ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

ST. CATHARINES COURT FILE NO.: 834/09
DATE: 2012-04-02

BETWEE N:

SEAN DOUGLAS WALES

James D. Almas, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

JULIA ALEXANDRIA LYNN WALES

Virginia L. Workman, for the Respondent

Respondent

The Honourable Justice C. A. Tucker

DECISION ON COSTS

The Issue

1The only issue is who bears the costs of this matter and the amount of such costs.

Background

2At trial there were only three issues for the court to decide. The school that Danica would attend, final decision making in health and educational matters, and whether the mother’s maiden name should be added as a middle name to the child’s. I found for the mother in terms of choice of school and final decision making on educational matters. I found for the father in not allowing a name change and by giving him final decision making in terms of medical decisions. The parties had resolved all other matrimonial issues.

Positions of the Parties

3It is Julia Wales’ position that she was the successful party and as such should be entitled to her costs in the amount of $10,628.78. The father Sean Wales resists this claim and suggests that both parties bear their own costs other than the costs incurred as a result of having to make written submissions on the costs issue. Sean Wales claims he should receive his costs for having to make such submissions.

4Although the respondent originally requested costs in the amount of $10,628.78, as set out in her bill of costs attached to her submissions, she later requested two-thirds of that amount as she was successful on two of the three issues in dispute in the trial. The applicant points out that he was successful on the name change issue, and as the “successful” party, pursuant to the Rules, should be entitled or presumed to be entitled to his costs.

Analysis

5It is clear from the lengthy submissions on costs that the parties have very disparate views on almost every issue. Much of the submissions deal with items which were settled before trial. Both parties appear to argue that they are the reasonable party, but it was clear that in terms of litigation both parties have acted unreasonably at times. Julia Wales was successful in her school choice. Sean Wales was successful in resisting the change of name for the child. I made it clear in my decision that either party could have been given final decision making in either education or medical choices so I would not count that as a “success” for either party. The issues were equally important to the parties. Success, I find, was divided and, accordingly, each party shall pay their own costs of the matter, and there shall be no costs arising from these costs submissions.

Tucker J.