SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-71346-00
DATE: 20120501

RE: Sharon Helena Kerr (applicant)

v.

Kenton Phillips Taylor (respondent)

BEFORE: Durno J.

COUNSEL:
Abba Chima, for the applicant, Sharon Helena Kerr
Orlando Santos, for the respondent, Kenton Phillips Taylor

C O S TS E N D O R S E M E N T

[ 1 ] I have reviewed and considered counsels’ detailed costs submissions and additional issues raised in their written materials. First, addressing the effective date of the orders, while the applicant’s submissions regarding the date are not without merit, the expenses were incurred from October 1, 2011, and that is the effective date of the order.

[ 2 ] Second, in relation to the applicant’s final submission to, in effect, reconsider and change the order made in regards to her income, the request is improper and should not have been included in costs submissions.

[ 3 ] Third, with respect to costs, I have considered all of the circumstances and applied Rule 24 of the Family Court Rules. Determining the support orders was important to the respondent and Chantelle. However, the issues were neither complex nor difficult. What resulted in the respondent having an opportunity to file additional material in relation to Chantelle’s finances was the inadequate information he filed before the motion date. When given that opportunity, the respondent filed material that substantially conflicted with the original material. In addition, the respondent determined that in the face of a consent disclosure order he would ignore his obligations and only disclose his tax assessment on the eve of the motion.

[ 4 ] The applicant’s cross-motion to strike the pleadings was without merit given the casual approach adopted by both parties to the mutual consent disclosure order. The second aspect of the cross-motion, for a further disclosure date, while successful, did not result in the opportunity to provide more information in relation to Chantelle. Neither issue complicated the motion to any significant extent.

[ 5 ] The actions of the respondent have been canvassed above. As noted in the reasons, the applicant raised an issue that was based on speculation - that Chantelle was not in full-time attendance at school.

[ 6 ] Neither counsel disputes the rates provided. Nor is any issue taken with the expenses.

[ 7 ] I also take into consideration the following factors. First, the respondent was successful but not to the extent he sought. The percentage of income for the s. 7 expenses was significantly different than what he requested. Second, this was a regular motion, one to be argued in less than one hour. The inadequacies in the respondent’s material necessitated further written submissions in order to determine the issues. Third, I have considered the offers to settle, albeit they were exchanged without full disclosure. Fourth, the amount the applicant is required to pay monthly must be considered.

[ 8 ] While I have considered the applicant’s request for costs, I am not persuaded this is a case that merits costs to the largely unsuccessful party. However, all the circumstances persuade me the costs order should be significantly less than that sought by the respondent.

[ 9 ] Costs are payable by the applicant in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST. I am not prepared to direct the costs be payable and enforceable as child support. There is nothing on this record to warrant that order. The costs shall be paid by the applicant within 6 months of today’s date.

[ 10 ] Pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, S.O. 1996, c. 31 , a support deduction order must issue. While Ms. Chima’s submissions regarding the necessity might be compelling, there is no discretion whether to issue the order.

Durno J.

DATE: May 1, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-71346-00

DATE: 20120501

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Sharon Helena Kerr (applicant) v. Kenton Phillips Taylor (respondent) BEFORE: DURNO J. COUNSEL: Abba Chima, for the applicant, Sharon Helena Kerr Orlando Santos, for the respondent, Kenton Phillips Taylor COSTS ENDORSEMENT Durno J.

DATE: May 1, 2012