Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Court File No.: FC-12-1089
Date: 20130211

RE: Glenn Edward Currie, Applicant

AND:
Rachel Currie, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice J.R. McCarthy

Counsel:
Counsel, for the K. Keiller
Counsel, for the J.W. Craig

Heard: By written submissions

costs ENDORSEMENT

[1] The motion was heard before me at Barrie on January 17, 2013. The court ordered a shared parenting arrangement on a temporary week about basis. The court further found that income for the purposes of support calculations was $110,096.00, retroactive to March 12, 2012. The court also ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent the sum of $25,000 for expenses.

[2] I have now reviewed the written submissions on costs which included copies of the Rule 19 offers to settle made on January 3, 2013 (Applicant Father’s) and January 14, 2013 (Respondent Mother’s).

[3] The parties admit that there was divided success on the motion. In these instances, Rule 24 (6) invites the court to apportion costs as appropriate.

[4] I am unable to find that either party acted unreasonably. I have taken into account that the Applicant failed to make an offer for expenses under Rule 24 (5) (a). I have also considered that the Applicant was successful on two of the three substantive issues (parenting and quantum of income) while the Respondent was successful on one issue (payment of expenses). Although the Applicant offered more in his offer to settle on the quantum of income/support, he only offered payments retroactive to January 1, 2013, whereas the court ordered support payments retroactive to March 12, 2012. I find, however, that the Applicant has in fact overpaid support for the relevant period on a voluntary basis. Therefore, the retroactivity date should not be relevant to the issue of costs.

[5] I find that the Applicant is entitled to 1/3 of his costs on substantial indemnity basis in light of the offers to settle and the divided, but not equal success on the motion. I accept the time and rates put forward by the Applicant as reasonable. The Court therefore orders that the Applicant recover his costs fixed in the amount of $2,357.91. These costs shall be recovered by way of a credit against any equalization of net family property.

McCarthy J.

Date: February 11, 2013