order shall go that the father shall pay the mother costs of $1,000 plus 13% HST, for a total of $1,130. Pursuant to subrule 17(18) the costs shall be paid immediately.

Released: September 2, 2025

Justice Stanley B. Sherr