Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Citation: Umeya v. Tebit, 2016 ONSC 2018

Court File No.: FS-13-00386499

Date: 2016-03-22

Re: Aisha Umeya, Applicant -and- Humphrey Tebit, Respondent

Before: F.L. Myers J.

Read: March 22, 2016

Endorsement

[1] By oral reasons dictated at the end of the two week trial on December 11, 2015, I granted judgment in this family law proceeding. Both sides seek costs. Both are self-represented now and had counsel at various earlier stages prior to the trial.

[2] Ms. Umeya seeks costs of $57,572.50. Mr. Tebit seeks costs of $40,000. Both claim to have been the more successful litigant.

[3] In my view, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, there should be no order as to costs of this proceeding.

[4] Mr. Tebit was fully successful on the issues relating to the parties’ child. The applicant sought to deprive her son of meaningful access to his father based upon what the OCL characterized as her irrational fear of the respondent. She went so far as to breach orders of the court requiring her to amend the child’s birth certificate so as to try to prevent Mr. Tebit from being associated legally with the child. Her approach to issues concerning the child was unreasonable and self-serving throughout.

[5] Ms. Umeya was fully successful however on the economic issues. The respondent sought to impoverish Ms. Umeya regardless of the harmful impact doing so has had on their child. He actively refused to make proper disclosure of his finances here and abroad. He went so far as to breach orders of the court requiring very specific disclosures. His approach to issues concerning money was unreasonable and self-serving throughout.

[6] Both parties recite the three goals of costs orders in family law proceedings recognized by the Court of Appeal in cases such as Fong v. Chan, 1999 5052 (ON CA) for example. Costs awards are designed to provide partial indemnity to the successful party; to encourage settlement; and to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour. In my view, success on the two major strands of the case was equally divided. Neither party acted to encourage settlement. Both engaged in behaviour deserving of sanction.

[7] No order as to costs.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: March 22, 2016