Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-1157
DATE: 20130104
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: GERARDINE DOYLE, Applicant
AND
BRIAN DOYLE, Respondent
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J.
COUNSEL:
H. Hunter Phillips, for the Applicant
Diana Carr, for the Respondent
HEARD: By Written Submissions
ENDORSEMENT regarding costs
[1] Both parties have sought costs of this motion and cross motion heard on November 15, 2012. The applicant seeks $18,500.00 as an all-inclusive amount on a partial recovery basis. The respondent seeks $7,500.00 on the same basis. This is not a case where the provisions of Family Law Rule 18(14) apply to the offer of either party.
[2] Based on the rulings made on the motions, the applicant was the successful party. She obtained orders for child and spousal support and she successfully resisted the respondent’s motion for an order for sale of the matrimonial home. The respondent had some success in relation to issues such as hockey and tutoring expenses for their son. It is also correct that the applicant did not receive the full amount of child support that she was seeking on account of the period of time when their daughter is in residence with the applicant.
[3] Both parties point to certain aspects of the other’s conduct as relevant in relation to costs. It is clear that they disagreed on a variety of points but I do not find unreasonable or bad faith conduct here that should impact on the amount of costs.
[4] The key issue was the amount of support to be paid by the respondent. The result of the order I made is that the net cost to the respondent will be $3,665.00 per month and the net benefit to the applicant will be $3,868.00 per month. By comparison, the net cost/benefit of the respondent’s offer was $2,664.00/$2,765.00 per month. The net cost/benefit of the applicant’s offer was $3,740.00/$3,952.00 per month. Accordingly, the applicant was also the more successful party in comparison to the Offers to Settle exchanged between the parties.
[5] Interestingly, after service of the motion materials, the respondent did begin to deposit $3,800.00 into the joint account for the applicant’s use at the end of every month. He relies on this to suggest that the motion was unnecessary. I would agree with that submission had he offered to continue to do so; but his offer was for a lessor amount.
[6] Accordingly, I find the applicant is entitled to costs of the motion on a partial recovery basis. The issues in the motion were not complex. The hourly rate charged by applicant’s counsel to his client ($450.00) is justifiable based on his experience and skill; however I find it high in relation to the nature of the issues raised by these motions when considered in the context of a reasonable amount of costs to be paid by the opposing party on a partial recovery basis.
[7] The fees claimed included those for the applicant’s counsel to consult with her and her former lawyer, at the client’s request, on matters of strategy. I do not regard that as a cost within the reasonable contemplation of the respondent or one which he should be required to contribute to, especially having regard to counsel’s seniority.
[8] Oral argument required less than a half day, although counsel were in attendance for approximately five hours. Neither counsel prepared a factum. Counsel were required to do some additional work for me after release of my initial Endorsement. I find that five hours is sufficient time to allow for that in fixing these costs.
[9] Having regard to these factors and considerations, I fix the applicant’s costs of the motions at $15,000.00 on an all-inclusive basis for fees, disbursements and applicable taxes. The costs are payable within 60 days.
J. Mackinnon J.
Date: January 4, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-1157
DATE: 20130104
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: GERARDINE DOYLE, Applicant
AND
BRIAN DOYLE, Respondent
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J
COUNSEL:
H. Hunter Phillips, for the Applicant
Diana Carr, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT regarding costs
J. Mackinnon J
Released: January 4, 2013