Court File and Parties
CITATION: Smith v. Sanftenberg, 2016 ONSC 1721
COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-1271
DATE: 2016/03/10
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Heather Smith, Applicant (Respondent on leave application)
AND
Richard Sanftenberg, Respondent (Appellant on leave application)
BEFORE: Madam Justice Julianne Parfett
COUNSEL: Counsel for the Respondent, Bryan Delaney
Counsel for the Applicant, John E. Summers
HEARD: In writing
Costs ENDORSEMENT
[1] The parties in this matter were unable to reach an agreement on costs and have submitted the matter to me for determination.
[2] There is no issue that the Respondent on the application for leave to appeal an interim order, Ms. Heather Smith, was successful. She is the Applicant in the main action. Consequently, the principle set out at Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules[^1] that “there is a presumption that a successful party is entitled to the costs of a motion, enforcement, case or appeal” applies.
[3] The costs rules under the Family Law Rules are designed to foster three fundamental purposes:
- To indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation;
- To encourage settlements; and
- To discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants. (See Reimer v. Appa, [2001] O.J. No. 1793 at para. 4).
[4] In this case, only the first bullet point applies. No offers to settle were exchanged in relation to the leave to appeal application and both parties behaved reasonably in relation to the application.
[5] The factors that I am required to consider on the issue of costs are found at Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and they are as follows:
(a) the importance, complexity or difficulty of the issues;
(b) the reasonableness or unreasonableness of each party’s behaviour in the case;
(c) the lawyer’s rates;
(d) the time properly spent on the case, including conversations between the lawyer and the party or witnesses, drafting documents and correspondence, attempts to settle, preparation, hearing, argument, and preparation and signature of the order;
(e) expenses properly paid or payable; and
(f) any other relevant matter.
[6] The issues in this matter were not complex and, as noted earlier, there is no evidence the parties’ behavior was unreasonable. The Respondent’s counsel has submitted his bill of costs in the amount of $4,040.15. In my view, the Respondent’s counsel’s bill of costs is reasonable in the circumstances.
[7] Consequently, I see no reason to depart from the general principles and the Appellant, Mr. Richard Sanftenberg is therefore ordered to pay costs to the Respondent, Heather Smith, in the amount of $2,700.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements. This amount represents partial indemnity of the Respondent’s costs.
Madam Justice Julianne Parfett
Date: March 10, 2016
CITATION: Smith v. Sanftenberg, 2016 ONSC 1721
COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-1271
DATE: 2016/03/10
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Heather Smith, Applicant (Respondent on leave application)
AND
Richard Sanftenberg, Respondent (Appellant on leave application)
BEFORE: Madam Justice Julianne Parfett
COUNSEL: Counsel for the Respondent, Bryan Delaney
Counsel for the Applicant, John E. Summers
ENDORSEMENT
Parfett J.
Released: March 10, 2016
[^1]: O. Reg. 114/99