# Ontario Court of Justice
**Court File No.:** D45724/24
**Date:** April 2, 2026
**B E T W E E N:**
**DORCAS ANKRAH**
Applicant
— and —
**EMMANUEL ANTWI AMPONSAH**
Respondent
**Counsel:**
Alexandra Forsyth-Sells, for the Applicant
Azubuike Ananaba, for the Respondent
**Heard:** In Chambers
**Justice S.B. Sherr**
---
# Costs Endorsement
## Part One – Introduction
[1] On March 6, 2026, the court struck the respondent's (the father's) parenting time claim contained in his Answer/Claim, regarding the parties' 3-year-old son (the child). The court found that the applicant (the mother) was the successful party on this issue and was presumptively entitled to her costs.
[2] The parties made written costs submissions. The mother seeks costs of $6,321, payable to Legal Aid Ontario. The father submits that if costs are ordered, they should be fixed at $300.
---
## Part Two – Brief Background
[3] The mother is 22 years old. The father is 42 years old.
[4] The parties never cohabited. They had one child together.
[5] The child has always lived with the mother.
[6] The mother issued an application for parenting and child support orders on December 11, 2024. The father filed his Answer/Claim on January 20, 2025. This included a claim for parenting time with the child. He had not seen the child for a long time.
[7] On March 18, 2025, on consent, the parties finalized the issues of primary residence, decision-making responsibility and incidents of decision-making responsibility on terms claimed by the mother in her application. No costs were ordered.
[8] The parties further agreed that the father would have temporary parenting time with the child, supervised at Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO). The parties were required to attend at APCO and complete its intake process.
[9] The mother completed her intake at APCO. The father did not.
[10] The case was twice adjourned for the father to complete the APCO intake. Again, he did not do this.
[11] The matter returned to court on September 22, 2025. The court endorsed:
> The father has not signed up for APCO. He will be given one more, and last, opportunity to do so. He is to do so within 2 weeks.
[12] The father did not complete the intake process at APCO. On March 6, 2026, the court struck his Answer/Claim on the parenting time issue, without prejudice to his ability to make a future parenting time claim, with prior leave of the court.
[13] The remaining issue in this case is child support.
---
## Part Three – General Costs Principles
[14] The Ontario Court of Appeal in [Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867](https://www.minicounsel.ca/onca/2018/867) 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).
[15] Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: [Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840](https://www.minicounsel.ca/onca/2018/840).
[16] An award of costs is subject to the factors listed in [subrule 24 (14)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html), [subrule 24 (7)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html) pertaining to unreasonable conduct of a successful party, subrule 24 (10) pertaining to bad faith, subrule 24 (12) pertaining to offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the costs sought by the successful party. See: [Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca918/2015onca918.html), at paragraph 94.
[17] Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: [Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840](https://www.minicounsel.ca/onca/2018/840).
---
## Part Four – Analysis
[18] Subrule 24 (14) 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, any legal fees, including the number of lawyers and their rates,
>
> (iv) any expert witness fees, including the number of experts and their rates,
>
> (v) any other expenses properly paid or payable; and
>
> (b) any other relevant matter.
[19] The parenting time issue was important to the parties. It was not complex nor difficult.
[20] The reasonableness of the parties' positions, arguments and conduct are relevant to the issue of costs. An important function of costs is to uphold the integrity of our justice system. Costs are one way of ensuring the resources of the justice system are not unduly drained by clearly unreasonable claims and ill-advised litigation strategy. See: [Weber v. Weber, 2020 ONSC 6855](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc6855/2020onsc6855.html).
[21] The court may award elevated costs where one party's conduct has been unreasonable. See: [Barrett v. Watson, 2024 ONSC 1118](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2024/1118) (SCJ); [Houston v. Houston, 2025 ONSC 2824](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2025/2824).
[22] The mother acted reasonably. She agreed to start visits at APCO and completed its intake process.
[23] The mother claimed the father acted in bad faith. The court does not find he reached the high threshold required in the case law to make that finding. See: [S. (C.) v. S. (M.) (2007), 2007 CanLII 20279 (ON SC)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii20279/2007canlii20279.html), 38 R.F.L. (6th) 315 (Ont. SCJ). However, the court finds that the father acted unreasonably by not complying with the court's orders to complete the APCO intake process. He was given multiple extensions to do this and did not do so. The court waited almost a year before striking his Answer/Claim on this issue. He essentially abandoned his claim. This caused needless expense to the mother.
