ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No.: FS-09-67548-00
Date: 20120327
BETWEEN:
WENBIN MA APPLICANT – and – HONG LU RESPONDENT
In person
Haiyun Wang, for the Respondent
C.J. CONLAN, J.
[ 1 ] Wenbin Ma and Hong Lu were married, are now divorced, and currently are not fond of each other. They share a daughter who has a bright future ahead of her. That young lady needs to be the priority going forward.
[ 2 ] This decision on costs follows the Trial of this matter in Brampton and my Reasons for Judgment, which ordered Mr. Ma to pay child support, including arrears and section 7 expenses, in addition to dealing with the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.
[ 3 ] Ms Lu was successful at Trial, although not to the extent that was argued by her counsel in closing.
[ 4 ] The Court has received and reviewed brief written costs submissions on behalf of Ms Lu including a Bill of Costs. Mr. Ma, self-represented, filed nothing.
[ 5 ] Ms Lu seeks a costs award of $24,128.83 on a substantial indemnity scale, to be paid out of Mr. Ma’s share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home. Alternatively, she seeks $18,446.81 on a partial indemnity scale, all-in.
[ 6 ] Ms Lu submits that Mr. Ma’s conduct throughout the proceeding has been unreasonable. Except with regard to his failure to provide certain financial disclosure, I disagree. Mr. Ma represented himself quite well at the Trial, with the assistance of Mandarin interpreters. He readily conceded several times his obligation to pay child support. Further, he was a much better witness than Ms Lu, who had difficulty answering the most basic questions and engaged in lecturing and posturing throughout her testimony.
[ 7 ] Ms Lu submits that she attempted to streamline the Trial. I agree that she did in that she did not claim damages for having been assaulted by Mr. Ma or spousal support.
[ 8 ] Ms Lu submits that she did better after Trial than what she offered to settle for. The problem is that the Court was not provided with the Offer to Settle, nor was the Court given enough information about the Offer to determine if it is a proper one under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules. Thus, this Court cannot impose on Mr. Ma the full costs consequences as provided for in the said Rule.
[ 9 ] I have reviewed carefully the Bill of Costs submitted by Ms Lu. I have considered the general principles of costs in an effort to impose an award that is fair, just and reasonable in all of the circumstances. I must also keep in mind that my Reasons for Judgment outline some fairly onerous child support payments that Mr. Ma is responsible for.
[ 10 ] This Court Orders that Mr. Ma pay to Ms Lu the total sum of $18,000.00, all-inclusive, for costs.
[ 11 ] This Court Orders that the said award be paid out of Mr. Ma’s share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home. If those proceeds have already been paid out, then the $18,000.00 shall be paid by Mr. Ma on or before May 1, 2012.
[ 12 ] I wish the parties best success in the future, and I encourage them to cooperate with each other for the sake of their daughter.
The Honourable Mr. Justice C.J. Conlan
Released: March 27 th , 2012
COURT FILE NO.: FS-09-67548-00
DATE: 20120327
WENBIN MA APPLICANT – and – HONG LU RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT RE COSTS
Released: March 27, 2012