Plugers v Krasnay, 2015 ONSC 8

COURT FILE NO.: 7474/13

DATE: 2015-01-02

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Scott Plugers - Applicant

AND:

Mary Krasnay - Respondent

BEFORE: James W. Sloan

COUNSEL: Ashley Gibson - Counsel, for the Applicant

Peter M. Callahan & A. Valova - Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: October 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 & December 4 & 5 of 2014

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] As stated in the judgment of this matter, this trial essentially involved a claim by the applicant father for unsupervised access and to a lesser extent for some form of joint custody/decision making to the child of the parties, Brayden Michael Plugers who was born on January 10, 2013.

[2] To suggest that success was divided in any meaningful way, is simply incorrect.

[3] Before any evidence was called, the court informed the parties in general terms, that it was highly unusual to have supervised access particularly at a commercial establishment 18 months after separation.

[4] The court strongly suggested mediation, which the parties attempted and later, on at least two occasions, advised the party that a mid-trial settlement conference could be arranged before a different judge. This never took place.

[5] During the trial the court kept waiting for the type of evidence which it would require before it would order the applicant to continue with supervised access. No such evidence was raised either in cross-examination of the applicant’s witnesses nor given by the respondent’s witnesses.

[6] The court views this case as one that, objectively, could and should have been resolved without a trial. While in some cases it is a difficult for a new mother to be objective, the respondent certainly had several people around her that she could turn to for advice.

[7] This 8 day trial, commenced and preceded to its end, because of the respondent’s dictatorial “my way or the highway” approach to the respondent’s access to their son. Given the respondent’s position at trial, it would have been, and in fact was, impossible to resolve the matter through negotiation or mediation.

[8] I find the time spent and the hourly rates for Ms. Gibson and Ms. Mariage to be both reasonable and necessary to complete this matter.

[9] Therefore the respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs inclusive of disbursements and HST in the amount of $43,324.78.

James W. Sloan

Date: January 2, 2015.