SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
Court File No.: FS-09-67717-00
Date: 2013-10-22
RE: Nicholas Valettas v. Georgina Chrissanthakopoulos
Before: Lemon, J
Counsel:
Michael J. Stangarone, for the Applicant
Rodica David Q. C., for the Respondent
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] On August 9, 2013, I found Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos to be in breach of Justice Mossip’s order that “the parties shall both cooperate with all aspects of Dr. P. Jean Szkiba-Day’s re-integration program”.
[2] Mr. Valettas sought a variety of other orders but was unsuccessful on most of them. Some were adjourned to the trial judge.
[3] Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos also sought a variety of orders but she too was unsuccessful on most of them. Some were adjourned to the trial judge.
[4] The materials filled three bankers’ boxes; the argument was both long and heated.
[5] Based on his overriding success, Mr. Valettas seeks costs in the amount of $33,384.18 on a full recovery basis. He submits that on a partial indemnity basis, costs should be approximately $20,000 and on a substantial indemnity basis, approximately $27,000.
[6] Mr. Valettas seeks full recovery costs because of what he submits to be unreasonable behaviour and bad faith on the part of Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos. In my endorsement, I set out that I could not make that determination and therefore the matter was put over for trial. However, regardless of her intentions, Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos was in breach of the order.
[7] Although the materials were extensive, much of it was unhelpful. In his Bill of Costs, Mr. Valettas claims costs for the preparation of a contempt motion. Given that this was not a contempt motion, that preparation should not form part of the costs. Some of the time was for the preparation of issues that were put over to another day. This costs order will only deal with the issue of Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos’ breach of Justice Mossip’s order and the remedy for that breach. The costs related to all other issues for both parties shall be left to the judge who determines those issues.
[8] In return, Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos submits that there should be no costs order for Mr. Valettas but she seeks costs in the breathtaking amount of $17,799.25 for what became a consent adjournment prior to hearing the motion. Given that request, it certainly appears that she was aware of what the costs might be if she were unsuccessful on the main motion.
[9] I agree that modern costs rules are designed to foster three fundamental purposes:
(a) To indemnify the successful litigant for the costs of the litigation;
(b) To encourage settlements; and
(c) To discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants.
[10] Mr. Valettas has been successful on the most important issue in this step of the proceedings. There were no offers to settle in this acrimonious dispute. Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos has been found to be in breach of a court order and that behavior should be discouraged and sanctioned.
[11] I am not persuaded that there should be any costs awarded to Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos on the adjournment.
[12] Ultimately, I am to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay. Taking all of that into consideration, I find that Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos shall pay costs in the amount of $ 10,000 forthwith.
Lemon, J
DATE: October 22, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: FS-09-67717-00
DATE: 2013-10-22
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Nicholas Valettas v. Georgina Chrissanthakopoulos
BEFORE: Lemon J.
COUNSEL:
Michael J. Stangarone, for Mr. Valettas
Rodica David Q. C., for Ms. Chrissanthakopoulos
ENDORSEMENT
Lemon, J
DATE: October 22, 2013