Jeffries v St. Germain, 2015 ONSC 618
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Ryan Patrick Jeffries
AND: Trista Sara St. Germain
BEFORE: Justice J. S. Fregeau
COUNSEL: Bradley A. Smith, Counsel for the Applicant
Paul Lesarge, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: Written Submissions
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
1In paragraph 64 of my Reasons on Motion released December 5, 2014, I indicated that the Respondent (the “mother”) had been successful on the motion and was presumptively entitled to her costs. I further indicated that if the parties could not resolve the issue of costs they were to file written submissions on the issue. This decision was released to counsel by fax on December 5, 2014. Receipt was confirmed.
2The mother’s written submissions were to be filed within 21 days of the release of the decision on the motion. The mother’s costs submissions were therefore to have been filed on or before December 26, 2014. The 26th of December 2014 was a holiday and a Friday. The mother’s costs submissions should therefore have been filed, at the latest, on December 29, 2014.
3On January 9, 2015, at 4:40 pm, counsel for the mother faxed a copy of his Bill of Costs to my attention at the Superior Court of Justice in Thunder Bay. The cover letter accompanying the mother’s Bill of Costs advised that counsel “missed the fax receipt of the Reasons for Judgement” and did not become aware of the December 5, 2014 decision, and the deadline for costs submissions, until he filed his Settlement Conference Brief on December 31, 2014.
4Counsel is apparently requesting an extension of the deadline for the mother’s costs submissions. This cover letter was not provided to counsel for the Applicant (the “father”) until Mr. Lesarge was directed by me to send a copy to Mr. Smith.
5Mr. Smith has now filed a response. The father submits that the mother made no effort to settle the issue of costs prior to submitting her Bill of Costs. In essence, the father submits that the mother’s lack of response or late response to the issue of costs of the motion is endemic of the mother’s conduct throughout the course of litigation.
6The father provides the following as examples in support of this submission:
The mother has failed to honour the temporary order of Pierce J. dated September 3, 2013 by refusing to vary the father’s access schedule when then the father’s work schedule changes;
The mother has failed to abide by disclosure orders made by Shaw J. at the Case Conference held August 26, 2013;
The mother delivered her affidavit of documents three months late. When delivered it was deficient in several material respects;
The mother was non-responsive when the father attempted to schedule questioning;
The mother has not complied with undertakings given at questioning on October 8, 2014.
7The father submits that he has been prejudiced by the manner in which the mother conducts herself in these proceedings. It is suggested that the mother’s failure to abide by the court’s direction as to costs submissions is just the latest in a long string of examples in which the mother breaches either court orders or the Family Law Rules.
8In these circumstances, the father submits that the mother should not be granted an extension to file her costs submissions.
9It is appropriate that counsel for the respondent be given an opportunity to reply to Mr. Smith’s Submissions on costs. Mr. Lesarge shall serve and file his reply on or before February 6, 2015.
Justice J. S. Fregeau
Date: January 27, 2015
CITATION: Jeffries v St. Germain, 2015 ONSC 618
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-199
DATE: 2015-01-27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Ryan Patrick Jeffries
Applicant
- and –
Trista Sara St. Germain
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
Fregeau, J.