CITATION: Laveau v. Lefebvre, 2016 ONSC 1497
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-2443
DATE: 20160301
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Jacques Joseph Alfred Laveau, Applicant
AND
Sylvie Francine Lefebvre, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice A. Doyle
COUNSEL: Stephane A. MonPremier, Counsel for the Applicant
Marc Coderre, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: December 10, 2015 in Ottawa
Costs ENDORSEMENT
[1] On January 5, 2016, I rendered the following decision on motions brought by the parties:
commencing December 1, 2015, the respondent would pay to the applicant the amount of $3,000 per month as spousal support,
the applicant is authorized to obtain his own appraisal of the family residence,
the applicant must produce the financial disclosure requested by the respondent, and
the applicant would contribute $100 per month for section 7 expenses.
[2] On consent, the parties agreed to the following interim order:
the applicant would pay child support in amount of $418 per month based on his income,
each party would be questioned, and
the respondent would obtain the maximum transfer amount for her pension with the federal government.
[3] I invited counsel to provide submissions on costs if they were unable to resolve the issue.
[4] After having considered the Family Law Rules, the jurisprudence and the divided success, there will be no order as to costs. My reasons are set out below.
Legal principles
[5] The cost rules are designed for three fundamental purposes:
to indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation,
to promote and encourage settlement, and
to control behaviour by discouraging frivolous suits if the defences lack merit.
Fong v. Chan (1999), 1999 CanLII 2052 (ON CA), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, and confirmed in Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 395, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 40.
[6] Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules creates a presumption of costs in favour of the successful party and Rule 18 deals with the cost consequences of failure to accept an offer and allows the court the discretion to take into account any written offer to settle.
[7] In considering the factors set out in 24(11), I have considered the following:
[1] the importance complexity and difficulty of the issues:
although the parties agreed on the applicant’s entitlement to support on a needs basis, the matter was made complex as the court was asked to make a determination of whether spousal support should be also be awarded on a compensatory basis;
as the court did not have a full record of the role each party played in the relationship, the court was loath to order spousal support based on a compensatory basis;
the case is further complicated as it involves an unmarried couple which triggers the remedy of unjust enrichment;
both parties set out their respective version of the facts regarding their roles and contributions during the marriage and hence financial disclosure to support the assertions was necessary;
[2] the reasonableness or unreasonableness of each party’s behaviour in the case:
- I found that it was reasonable for the applicant to wish to obtain his own valuation of the home as the respondent’s valuation did not fully consider the renovations to the family residence; and
[3] the lawyers’ rates and the time spent on the motion, which in light of the various issues and case law, were reasonable.
[8] I find that both parties achieved some success in the motions:
the respondent was ordered to pay spousal support and the court permitted the applicant access to the family residence so it could be appraised;
the applicant should have previously agreed to pay child support and to contribute to s.7 expenses and was ordered to do so;
in addition, the applicant was required, given the nature of the relief he is seeking, to provide financial disclosure;
neither party was completely successful on the quantum of spousal support
the respondent’s offer dated September 16, 2015 offered to pay support of $3,000 for the months of November 2014 and December 2014 and the amount of $2,861 commencing January 1, 2015;
the respondent’s offer to settle dated December 1, 2015, offered spousal support of $2100 per month commencing December 1, 2015;
the applicant’s offer to settle dated October 13, 2015 offered the amount of $3500 commencing December 1, 2015, and
spousal support on an interim basis was awarded on an interim basis only.
[9] Therefore, in light of the divided success, there will be no order as to costs.
Madam Justice A. Doyle
Date: March 1, 2016
CITATION: Laveau v. Lefebvre, 2016 ONSC 1497
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-2443
DATE: 20160301
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Jacques Joseph Alfred Laveau, Applicant
AND
Sylvie Francine Lefebvre, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice A. Doyle
COUNSEL: Stephane A. MonPremier, Counsel for the Applicant
Marc Coderre, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: December 10, 2015 in Ottawa
ENDORSEMENT
Madam Justice A. Doyle
Released: March 1, 2016