Court File and Parties
CITATION: Corriveau v. Richardson, 2016 ONSC 2295
COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-1001
DATE: 2016/04/05
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Carole Corriveau, Applicant
AND
Ronald Richardson, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice J. Mackinnon
COUNSEL: Carole Corriveau, Self-Represented
Rodney Cross, for the Respondent
HEARD: By written submissions
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] Both parties seek costs for this trial. The applicant mother seeks $38,000; the respondent father seeks $5,000.
[2] In support of her claim, the mother details her expenses incurred since the inception of the case. Unless costs of earlier events were awarded in her favour or were reserved to the trial judge, which she does not suggest, they are not to be included in this award.
[3] She also notes her success on the issue of sole custody, whereas the respondent sought joint legal custody. She claims success on the issue of access. Her position was that the father should be limited to one, two hour supervised visit each alternate weekend at the supervised access facility. The father succeeded in obtaining a realistic potential for a more generous order for access, on terms. He also obtained the entitlement to attend certain activities, and to have regular unsupervised telephone contact with his daughter. But, he did not obtain the order he asked for. In my view, success on the issue of access was divided.
[4] The mother was successful on the issues of child support and Section 7 Expenses. These issues did not occupy much of the trial time.
[5] The father succeeded in obtaining an award of spousal support. He was also successful on the calculation of net family property, obtained an the equalization payment in his favour and maintained ownership of the remaining portion of the proceeds from his motor vehicle accident contrary to the applicant’s position at trial.
[6] The father never made an offer to settle the case. That was a very significant omission on his part.
[7] The mother made five “offers”. The first is essentially, a list of points and is not something the father could have accepted with the knowledge it would fully resolve the legal issues between them. Nor did it make any reference to custody, access, child support or spousal support. The next offer she made was incapable of being turned into a viable court order with respect to access, because it left access in the discretion of recommendations to be made from time to time by various third party professionals. This offer also required the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $27,915 to the applicant, and required him to transfer $39,915 to her from the motor vehicle proceeds investment account. None of her offers provided for any spousal support to the respondent, or any equalization payment to him. All included a term that the applicant would retain half of the “motor vehicle” investment account.
[8] Accordingly, although the applicant did make offers to settle, they were not offers that were in line with the trial outcome.
[9] My conclusion is that success was divided between the parties. The mother was successful on sole custody, child support and Section 7 Expenses. Success was divided on access. The father was successful on the property issues and on his claim for spousal support.
[10] I considered whether the father should receive a partial award of costs due to the extent of his success on the financial issues. In particular, the property issues occupied considerable trial time. I decided against this for two reasons. First, he never made an offer to settle. Second, he put the mother to the shared expense of the Leonoff report which cost each of them $7,500, and did not materially advance the case. Additionally, the father did prolong the trial between August and September when it was necessary to re-contact Dr. Leonoff having regard to late coming, undisclosed information tendered by the father.
[11] For these reasons, I make no order of costs. Each party shall bear his and her own costs.
Madam Justice J. Mackinnon
Date: April 5, 2016
CITATION: Corriveau v. Richardson, 2016 ONSC 2295
COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-1001
DATE: 2016/04/05
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Carole Corriveau, Applicant
AND
Ronald Richardson, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice Mackinnon
COUNSEL: Carole Corriveau, Self-Represented
Rodney Cross, for the Respondent
Costs ENDORSEMENT
J. Mackinnon J.
Released: April 5, 2016