SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 869/06
DATE: 2013-04-09

RE: Amanda Ruth Proulx, applicant

AND: Christian Andrew Proulx, respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL:
The applicant in person

Ms E. Richard for the respondent

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The respondent asks for costs of five motions decided by me on February 21, 2013. The applicant moved unsuccessfully for production and for an invitation to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. The respondent moved unsuccessfully for a temporary change in access to the children and successfully for costs of a previous motion, which had been reserved to me. Proulx v. Proulx, 2013 ONSC 1151. The respondent moved unsuccessfully for an order to compel the applicant to abide by the terms of Rule 20(24).

[2] The applicant’s request for disclosure was unreasonable and unsupported by any facts. The motion to involve the Children’s Lawyer was a tactic designed to draw out the proceedings, postpone any increase in access, and exhaust the respondent. The costs of the earlier motion were awarded to the respondent because the applicant was deliberately uncooperative.

[3] The respondent’s request for a temporary change in access, although unsuccessful, had merit. I denied it because I did not think it best to make a change so close to the trial date. The respondent did not have a chance to make his motion earlier because of various procedural delays, to which the applicant contributed significantly. Her former lawyer’s exercise of the production rights ordered by Scott J. was unreasonably demanding and required a further motion before Walters J.

[4] The husband’s motion to compel compliance with Rule 20(24) was dismissed not because it lacked merit, but because I did not think that an order was necessary at this point. I preferred to deal with the applicant’s conduct by way of a reminder.

[5] Overall, the respondent must be considered the successful party before me and the only party who has acted reasonably. There is no reason why he should not have his costs on a partial indemnity basis. Given the amount of work involved, I fix those costs at $7,000 and order the applicant to pay them forthwith. They may be set off against arrears of spousal support.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2013-04-09