Kadri v. Kadri, 2015 ONSC 1561
COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-2037
DATE: 2015/03/12
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: KHOUZAMA KADRI, Applicant
AND
ALI JAMAL KADRI, Respondent
BEFORE: Kane J.
COUNSEL: Khouzama Kadri, Self-Represented
Pacifique Siryuyumusi, counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: By Written Submissions
ENDORSEMENT WITH RESPECT TO COSTS
[1] The respondent seeks costs on a full indemnity scale in the amount of $125,090.
ISSUES
[2] There were multiple issues.
[3] The applicant sought a divorce, spousal support, child support, division of assets as well as ownership and exclusive possession of a condominium in Ottawa.
[4] The respondent sought an order that the divorce of the parties in Lebanon be recognized by this court, dismissal of the support claims and that the applicant vacate the Ottawa condominium.
[5] The central and determining issue was whether this court should recognize a prior divorce of the parties granted in Lebanon which determined the applicant’s entitlement to the relief in this court.
SUCCESS
[6] The respondent was successful on all issues other than one. His request that the applicant be ordered to vacate the Ottawa condominium on the basis that he is the sole registered and beneficial owner thereof was not granted or determined.
COMPLEXITY
[7] As is often the case, determining the validity of this foreign divorce required extensive evidence as to foreign courts, their jurisdiction and procedure. This was not simply a factual dispute.
IMPORTANCE
[8] This proceeding has important financial consequences to each party.
CONDUCT EXTENDING PROCEEDING
[9] The applicant was not always accurate in her presentation of the facts or the events as to the granting of the divorce in Lebanon.
[10] Religious belief, whether Catholic, Anglican or Muslim, often has little relevance to the jurisdiction of a court to interpret and apply the laws of a country as to divorce.
[11] The applicant’s threats of harm towards the respondent and his current wife, although highly improper, were not relevant to the issues nor extended this proceeding.
[12] What may have extended this proceeding is the applicant’s long struggle with depression and her dire financial conditions.
RULE 24 OF THE FAMILY LAW RULES
[13] Presumptively, the respondent under R. 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 is entitled in this case to an award of costs.
[14] Neither party disclosed offers of settlement.
[15] In determining the amount of costs to be awarded, the court is required under R. 24 (11) (f) to consider “any other relevant matter”. There are two additional factors requiring consideration.
[16] The bad faith and unreasonable conduct considerations relied upon by the respondent under R. 24(8) and 24(11) (b) engage consideration of the applicant’s above state of health.
[17] Prior to having children, the applicant was a qualified engineer in Lebanon or Syria. For reasons known to the parties, the applicant stopped working in that field, was not employed and looked after the children.
[18] With the consent or urging of the respondent, the applicant moved to Canada to permit the children to pursue their university education in 2010. The applicant’s capacity to speak English is limited. She now finds herself in a foreign country with limited linguistic skills, without an income, no work experience for over 20 years, dependant on social assistance and potentially forced out of “her” residence in Canada.
[19] Notwithstanding the R. 24 (1) presumption entitling the respondent to costs, these factors must be considered in this cost determination: M. (C.A.) v. M. (D.) (2003), 67 O.R. (3d) 181 (Ont. C.A.), 2003 18880.
[20] The existence and value of property(ies) owned by the applicant in Lebanon and Syria is disputed. The evidence thereon was unclear and not specific.
[21] A party’s health and financial circumstances should not constitute absolute immunity to engage others in expensive litigation lacking of merit.
[22] The respondent is awarded costs herein against the applicant, totalling $1,000, inclusive of HST, payable within eight months of the date of this endorsement.
Kane J.
Released: March 12, 2015
CITATION: Kadri v. Kadri, 2015 ONSC 1561
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: KHOUZAMA KADRI, Applicant
AND
ALI JAMAL KADRI, Respondent
BEFORE: Kane J.
COUNSEL: Khouzama Kadri, Self-Represented
Pacifique Siryuyumusi, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT WITH RESPECT TO COSTS
Kane J.
Released: March 12, 2015