ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-1390-00
DATE: 20120820

BETWEEN:

JANE ELLEN SHAKES Applicant – and – PAUL STEVEN SHAKES Respondent

J. Ironside, for the Applicant, for the (McLeish student-at-law assisting)

K. Kieller, L. Aylwin for the Respondent

HEARD: By written submissions

EBERHARD J.

[ 1 ] I have reviewed the costs submissions of both parties. Their excessive length is noted. That impacts only as an explanation for some weeks going by before I had a chance to take on the review.

[ 2 ] The laborious analysis of offers in comparison to result has not assisted me. They cannot attract formal application because they are not strictly comparable and were laced with acknowledgments that rendered acceptance, by either, quite unpalatable. Each preferred trial to the noxious views underpinning the positions taken by the other.

[ 3 ] My Reasons for Decision departed from the approach taken by either party. In effect it supported the mother’s position on the elements of the Net Family Property issues.

[ 4 ] My Reason for Decision noted the credibility and disclosure concerns in the Respondent Husband’s position.

[ 5 ] For those reasons, the Applicant Mother shall have costs.

[ 6 ] The Bill of Costs submitted by the Applicant Wife was not unreasonable. The deductions I would make in fixing costs, as opposed to assessing them, are measured in light of the steeper Bill of Costs submitted by the Respondent Husband.

[ 7 ] Nevertheless the Applicant Wife must bear some responsibility for the necessity for the trial. It is not entirely one-sided.

[ 8 ] Order to go for costs fixed in favour of the Applicant Wife at $60,000, all in.

EBERHARD J.

Released: August 20, 2012