Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Citation: Ali v. Williams-Cespedes, 2015 ONSC 4653

Court File No.: FC-13-1182-00

Date: 2015-07-20

Re: Tahir Ali, Applicant And: Adriana Williams-Cespedes, Respondent

Before: The Hon. Madam Justice S.E. Healey

Counsel: Applicant, Self-Represented J. Biggar, for the Respondent

Heard: By written submissions

Costs Endorsement

[1] This is the endorsement on costs following the trial of this matter (Ali v. Williams-Cespedes, 2015 ONSC 3560).

[2] The parties were directed to file written submissions on costs following the release of the Reasons for Judgment; the applicant declined to do so.

[3] The applicant’s financial claims were struck at the outset of trial due to the failure to comply with orders, but he was permitted to participate in the issues of custody and access. The trial proceeded on the issues of custody, access and child support. Each of these was decided in accordance with the relief sought by the respondent.

[4] The respondent made an Offer to Settle dated May 5, 2015. Overall, that Offer to Settle was less favourable to the respondent than the results that she achieved at trial. I agree with the analysis set out in the respondent’s counsel’s written submissions and adopt them in this endorsement. Accordingly, the respondent will be entitled to her costs on a partial indemnity basis from April 26, 2015 to May 6, 2015, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

[5] Having regard to the factors in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the issues in this case were important ones of custody and child support, and made more difficult given the applicant’s failure to provide the ordered disclosure, especially given that he is self-employed. Further, the applicant’s behaviour was not reasonable in this proceeding, given that he took unreasonable positions with respect to custody and failed to follow multiple court orders, as well as the trial management endorsement. This caused additional difficulty for the respondent’s trial preparation given the uncertainties presented by the applicant’s refusals to provide financial information. The respondent, on the other hand, behaved reasonably throughout the proceeding and provided a reasonable Offer to Settle that was rejected by the applicant.

[6] The respondent’s lawyer’s rates are reasonable given her years of experience, being an actual rate of $225 per hour.

[7] The parties attended two trial management conferences, the first being adjourned after an order was made regarding disclosure required for trial. The next step would have been an exit pre-trial, however, the applicant did not respond to the trial co-ordinator’s attempts to confirm his availability for same. Nonetheless, the respondent’s counsel prepared a brief in order to be ready for such an exit pre-trial. The respondent properly brought a motion to strike the applicant’s claims in the face of his non-disclosure. The time spent on all steps in the proceeding is not excessive.

[8] The disbursements set out in the respondent’s Bill of Costs are reasonable and appropriate, and necessarily incurred.

[9] Having reviewed the respondent’s Bill of Costs and taking into account the reasonable expectations of Mr. Ali, who would have received warnings from the presiding judge during the trial management conferences about the costs consequences of proceeding to trial, and being deemed to know the Family Law Rules, I find that the costs claimed for the case are what he could anticipate paying if his claims were unsuccessful.

[10] Accordingly, this court orders that the applicant shall pay the respondent her costs of this case fixed in the amount of $30,864 inclusive.

HEALEY J.

Date: July 20, 2015