Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

CITATION: Stephens v. Stephens, 2016 ONSC 1393

COURT FILE NO.: 6913/12

DATE: 20160225

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

[1] This costs endorsement arises from my decision released January 4, 2016.

[2] Although invited to make written costs submissions if the parties could not agree on costs, only the Applicant has made submissions.

[3] The Applicant was the successful party at trial. She seeks substantial indemnity costs of $9,949 plus HST and disbursements.

[4] She 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.

[5] In 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.

[6] The 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.

[7] The 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.

[8] The 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.

[9] Further, 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.

[10] Substantial 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.

[11] Costs 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