Haslip v Haslip, 2015 ONSC 199
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: John Haslip, Applicant
AND
Teresa Haslip, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martin James
COUNSEL: Gary Blaney, Counsel for the Applicant
A. Sean Jones, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: Written Submissions
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
James J.
1This costs endorsement relates to a motion for judgment made by the applicant to enforce a contract of settlement.
2The moving party had the benefit of minutes of settlement signed by the respondent and an advice certificate signed by the lawyer who was advising her.
3The respondent opposed the motion on two main grounds:
a) the moving party had failed to make adequate financial disclosure;
b) the respondent had been pressured by her lawyer into signing a document that she had not been able to fully review and that did not reflect the bargain she thought she had made.
4The applicant’s motion did not result in a judgment enforcing the settlement. While the disclosure issue was resolved in his favour, I ordered the trial of an issue to determine if the contract of settlement was valid and enforceable.
5The applicant’s position is that he was successful on a significant issue (the adequacy of disclosure) and thus it cannot be said that the applicant was completely unsuccessful. The applicant says that a decision on costs ought to await the completion of the trial of the issues.
6The respondent says that the applicant was substantially unsuccessful in his motion and having “rolled the dice” and lost, he ought to be required to bear the consequences of his decision.
7The respondent also says that even if she is not entitled to full recovery of her costs because of the disclosure issue, the court has a discretion to award a substantial portion of her costs if she is “largely” successful. (Crawford v Crawford [2001] O.J. 161 (Ont. S.C.J.)
8As a starting point in determining a just disposition regarding costs at this juncture, I think it may reasonably be inferred that the applicant has substantially more financial resources available to him compared to the respondent and because of this, the issue of costs is significantly more valuable to the respondent.
9Other factors come into play as well. While the applicant did not obtain a judgment, the respondent is not “out of the woods” yet. More evidence is required to determine whether the purported agreement ought to be enforced.
10Also, this situation is qualitatively different than most motions for summary judgment. Motions to enforce settlements are relatively uncommon. In the situation the applicant was faced with, he took the most reasonable course of action available to him other than to capitulate completely and agree to a re-opening of all issues. He had an agreement that was signed with the benefit of legal counsel. The applicant had no control over what happened or didn’t happen in Mr. Sinclair’s office the day the deal was made. He was faced with conflicting evidence about what actually transpired. He was successful on the disclosure issue.
11If the respondent is ultimately successful, she will be in a better position to recover her costs of the motion. If the applicant is ordered to pay costs now, even if ultimately successful, that is, the respondent’s allegations are not proved, he will be out of pocket for costs when he acted reasonably.
12In the particular circumstances of this case, I am exercising my discretion not to require payment of costs at this time and will reserve the issue of costs of the motion until after the trial of the issues.
Mr. Justice Martin James
DATE RELEASED: January 13, 2015
CITATION: Haslip v Haslip, 2015 ONSC 199
COURT FILE NO.: FC-09-1655
DATE: January 13, 2015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: John Haslip, Applicant
AND
Teresa Haslip, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martin James
COUNSEL: Gary Blaney, Counsel for the Applicant
A. Sean Jones, Counsel for the Respondent
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
James, J.
Released: January 13, 2015