SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 626-2005
DATE: 20141212
RE: RACHELLE BRISSON, Applicant/Responding Party
AND
STÉPHANE BRISSON, Respondent/Moving Party
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
COUNSEL: Christian Pilon, for the Applicant
Respondent/Moving Party, self-represented
HEARD: by written submissions (L’Orginal)
costs ENDORSEMENT
[1] On October 3, 2014, I dismissed the Respondent/Moving Party, Mr. Brisson’s Motion to Change wherein he sought to terminate his obligation to pay spousal support effective October 6, 2013 or May 31, 2014, or in the alternative, to reduce the amount of spousal support payable by him.
[2] Mr. Brisson was given 20 days to respond to the cost submissions provided by Mrs. Brisson’s counsel to the Court on November 13, 2014. No such response was received.
[3] On October 3, 2014, I found that Mr. Brisson had not produced reliable evidence in support of his alleged medical condition. I also noted that his last financial statement filed with the Court disclosed that he was paying over $900 per month for a vehicle (loan, gas and insurance).
[4] Mrs. Brisson was successful in defending the Motion to Change and she now seeks her costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $6,928.43 plus HST. Her counsel relies on the presumption set out in Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, as well as the factors listed in Rule 24(11).
[5] While the issues were not overly complex, they were of paramount importance to Mrs. Brisson as her sole sources of income are limited to the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security. Mrs. Brisson is 69 years of age and is highly dependent upon the support she receives from Mr. Brisson.
[6] On Numerous occasions, Mrs. Brisson’s counsel has identified the lack of medical evidence in support of Mr. Brisson’s position. Mrs. Brisson granted him additional time to obtain that evidence.
[7] Mr. Brisson unilaterally stopped paying the modest spousal support payment of $396.47 per month even though he continued to make monthly payments for the use and operation of his vehicle totalling $900 per month. He has only made two payments of $120 each in April, 2014 and in May, 2014. Enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) was suspended because of the pending Motion to Change. Spousal support arrears now stand at $5,310.58
[8] The time spent and the hourly rate of $205 is reasonable. Mrs. Brisson’s account now totals $8,944.43 exclusive of HST.
[9] This is a situation where a party has attempted to launch a Motion to Change without the proper evidence. The fact that Mr. Brisson was ultimately self-represented does not excuse him from the need to provide a proper evidentiary footing; that need was repeatedly communicated to him and his previous counsel throughout these proceedings. Mr. Brisson was able to stop the enforcement of ongoing support payments which left Mrs. Brisson with little choice but to hire counsel to defend the Motion which was of critical importance to her.
[10] I dismissed Mr. Brisson’s motion without prejudice to him to bring a motion at a later date on a better affidavit. Mrs. Brisson will no doubt be forced, once again, to incur legal expenses. This Motion to Change has turned out to be a complete waste of her very limited resources. For these reasons, she is entitled to her costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount sought; namely, $6,928.43 plus HST.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: December 12, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: 626-2005
DATE: 20141212
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Rachelle Brisson, Applicant/Responding Party
AND
Stéphane Brisson, Respondent/Moving Party
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
COUNSEL: Christian Pilon, for the Applicant/Responding Party
Respondent/Moving Party self-represented
costs ENDORSEMENT
Beaudoin J.
Released: December 12, 2014