SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 10-44581
DATE: 2013-07-03

RE: Ruben Yousuf, Applicant

and

Shabiha Sheela Kazi, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice R.D. Reilly

COUNSEL: Michael D. Lannan, for the Applicant
Anna Towlson, for the Respondent

ruling on COSTS

by the honourable mr. justice r.d. reilly

[1] The parties each brought interim motions before the Honourable Mr. Justice G.A. Campbell, which motions were heard on 23 June 2011. Campbell J. directed that the costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge. The respondent/wife was largely successful on the motion. I consider that success and the costs of the motion largely in the context of the results of the trial before me.

[2] The respondent/wife is claiming costs based upon her success at trial of $68,426.93 on a substantial indemnity basis and $45,972.93 on a partial indemnity basis. The applicant/husband submits that success at trial was divided and pleads that each party should bear his or her own costs.

[3] I conclude that on the principal substantive issues determined at trial it could be said that the respondent/wife was almost completely successful. These issues include custody of the children, Rowan and Sohan. The respondent/wife was granted sole custody. She also was awarded a quantum of child support and indefinite spousal support that was greater than the applicant/husband was prepared to agree to.

[4] There was divided success with respect to the issue of equalization of net family property. Given the absence of concrete evidence on the issue, both parties were essentially permitted to keep the relatively modest property they had in their possession.

[5] By my recollection, the trial occupied some nine days, or portions thereof. However, much of that time was occupied by the respondent/wife’s attempt to claim equalization of what she maintained was the applicant/husband’s property in Canada or in Bangladesh. Her claims were not substantiated by any concrete evidence, or related to alleged property to which she did not have a clear claim in any event. In my view, much of the time at trial accomplished very little. I would emphasize that both counsel worked diligently and in accordance with the highest professional standards. The problem in this case was that the court was dealing with a marriage of brief duration, which was problematic and to some extent dysfunctional from the onset.

[6] In all the circumstances, I discount the respondent/wife’s claim for costs that at trial related to her claim for equalization of the applicant/husband’s property. I direct that the applicant/husband shall pay costs to the respondent/wife set at $22,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes. Given the applicant’s obligations regarding child and spousal support, I direct that $11,000.00 of those costs shall be payable within six months of publication of this ruling and the entire costs shall be payable within ten months of publication of this ruling. Since this action largely focused on child custody and support, the Director of the Family Responsibility Office shall have authority to enforce this ruling.

[7] With this acrimonious litigation now behind them, it is hoped that the parties, even if communication is difficult, will be able to cooperate to ensure that Rowan and Sohan will be able to have a mother and father who will play a full and nurturing role in their lives.

[8] In re-reading my judgment, I noted that all details were not published. It was my intention that the applicant/father’s support obligations (child and spousal) would become effective as of 1 June 2013 and on the 1st of every month thereafter, and that an SDO would issue. If any further clarification is necessary, counsel may approach me for such clarification.

R.D. Reilly J.

Released: July 3, 2013