Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC009-2160

DATE: 2013/12/06

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: O’NEILL ARMSTRONG, Applicant

AND

ANN MARIE ELIZABETH VANNESTE, Respondent

BEFORE: M. Linhares de Sousa J.

COUNSEL:
O’Neill Armstrong, Self-Represented

Ann Marie Elizabeth Vanneste, Self-Represented

HEARD: By Written Submissions

ENDORSEMENT with respect to costs

Endorsement

[1] There were two main issues in this trial. They were (1) the custody of the child Quinn and (2) whether access to his father, Mr. Armstrong, should continue to be supervised. Success on the custody issue was divided. There was an order for the joint custody of Quinn to both his parents. Mr. Armstrong’s access to his son was ordered to continue unsupervised.

[2] With respect to these two issues, it can only be concluded that success was divided on the issue of custody and Mr. Armstrong was completely successful on the question of supervised access. For that reason he should have some contribution to his costs pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.

[3] I cannot find that either party acted in bad faith. However, the mutually unreasonable behaviour of both parties contributed to the high conflict in this matter, contrary to the best interests of Quinn.

[4] There did not appear to be any offers to settle exchanged in this matter.

[5] With respect to the section 24 (11) factors, both these parties had lawyers at the commencement of their proceedings and then began to represent themselves. Both incurred legal fees for this litigation. Neither party could afford this litigation. Mr. Armstrong has been put through much needless litigation in this court and in the criminal courts, where he was completely successful numerous times. While those expenses cannot be considered here for compensation, his expense in those proceedings is a factor to consider regarding his ability to bear costs, his entitlement to costs, and the costs required for him to effectively exercise access to Quinn.

[6] In the final analysis, it would be unfair, in all of the circumstances of this case, to not order some costs in favour of Mr. Armstrong. I therefore fix his costs at $3,000, all inclusive and order Ms. Vanneste to pay those costs forthwith. Any costs which are not paid within 30 days of this endorsement are to be deducted from any arrears of child support owing by Mr. Armstrong to Ms. Vanneste.

M. Linhares de Sousa J.

Released: December 6, 2013

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: O’NEILL ARMSTRONG, Applicant

AND

ANN MARIE ELIZABETH VANNESTE, Respondent

BEFORE: M. Linhares de Sousa J.

ENDORSEMENT WITH RESPECT TO COSTS

M. Linhares de Sousa J.

Released: December 6, 2013