Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FD-1350/05

DATE: 2013-12-18

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Dimple Sharma, Applicant

AND:

Neeraj Kumar, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice J. W. Sloan

COUNSEL:
David Sherman, for the Applicant

Neeraj Kumar, self-represented

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] In my Judgment I asked the Applicant to, if possible, breakdown her Bill of Costs for the custody issues versus the monetary issues.

[2] Since this was not done I have taken the initiative of dividing the total costs of the Applicant in half and allocating $41,723.21 to each of the categories.

[3] With respect to the issue of custody it is apparent that the Applicant was substantially successful.

[4] What I find disturbing is that she did not reply in writing to the Respondent’s Offer to Settle dated September 16, 2013, where he offered joint custody. This offer was made approximately one month before the scheduled trial.

[5] Had she responded in a timely manner I would have considered awarding her costs at the 80% level as she requested, however because of her lack of response to this offer and the fact that it does not appear that she ever gave a comprehensive written offer on the issue of custody in advance of the trial, I am awarding her 30% of her costs which equals $12,516.96.

[6] With respect to the economic issues, the Applicant has also been substantially successful however again there did not appear to be an offer to settle in accordance with the rules and she is therefore not entitled to substantial indemnity costs.

[7] She is however entitled to partial indemnity costs at 60%, which equals $25,033.93.

[8] The Respondent shall therefore pay costs to the Applicant fixed at $37,550.89.

[9] These costs shall be deducted from any arrears of child support owing by Dr. Sharma to Mr. Kumar but shall not be deducted from ongoing monthly child support.

OTHER MATTERS

[10] Both parties are in agreement that paragraph 38 of my Judgment was incorrect and that the Respondent should receive a credit of $3,045.61. This would reduce the amount owing by Mr. Kumar to Dr. Sharma for the 2013 private school fees from $5,280 to$2,234.39.

[11] I agree with Mr. Sherman, that in an attempt to avoid any future problems with the Family Responsibility Office, that paragraph 3 of his draft order dated November 14, 2013 should be amended to include the sentence “in the event payments by the applicant to the family responsibility office under the previous interim orders in this matter differ from the sum used in this paragraph, ( $22,960.80) the family responsibility office shall adjust their records accordingly so that any underpayment is added to the ongoing support obligations of the applicant and in the alternative any overpayment is deducted".

[12] The accounting in the order will have to be updated to take into account this endorsement.

[13] I agree with Mr. Kumar that the order should be amended to include a paragraph stating that Dr. Sharma shall be responsible for the final bill of Michelle Hayes in the amount of $1,412.50.

[14] I would ask Mr. Sherman to redraft his order and have it approved or commented on by Mr. Kumar and then either send the approved offer to me for my signature or alternatively each party shall send their position on the draft order to me and I will finalize the order.

[15] Since I still have the file in my Chambers the draft order should be sent to my attention at the e-mail set out in my Judgment.

J. W. Sloan J.

Date: December 18, 2013