SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 402/11
DATE: June 15, 2012

RE: MATTHEW JORDAN RICKER BROWN , Applicant

• and –

CHRISTINE ELIZABETH PARDY , Respondent

BEFORE: JUSTICE ABRAMS

COUNSEL:
LESLEY C. KENDALL , Counsel for the Applicant

CHRIS E. J. ECCLESTONE , Counsel for the Respondent

MOTION HEARD: APRIL 2, 2012

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[ 1 ] The Court heard a motion for increased access on April 2, 2012, brought by the Applicant, Matthew Jordan Ricker Brown (“Mr. Brown”).

[ 2 ] The Respondent, Christine Elizabeth Pardy (“Ms. Pardy”), opposed the relief sought by Mr. Brown.

[ 3 ] Mr. Brown was entirely successful on the motion.

[ 4 ] No offers to settle were exchanged in preparation for the motion for the court to consider under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules .

[ 5 ] The issue pertaining to the parties’ child, Hunter Pardy Brown, born June 4, 2009 (“Hunter”), was not particularly complex, although hotly contested in the context of Ms. Pardy’s mobility claim (proposed move to Alberta), which is proceeding to trial.

[ 6 ] Mr. Brown acted reasonably in making requests for increased time with Hunter by engaging and utilizing counsel. Moreover, he did not resort to self-help remedies.

[ 7 ] Ms. Pardy did, however, take matters into her own hands by leading Mr. Brown to believe that all was well during access exchanges, while she was gathering evidence against him surreptitiously. Further, Ms. Pardy was selective in vetting what video footage she put before the Court on the motion and what footage she held back. Accordingly, I ordered that she produce all of the video footage that she has in her possession and control related to Mr. Brown, together with a complete transcript of every video, at her expense. To that end, I agree with Mr. Ecclestone’s contention that the Order comes with a price tag to Ms. Pardy. Nonetheless, Ms. Pardy’s behaviour in respect of the surreptitious video was unreasonable.

[ 8 ] Ms. Kendall filed a bill of costs totaling $14,878.51, inclusive of disbursements and HST. While the rates charged appear to be appropriate in terms of the seniority and skill level of each individual (lawyers and staff) who worked on the file, the total time expended would appear to be higher than one would expect on a motion of this nature. I would have thought that a figure in the range of $10,000.00 (all inclusive) would represent full indemnity, substantial indemnity $8,000.00 and partial indemnity $6,000.00. And while I might have been inclined to award substantial indemnity in light of Ms. Pardy’s misguided efforts in playing private investigator, I acknowledge that production of the video and transcripts as ordered will no doubt result in additional costs to her.

[ 9 ] In all of the circumstances, and with reference to the factors listed in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, Ms. Pardy shall pay to Mr. Brown the sum of $6,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST, forthwith.

ABRAMS, J.

DATE: June 15, 2012