Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
RE: Elsie Helga Stephens, Applicant
AND:
Phillip Ellwood Stephens, Defendant
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice R. Raikes
COUNSEL: Nancy Pringle, Counsel for the Applicant
Self-Represented, for the Defendant
HEARD: Written Submissions
Costs ENDORSEMENT
1This costs endorsement arises from my decision released January 4, 2016.
2Although invited to make written costs submissions if the parties could not agree on costs, only the Applicant has made submissions.
3The Applicant was the successful party at trial. She seeks substantial indemnity costs of $9,949 plus HST and disbursements.
4She submits that the Respondent abandoned his claims at trial but she still had to prepare for same. She also submits that the Respondent took an unreasonable position on equalization, and forced her to seek proof of beneficiary designation despite repeated requests.
5In a recent decision in Davis v. Fell, [2016] O.J. No. 749, Justice O’Connell undertook a comprehensive review of the applicable provisions and case law principles for costs in a family law proceeding. I agree with and adopt that review as applicable herein.
6The usual rule is that the successful party should be entitled to his or her costs of a proceeding. I see no reason to deviate from that principle in this case.
7The trial in this matter took less than one full day. The issues at the outset were factually straightforward. Those issues narrowed considerably very soon after the trial started.
8The remaining issue on which the trial was conducted involved equalization in circumstances that were unusual to say the least. In my view, although unsuccessful, the Respondent was not unreasonable in advancing the position he did that Justice Nolan’s final Order was clear – no further equalization. The issue addressed was one of general import beyond the facts of the case.
9Further, I note that the case law and the sections of the Pension Benefits Act
cited in my decision were derived from research that I asked be done. It was not provided by counsel.
10Substantial indemnity costs are not warranted here. In my view, costs should be fixed at $3,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST payable by the Respondent to the Applicant is appropriate.
11Costs awarded shall be payable at the rate of $300 per month until paid in full. It is enforceable by FRO.
“original signed by Raikes, J_
The Honourable Justice Russell Raikes
Date: February 25, 2016