SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: FS-14-13

DATE: 2014-02-13

RE: H.E., Applicant

and

M.M., Respondent

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

COUNSEL:
Tiffani A. Frederick, for the Applicant/Responding Party
Rick Pettica, for the Respondent/Moving Party

ruling as to costs

by the honourable mr. justice r.d. reilly

Reasons for Decision

[1] By this motion, the respondent/moving party sought various forms of relief. In effect, all this relief was granted by this court as detailed in my ruling and order dated 25 November 2013. I further directed that if counsel were unable to agree on costs they were to make brief written submissions to be directed to me in chambers by close of business on January 3, 2014. Counsel for the respondent did indeed make such submissions. Counsel for the applicant failed to make cost submissions until 10 February 2014. Notwithstanding the late filing, I have carefully considered applicant’s counsel’s submissions as they relate to costs of the motion.

[2] The court is mindful of Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules governing the awarding of costs, and in particular, subrule (11). I have considered all these factors in this case.

[3] I note that the moving party-respondent made two offers to settle, on 17 July 2013 and on 29 August 2013.

[4] Both offers were more or less consistent with the result obtained by the respondent from the court, by the ruling of 25 November 2013. If accepted, they would have made the motion unnecessary. At the very least, they could have led to constructive dialogue between counsel to resolve the issues debated on the motion. In sum, I conclude the position taken by the moving party was reasonable and the position taken by the applicant/responding party was less than reasonable.

[5] In the normal course, the respondent/moving party is entitled to his costs of the motion. The quantum of those costs is still in the discretion of the court. I have no criticism of the bill of costs submitted by the respondent. However, I conclude that much of the work done may well be related to the litigation between the parties beyond the relatively narrow issues involved in this motion. Some of this work may well be claimed as costs from a trial judge if the litigation goes forward and the respondent is ultimately successful.

[6] The issues involved in this motion were relatively narrow. In all candour, I did not view them as terribly complex or challenging. In all the circumstances, I feel it appropriate to direct that the applicant/responding party shall pay to the respondent/moving party costs of this motion on a partial indemnity basis set at $36,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

[7] I am mindful of the applicant/responding party’s financial situation. It is regrettable that she did not adopt a more reasonable approach to these issues from the onset. Mindful of her financial situation, I directed she shall pay the costs I have directed “in any event of the cause”. Lest there be some misunderstanding, my intention is that the costs order shall be payable at the end of the litigation. It is my hope that this order may in some way encourage a resolution of the still-outstanding issues.

R.D. Reilly J.

Released: February 13, 2014