COURT FILE AND PARTIES
COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-2943
DATE: 2013-07-02
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kerrie-Lynn Simper (Grison), Applicant
And
Michel Grison, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice Julianne Parfett
COUNSEL: Richard P. Bowles, for the Applicant
Defendant is self represented
HEARD: By written submissions
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
[1] The parties were unable to settle the issue of costs and the matter has been remitted to me for decision. The Applicant’s lawyer provided written submissions. Efforts were made to contact the Respondent and he was advised by email that his submissions were overdue. However, the Respondent has not responded and consequently, this decision is proceeding without input from him.
[2] Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, there is a presumption that the successful party is entitled to the costs of the motion. In this case, the Applicant was wholly successful and she requests her costs.
[3] The factors that I am required to consider on the issue of costs are found at Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and they are as follows:
a. the importance, complexity or difficulty of the issues;
b. the reasonableness or unreasonableness of each party’s behaviour in the case;
c. the lawyer’s rates;
d. the time properly spent on the case, including conversations between the lawyer and the party or witnesses, drafting documents and correspondence, attempts to settle, preparation, hearing, argument, and preparation and signature of the order;
e. expenses properly paid or payable; and
f. any other relevant matter.
[4] I have reviewed the Applicant’s Bill of Costs and have fixed her costs on the basis that she is entitled to partial indemnity. An offer to settle was sent to the Respondent, but it was not one that complied with Rule 18 of the Rules and it has not, therefore, been taken into consideration. This matter was one of moderate complexity and had some considerable importance to the parties themselves, although not to the public as a whole.
[5] I note that the Court is not required to simply accept the Bill as presented, and although I am not second guessing the work of counsel, it appeared that some of the time spent in preparation for the motion was somewhat high and went beyond what is a fair and reasonable amount that the losing party should pay (see Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, 2002 25577 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 4495).
[6] Consequently, having considered the various factors set out in the submissions of counsel, and the factors enumerated in Rule 24(11) and I have assessed the costs of this matter in the sum of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Madam Justice J. Parfett
Date: July 2, 2013
COURT FILE AND PARTIES
COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-2943
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Kerrie-Lynn Simper (Grison), Applicant
And
Michel Grison, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice Julianne Parfett
COUNSEL: Richard P. Bowles, Counsel, for the Applicant
The Defendant is self represented
ENDORSEMENT
Madam Justice Julianne Parfett
Released: July 2, 2013