ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FS-10-69075
DATE: 20140318
B E T W E E N:
Fay Evelyn Splett
Self-represented
Applicant
- and -
William Raymond Pearo
Self-represented
Respondent
HEARD: October 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, 2013
COSTS AND PARENTING CO-ORDINATOR ENDORSEMENT
Bielby, J.
[1] My judgment in this matter was released January 13, 2014. The trial took 5 days and the parties represented themselves.
[2] Both parties retained counsel initially and a number of motions were heard over the course of the litigation. Generally costs of each motion are to be addressed at the completion of the motion and I am not aware of any order which put costs of any particular motion over to the trial judge. Accordingly I will only consider costs with respect to the trial and preparation for same.
[3] Both parties at some point in the litigation filed offers of settlement. I find that none of their offers were met and that the terms of the offers were not severable. Further the offers of the respondent were too old to consider as circumstances had changed considerable by the time of trial.
[4] It is quite clear from the judgment that the court had issues with respect to both parties. Mr. Pearo’s position with respect to the retention of a parenting co-ordinator was inexcusable as was the language and bullying exhibited in his emails.
[5] Ms. Splett relentless pursuit for disclosure went well beyond what would be considered reasonable. Further, while she repeatedly asked the court for various relief, she has shown a willingness to simply ignore orders when it comes to access.
[6] Both parties, their attitudes and biases and their relentless need to litigate, lead to, I expect, monumental legal fees.
[7] I find that neither party was sufficiently successful over the other and that, together with the parties conduct throughout this litigation, I am lead to the conclusion that no costs are to be awarded.
[8] I order, the claims of both parties for costs, to this point, are dismissed.
[9] In my judgment I ordered the parties to retain a parenting co-ordinator. I allowed the parties 30 days from the release of the judgement to provide to me names of proposed co-ordinators if they could not agree on one.
[10] I have only received written submissions, on the parenting co-ordinator issue, from the applicant.
[11] This relief had originally been ordered in July, 2012, but was never followed up on for reasons set out in the judgment. At that time the parties had agreed to retain Jackie Van Betlehem who the applicant advises is still prepared to participate.
[12] The applicant has advised that she has provided this information to the respondent together with the name of another co-ordinator, Jan Schloss. The respondent has yet to advise the court if either Schloss or Van Betlehem are acceptable to him, nor has he provided the names of any candidates acceptable to him.
[13] The applicant advises that both she and the respondent have spoken with Jan Schloss and she is hopeful the respondent will sign the joint retainer. She has undertaken to advise the court as to any progress and I await her response.
[14] The respondent has, as noted, not responded within 30 days and I will not accept any written proposals from him on this issue.
Bielby, J.
Released: March 18, 2014