ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No.: FS-11-71232-00
Date: 20140304
B E T W E E N:
TIMOTHY EDOCHIE OKAFOR
Joan C. Manafa, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
ANNYKA BOWYER-OKAFOR
Respondent
HEARD: November 7, 8, December 4, 2013
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Bielby, J.
[1] The judgment in this matter was released on January 7, 2014. On the issue of costs written submissions were requested within 21 days. I have only received submissions from the applicant who is asking for costs. The court office has attempted to serve the judgment on the respondent. However, her current address is unknown. As a result, the only cost submission received is the applicant’s. I feel it is encumbent on the respondent to advise the Court as to how she can be contacted. She has not done so and I will move ahead on the issue of costs.
[2] The issues litigated were child support, spousal support and the equalization of net family properties. Success on these issues was divided.
[3] With respect to child support, the applicant offered to pay an amount based on an imputed income of $37,500.00. At the time of the trial the applicant testified that he was a recipient of Ontario Works.
[4] After reviewing the evidence I imputed an income of $52,000.00 to the applicant and fixed the child support moving forward.
[5] With respect to the issue of spousal support, the respondent sought spousal support for an indefinite period of time. I decided spousal support was payable but only for a fixed period of time and that any obligation to pay spousal support terminated on December 31, 2013.
[6] The respondent testified she, too, was on Ontario Works, was the primary caregiver to their child and was unable to work, but in the end I attributed an income to her of $21,500.00.
[7] Taking into account the monies paid to the respondent by the applicant since separation whether as support or in regards to household expenses, ultimately I determined there was a set-off and the applicant was not entitled to any credit and the respondent was not entitled to any arrears of support.
[8] On the issue of equalization, I determined that a net figure of $11,659.19 was owed by the applicant to the respondent.
[9] I did find that the respondent failed to fulfill her obligation to provide reasonable disclosure and that with respect to the values attributed to the assets and liabilities, I relied, for the most part, on the evidence of the applicant.
[10] While I appreciated the respondent was representing herself at trial, overall the quality and quantity of her evidence lacked substance.
[11] The applicant seeks costs and provided a bill of costs claiming fees incurred of $27,874.28 and disbursements totally $3,954.40, together with the appropriate HST. Assuming this represents the legal costs paid by the applicant to his counsel, I find the legal fees to be reasonable.
[12] In her submissions counsel for the applicant faults the respondent for the matter taking so long to get to trial and for taking unreasonable settlement positions.
[13] However, I have not been made aware of any formal written offers of settlement made by the applicant, made in a timely manner, which could have addressed these issues.
[14] I agree with the applicant that the trial could have been completed in much less time but took 3 days as a result of the respondent not making adequate child care arrangements. However, I also note she is a single mother on Ontario Works. The respondent’s one witness was the person whom she often uses for child care. I will not penalize the respondent in costs in regards to this issue.
[15] In regards to the motions I will proceed on the basis that the costs of each motion were addressed at the end of the motion. I am not aware of any motion endorsements which put costs over to the trial judge.
[16] With respect to the issues at trial as referred to above, I find the applicant was unsuccessful on the child support issue and that, on balance, the respondent was unsuccessful on the spousal support issue.
[17] With respect to equalization I relied for the most part on the financial information provided by the applicant including his net family property statement although I did not accept all of his numbers and values. The respondent did not file such a statement. The final equalization number was not something put forward by either party and accordingly I find that on this issue, success was divided.
[18] Taking all of this into account I will award costs to the applicant, but for much less than requested. I do this because of the respondent’s failure to disclose and provide the evidence necessary to properly litigate this matter. To some extent the respondent benefited from the efforts of the applicant and his lawyer who provided the financial evidence in regards to the equalization issue. The respondent’s contribution to the equalization calculations was non-existent. She alleged she received and handed over to the applicant a higher insurance award then alleged by the applicant but could not substantiate same nor could she corroborate her alleged contribution to the down payment of a property purchase.
[19] I also have regard for the fact that the respondent is on Ontario Works and except for the award herein, is likely impecunious.
[20] Any costs awarded will be at the partial indemnity scale and will take into account all of the above.
[21] I will award costs of the trial to the applicant. I will allow a fee of $3,500.00, plus H.S.T. of $455.00.
[22] With respect to the disbursement I think the amounts claimed are excessive. I will allow the following disbursements at the amounts shown:
Photocopies
$500.00
2
Paid to Process Servers
$250.00
3
Filing of Divorce Application
$157.00
4
Listing for Trial
$280.00
SubTotal:
$1,187.00
H.S.T. on Item 1 and 2
$97.50
Total
$1, 284.50
[23] I accordingly award cost to the applicant, payable by the respondent in the amount of $5,239.50, all inclusive.
_________________
Bielby J.
Released: March 4, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-71232-00
DATE: 20140304
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
TIMOTHY EDOCHIE OKAFOR
Applicant
- and –
ANNYKA BOWYER-OKAFOR
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Bielby J.
Released: March 4, 2014