[24] The father did not rebut the presumption that the mother is entitled to her costs.
[25] The mother claimed her counsel's rates of $128 per hour. This was very reasonable.
[26] The mother claimed time for all steps (and for all issues) in the case starting in March 2025. This was not appropriate. She is only entitled to costs for the parenting time issue. The other parenting issues were resolved quickly on consent and costs were not reserved. The support issues have not been finalized.
[27] The court considered the father's ability to pay costs. See: [MacDonald v. Magel (2003), 2003 CanLII 18880 (ON CA)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2003/2003canlii18880/2003canlii18880.html), 67 O.R. (3d) 181 (Ont. C.A.). He has limited means. However, ability to pay will be less of a mitigating factor when the impecunious party has acted unreasonably. See: [Gobin v. Gobin, 2009 ONCJ 278](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj278/2009oncj278.html); [D.D. and F.D. v. H.G., 2020 ONSC 1919](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2020/1919).
[28] Those who can least afford to litigate should be most motivated to seriously pursue settlement and avoid unnecessary proceedings. See: Mohr v. Sweeney, 2016 ONSC 3338; [Balsmeier v Balsmeier, 2016 ONSC 3485](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2016/3485).
[29] The court will address the father's financial circumstances by ordering a modest payment schedule for the costs it will order. The father must keep these payments in good standing, or the full amount will become payable.
[30] In determining the appropriate amount of costs, the court should consider the amount that the unsuccessful party could reasonably have expected to pay in the event of lack of success in the litigation. See: [Arthur v. Arthur, 2019 ONSC 938](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc938/2019onsc938.html). The court finds that the father should have reasonably expected to pay the costs that will be ordered.
[31] The father shall pay costs to the mother of $3,500 for her fees and disbursements and another $455 for HST (13%). This comes to $3,955.
---
## Part Five – Mother's Request to Have Costs Payable to Legal Aid Ontario
[32] The mother asks that the costs awarded to her be paid directly to Legal Aid Ontario.
[33] Subsection 12 (1) of the Legal Aid Services Act, 2020, sets out that "the costs awarded in any order made in favour of an individual who has received legal aid services are recoverable in the same manner and to the same extent as though awarded to an individual who has not received legal aid services". A legally aided client "stands before the court in exactly the same position as any other litigant". See: [Baksh v. Baksh, 2017 ONSC 3997](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2017/3997), per Justice Ronald Kaufman.
[34] The case law is well settled that the receipt of legal aid is not a factor in determining costs. See: [Ramcharitar v. Ramcharitar, 2002 CanLII 53246](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2002/2002canlii53246/2002canlii53246.html) (ONSC); [Alvarez v. Smith, 2008 CanLII 10047](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii10047/2008canlii10047.html) (ONSC); [Loncar v. Pendlebury, 2015 ONSC 4673](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2015/4673); [S.G. v. A.S., 2015 ONSC 1882](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc1882/2015onsc1882.html).
[35] If the court should not consider the receipt of legal aid services when assessing costs, it follows that the court should not involve itself in the internal relationship between a litigant and legal aid. See: [Tahir v. Khan, 2019 ONCJ 781](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oncj/2019/781); [Johnston v. Johnston, 2020 ONSC 702](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc702/2020onsc702.html).
[36] Further, as this court set out in [John v. Vincente, 2016 ONCJ 78](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oncj/2016/78) and [Silva v. Queiroz, 2016 ONCJ 599](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oncj/2016/599), it prefers not to become involved in retainer arrangements and make such orders. Also see: [S.O. v. E.A., 2017 ONCJ 564](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oncj/2017/564). This is not and should not be the court's concern.
[37] The mother can execute an irrevocable direction or assignment of costs and deliver it to the father. Since her counsel is employed by Legal Aid Ontario this should not be complicated.
[38] The costs are payable to the mother.
---
## Part Six – Conclusion
[39] The court makes the following orders:
a) The father shall pay the mother's costs of the parenting time issue in the amount of $3,955, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
b) The father may pay the costs at $100 each month, starting on May 1, 2026. However, if he is more than 30 days late in making any payment, the entire amount of costs then owing shall immediately become due and payable.
c) The costs are payable to the mother. However, nothing in this order prevents her from assigning this costs order to Legal Aid Ontario.
---
Released: April 2, 2026
________________________
Justice Stanley B. Sherr
minicounsel