ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: Page v. Page, 2015 ONSC 35
COURT FILE NO.: 9630/14
DATE: 2015/01/05
B E T W E E N:
Brenda Louise Page
Richard George Page
Daniel G. E. Toppari, for the Applicants
Applicants
- and -
Jennifer Page
Philip M. Sheehan, for the Respondent
Respondent
The Honourable Justice C. A. Tucker
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
Issue
[1] What, if any, costs should be awarded on this motion?
Background
[2] The grandparents once were actively involved in their granddaughter’s life, seeing her on a weekly basis. Just over a year ago, their son, the child’s father, died and since last January access to their granddaughter ceased. The motion was for four hours access on Christmas Day by the grandparents and four hours each week thereafter and, based upon argument and affidavits, I ordered that access be one hour over Christmas on consent and one hour every month thereafter. To assist Lindsay, given the concerns raised in the material filed by her mother, I required that a support person be with her for the visits - I did not make the visits “supervised”.
[3] The applicant seeks costs citing the lack of offers of any time by the respondent, the “surprise” report of Mr. Stukel, and the “major” victory in achieving any access after having none. The costs sought on a partial indemnity basis are $1,500 plus disbursements and HST for a total of $1,747.26.
[4] The respondent’s position is that there should be no order as to costs, since there was “divided” success and the mother was co-operative in agreeing to the terms of the access, to rearrange access if required, and to provide all the transportation for access visits. Further the “late” presentation of the Stukel report arose from a change of lawyers, not a plan to surprise.
Analysis and Decision
[5] From my reading of the conflicting affidavits and the puzzling emails about “controlling/demanding” behaviour and the very strong, albeit unsupported factually, opinion asserted by the therapist, there is much that is not known to the court about this case. A mother allows almost unlimited access to grandparents, then curtails it suddenly and completely for a year without a clear indication of the basis for doing so, albeit raising concerns of use of alcohol and controlling behaviour. The child appears to be thriving despite her new school, new house, the involvement of a boyfriend to her mother, the loss of her father, and no contact with her grandparents with whom she had been closely bonded.
[6] I find costs in the cause to be the appropriate remedy here, where the judge hearing the full evidentiary record can answer at least some of these puzzling questions and determine from that information who should properly bear the costs of this motion.
Tucker J.
Released: January 5, 2015
CITATION: Page v. Page, 2015 ONSC 35
COURT FILE NO.: 9630/14
DATE: 2015/01/05
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Brenda Louise Page
Richard George Page
Applicants
- and –
Jennifer Page
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
Tucker J.
Released: January 5, 2015