COURT FILE NO.: FD967/12

DATE: January 14, 2013

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

FAMILY COURT

RE: Angela Hope Lathangue, applicant

AND:

Neil Lathangue, respondent

BEFORE: HENDERSON J.

COUNSEL:
William Clayton, for the applicant

Brenda Barr, for the respondent

HEARD: written submissions filed

ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS

[1] The parties’ motions were heard December 14, 2012 and I rendered my decision December 18, 2012. I requested submissions for costs within 30 days. I have now received those submissions.

[2] The applicant argues that she was more successful and therefore entitled to costs pursuant to r. 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. The respondent argues that there was mixed success and therefore there should be no order as to costs.

[3] I find the respondent to be more persuasive and find there was mixed success. I make no order as to costs.

[4] In terms of what was requested and argued, both parties could claim success, more or less. Both parties obtained preservation orders but not as broad as requested. Both were permitted access to account 5003 for monthly withdrawals but not in the amounts requested. While the applicant’s preservation order is arguably more encompassing to include the respondent’s home, the respondent was allowed to withdraw $200,000 from his half share of 5003 for the purposes of reducing his debt load. However, he did not have recourse to the full extent of his line of credit, Amex and Visa accounts. On balance then, neither party can be said to have been more successful than the other. Therefore, I make no order as to costs.

“Justice Paul J. Henderson”

Justice Paul J. Henderson

Date: January 14, 2013