ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 42346-08
DATE: February 7, 2012

BETWEEN:

Mark Fretwurst Applicant – and – Jan Fretwurst Chaplin Respondent

Theodore C. Dueck, for the Applicant

David Thrasher, for the Respondent

ruling on costs

1In my reasons of July 21, 2011, on the motion argued May 13, 2011, I concluded that the Applicant had a measure of success and subject to any offers in that regard ought to be entitled to costs of the motion.

2I have been informed by the parties that there are no relevant Offers to Settle.

3The successful Applicant husband has submitted a Costs Outline in respect of the motion which seeks payment of $25,403.80 on a full indemnification basis. In the alternative he sets out a total of $18,336.78 for his costs claim.

4The Respondent wife’s position is that the Bill of Costs is excessive and that costs should only be awarded on a partial indemnity scale.

5Counsel for the wife argues that the cross-examination of the Applicant by him took place on March 18, 2011 and only took two hours while Mr. Dueck’s cross-examination of Ms. Chaplin consisted of cross-examination on her Financial Statement and Affidavit in opposition to the motion, combined with a continuation of questioning as to other unrelated issues. Accordingly that examination took place over two days on March 1 and 2, 2011. But Mr. Thrasher says it only should have lasted one half day.

6The total time logged by Mr. Dueck for the preparation for cross-examination of Ms. Chaplin and attendance at her cross-examination took 8.5 hours.

7Mr. Thrasher does not complain about Mr. Dueck’s rates.

8I would point out that Mr. Thrasher did not deliver to me as required the Respondent’s Costs Outline. He simply delivered a two page letter containing submissions.

9There has to be some balance and limitation of these matters in the middle of a case. This motion was about the continuation of support following the original order of Justice Whitten in that regard. What I did was to make a “weaning order” which effectively ended at the date of the argument of the motion.

10I remind myself that costs of the successful party ought to be reasonable and be based on the reasonable expectations of the losing side.

11I agree with Mr. Thrasher that there is nothing in this case that would take the rate from partial indemnification to substantial or full indemnification and I agree with him as well that at most one half day ought to have been allowed for the cross-examination of Ms. Chaplin by Mr. Dueck.

12Mr. Thrasher did not complain about the disbursements set out on the Bill of Costs of the winning Applicant.

13In my view a fair and reasonable amount for the costs of the Applicant succeeding on this motion ought to be $16,000, all inclusive. I would accordingly order that amount to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant.

P. J. Flynn J.