SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FS-14-79780-00
DATE: 2014-06-13
RE: Gurmeet Sandhu v. Harinder Dhaliwal
BEFORE: Lemon, J
COUNSEL:
Bhupinder Nagra, for the Applicant
Barbara Barnett, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 29, 2014
C O S T S E N D O R S E M E N T
BACKGROUND
[1] On May 6, 2014, I released my endorsement with respect to access for the parties’ child, two year old Irwin.
[2] Before the matter was argued before me, the parties had sensibly resolved many of the other issues in the motion. The primary issue for me was to rule on a phasing in process for the access. For the purposes of my costs ruling, I point out two of the paragraphs of that ruling:
[13] As I advised the parties in court, I believe Mr. Dhaliwal is asking for too much access too soon and Ms. Sandhu is suggesting a plan that was too little over too long a time.
[20] There may be factors of which I am not aware that could have an impact on costs. I would say, however, given the difficulty of this issue and the partial success of both parties, I do not see any factors present at this time that would support a costs order.
[3] I have now received the costs submissions from both parties.
[4] Despite my endorsement, Mr. Dhaliwal submits that he was successful and is therefore entitled to costs of $5,465 on a full recovery basis.
[5] In response, Ms. Sandhu submits that there should be no costs or, alternatively, costs to her of $2,904.67 on a full recovery basis.
LEGAL AUTHORITIES
[6] Costs rules are designed to foster three fundamental purposes:
(a) to partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation;
(b) to encourage settlement; and
(c) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants.
(See: Phuong v. Chan 1999 2052 (O.N.C.A.) 1999 46 O.R. (3d) 330.)
[7] Costs awards, at the end of the day, should reflect “what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties”: see Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario 2004 14579 (ON C.A.), (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291, at para. 24.
ANALYSIS
[8] I am not advised of any offer to settle prior to the hearing of the motion. In my view, this is one of those cases that required an objective third party to make a determination. I do not fault either litigant for needing the assistance of the court with this sensitive issue. However, counsel are being unrealistic in suggesting that their client was entirely successful and that they should be entitled to full recovery costs.
[9] As neither party was successful in their request to the Court, I see nothing in the submissions to change my view that there should be no award of costs.
Lemon, J
DATE: June 13, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: FS-14-79780-00
DATE: 2014-06-13
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Gurmeet Sandhu v. Harinder Dhaliwal
BEFORE: Lemon, J
COUNSEL: Bhupinder Nagra, for the Applicant
Barbara Barnett, for the Respondent
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Lemon, J
DATE: June 13, 2014