ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 09-43524
DATE: 2014-02-20
B E T W E E N:
KELLY JANE DENOMME
Pamela L. Hebner, for the Plaintiff, Kelly Jane Denomme
Applicant
- and -
COREY WILSON MCARTHUR
Anna L. Towlson, for the Defendant, Corey Wilson McArthur
Defendant
COSTS RULING
PARAYESKI, J.
[1] I have carefully considered the written costs submissions that I had requested in the unfortunately predictable event that the parties could not agree upon costs. I have similarly reviewed the offers to settle contained within the submissions and compared them with my various trial rulings released in writing. I have re-read the provisions of Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.
[2] At the end of the process described above, I formed the view that the wife is entitled to her costs at the partial indemnity scale up to the date of her offer to settle (December 23, 2010), and on the substantial indemnity scale thereafter.
[3] While it would be inaccurate to say that the wife won on every single issue at trial, she did receive rulings that were the same or better than the terms of her offer to settle. Using the hindsight that is part of the analysis of costs, the husband ought to have accepted her offer.
[4] That said, I am not prepared to fix the costs at the levels requested by the wife’s counsel. My review of the accounts which are the rationalized basis for the bill of costs reveals what I consider to an excessive hourly rate for a clerk and some lack of meaningful detail in attendance particulars throughout. In addition, I consider that some trial time was unnecessarily spent by the wife in addressing the husband’s credibility. As is apparent from my reasons, that issue was very important. However, a good deal of trial time was invested in going well beyond what was necessary or prudent. To some degree, the end appeared to be embarrassing the husband rather than addressing the issue of his credibility.
[5] Counsel for the husband has thoughtfully provided a breakdown of her own fees and disbursements as part of her submissions on costs. It indicates to me that the costs claim being made by the wife is not manifestly unexpected from the husband’s perspective.
[6] I consider the claimed disbursements to be reasonable under the circumstances.
[7] Taking all of this into consideration, I fix the wife’s costs at $80,000.00 inclusive of taxes for fees, plus $8,981.02, inclusive of taxes, for disbursements.
[8] The wife asks that, in addition to fixing costs, I deem a portion of the costs to be related to support issues. If so deemed, the relevant costs are both protected in the event of bankruptcy and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.
[9] I consider the request to be reasonable, but I am unable to agree with the suggestion that 35 percent of the trial was dedicated to addressing support issues. Twenty-five percent is more realistic, and that is the percentage I so deem.
[10] Lastly, I note that the parties cannot agree upon whether the wife has paid the $5,000 in interim costs awarded by Justice Hambly. Surely whether or not that payment has been made is something that is readily proven. If the payment has not been made, obviously the husband is to receive credit for the same.
PARAYESKI, J.
Released: February 20, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: 09-43524
DATE: 2014-02-20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
KELLY JANE DENOMME
Applicant
- and –
COREY WILSON MCARTHUR
Defendant
COSTS RULING
PARYESKI, J.
MDP:mw
Released: February 20 , 2014