Ruddle v. Tinman, 2015 ONSC 1060
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Cara Ruddle, Applicant
AND
Jeff Tinman, Respondent
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J.
COUNSEL: B. Johnston, Counsel, for the Applicant
K. Kavanagh, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: by written submissions
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
1The respondent seeks $36,000 in costs following a three day trial in December 2014. This was quite an unusual trial in that the parties had signed partial minutes of settlement addressing almost all of the issues raised in the litigation. Only four disputed issues remained for trial. These issues were narrowly defined for the court’s determination. Nonetheless they were indicative of some serious underlying issues between the parties.
2The trial was also unusual in the sense that in my oral reasons for decision, I advised both parents that I had been very favourably impressed with each of their respective efforts as parents, in their individual ways. For this reason, and because of the fact that I had formed the impression that despite being able to resolve most of their issues, the parents seemed to be “stuck” and perhaps unable to continue their forward movement; I decided to remain seized of the case for one year, and I reserved to myself the entitlement to revise or change the terms of my order during that time period.
3I also directed certain steps to be taken by both parents to address some parenting issues. I required reports to be provided to me, first by the father, at the end of January, and subsequently, joint reports at about two month intervals.
4The respondent says he was the successful party on the four issues that were tried. He was the more successful party, but he was not entirely successful. The applicant had some success with respect to the orders made pertaining to their daughter. The order I made for random alcohol testing was somewhat of a compromise between the parents. The father was in my view successful with respect to midweek access and the March Break issue.
5Neither parent was successful in the sense that I made orders neither had asked for or contemplated. These were designed to address some of the underlying issues, the dynamic between the parents, if I may call it that, that I concluded had prevented them from reaching a complete settlement. In addition, while I do not expect that I will have to do so, I have retained to myself the entitlement to change the terms of my order over the coming year, should I conclude so doing to be necessary in the best interests of the children.
6Both parents were reasonable in their conduct of the litigation. The fees charged by the respondent’s counsel were reasonable. Counsel has also done his best to sever out of the bill of costs fees incurred in relation to the settled issues for which the partial minutes provide there will be no costs.
7For the reasons already given I do not find that the respondent is entitled to full recovery costs. I fix his costs at $15,000 plus the disbursement incurred for the attendance at trial of the custody/access assessor which was $2750. These costs shall be payable by the applicant in monthly installments of $1500.00.
J. Mackinnon J.
Date: February 17, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-0636
DATE: 20150217
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Cara Ruddle, Applicant
AND
Jeff Tinman, Respondent
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J.
COUNSEL: B. Johnston, Counsel, for the Applicant
K. Kavanagh, Counsel, for the Respondent
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
J. Mackinnon J.
Released: February 17, 2015