SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: D 1476-11

DATE: 2014-03-28

RE: Mary Grace Saturnino, applicant

AND: Davide Bruno Martino, respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: Gloria Nardi-Bell for the applicant; Michael T. Chilco for the respondent

HEARD: March 28, 2014 (in writing)

ENDORSEMENT

[1] According to the endorsement of Mr Justice Whitten of October 28, 2013, the parties settled all outstanding issues “except a cost issue.” The applicant moves for costs of one step in the proceeding, which is her motion for child support from March 1, 2013 to date. She asks for full indemnity for about $13,000. The respondent says that the costs were incurred because the applicant was unreasonable and asks for his costs of about $18,000.

[2] On April 22, 2013 the applicant informed the respondent through their counsel that she would not be litigating his income and that she accepted it at $35,000. On August 27, 2013 the applicants lawyer wrote to the respondent’s, saying that the matter of child support would be set down for trial at the November 2013 sittings. By then it was settled, the applicant having accepted the respondent’s proposal to fix both their incomes at a minimum of $35,000, either for two years or indefinitely. I cannot tell from the materials which it was. It matters not.

[3] I have to accept that the $35,000 was a reasonable figure. I do not accept that the applicant was unreasonable in hesitating to settle earlier, although her change of mind was unfortunate. Because of his new partner, the respondent, although making so much less money than he did during the marriage, lives in a large home and makes a point of picking up his children in a Mercedes. This provocative behaviour strikes me as just as likely to have protracted the proceedings as the applicant’s double-mindedness.

[4] In my view each party should bear his and her own costs.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2014-03-28