CITATION: Schumacher v. Wentzell, 2015 ONSC 2179
COURT FILE NO.: 991-08
DATE: 20150407
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Susan Schumacher
Applicant
– and –
Kent Wentzell
Respondent
Susan Schumacher, self-represented
Grace Sun, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 2, 2015
MacKenzie J.
Costs Endorsement
[1] By endorsement dated February 13, 2015, I dismissed the applicant’s motion to vary the interim order of Price, J. dated July 15, 2014 and granted the respondent’s motion. Both motions dealt with the issue of child support for the 19 year-old daughter of the parties, with particular reference to the obligation of a child support payor in relation to the child’s “gap year” in post-secondary studies.
[2] The details giving rise to the issue are fully set out in the February 13, 2015 endorsement and need not be repeated here.
[3] In paragraph [53] of the February 13, 2015 endorsement, I directed the parties, in default of the agreement on costs issues, to make written submissions.
[4] I have since received the written submissions from counsel for the respondent, responding submissions from the applicant, and reply submissions from counsel for the respondent, all in accordance with the directions in paragraph [53].
[5] The applicant without leave has served and filed an affidavit, presumably by way of surreply to the reply filed by counsel for the respondent. This affidavit essentially seeks to reconstruct the litigation in general and the motions of the parties in particular. It is not helpful to me in fixing costs in accordance with Rule 57.01 (1).
[6] Counsel for the respondent notes that he served an offer to settle on December 9, 2014 on the applicant. Counsel further notes that the offer was more advantageous to the applicant than my decision in that the respondent in that the offer did not seek to have the July 15, 2014 interim child support order of $5,271 credited against any future child support award. In my endorsement dated February 13, 2015, I gave the respondent a credit of $5,271 against the child support order I made, requiring to pay $1,300 per month. Counsel correctly points out that the respondent’s offer stipulated $1,263 per month, which amount is $37 per month less. This difference does not detract from the result achieved under my award, considered in its entirety.
[7] On this basis, counsel for the respondent submits the respondent is entitled to seek and obtain a costs award on a substantial indemnity basis.
[8] Counsel has submitted a bill of costs setting out fees totalling $11,450 plus HST of $1,449.18 and disbursements totalling $434.08 plus HST of $56.4: the grand total of the claimed costs is $13,087.19.
[9] In support, counsel has filed detailed time dockets describing the nature of the work, the member of counsel’s firm who did the work and time expended by the member who did the work.
[10] I accept the submissions of counsel for the respondent. The allocation of work between counsel and other members of the law firm is reasonable. The complexity of the proceeding and the importance of the issues have been properly addressed and dealt with by counsel for the respondent.
[11] In any event, the costs consequences of the applicant’s failure to accept the offer to settle are set out in r. 49.10.
[12] For the above reasons, I fix the respondent’s costs at $12,000, all inclusive, payable forthwith by the applicant.
Justice A.D.K. MacKenzie
Released: April 7, 2015
CITATION: Schumacher v. Wentzell, 2015 ONSC 2179
COURT FILE NO.: 991-08
DATE: 20150407
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Susan Schumacher
-and-
Kent Wentzell
costs endorsement
MacKenzie J
Released: April 7, 2015