CITATION: Martinez v. Hosein, 2016 ONSC 2478

COURT FILE NO.: FS-04-FP296021

DATE: 20160414

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: JEANNIE MARTINEZ, Applicant

AND:

IBNEE HOSEIN, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Harvison Young

COUNSEL: Louis Mostyn, for the Applicant

Ibnee Hosein appearing in person

HEARD: In Writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The parties appeared before me on November 30, 2015. This was to be a trial with respect to access and child support. The applicant, Ms. Martinez, was represented by Mr. Mostyn. The respondent was self-represented. Mr. Mostyn for the mother seeks the amount of $14,653.61 in costs inclusive of HST and disbursements. Mr. Hosein seeks disbursements in the amount of $1,150.

[2] In the course of the morning of November 30, 2015, the issues before the court were resolved on consent as my endorsements reflect. The access issues were in fact resolved by Minutes of Settlement signed on November 27, 2016 resolved without the need for any argument before me, but with the assistance of Mr. Lorne Glass. The parties agreed to implement the OCL’s recommendations as to access.

[3] I do not think it is appropriate that any costs be awarded in respect of the access issue. Mr. Mostyn submits that he made and bettered various offers. While Mr. Mostyn may be correct that the respondent father had sent in counter-offers that were “unclear, redundant and…difficult to understand”, it was clear in the appearance before me that the father wanted access and the mother had been recalcitrant and had insisted on supervised access when the effect was to impede a meaningful relationship between the father and son. This was also clear from reading the record which I did in detail to prepare for the trial. The costs incurred by the mother would not have been incurred had she been reasonable with respect to access from the outset.

[4] The child support issue was resolved on consent in the course of the day. I would not award any costs to the mother on this issue. While the mother might be said to have been successful in this respect in obtaining an award, she has continued to live in a condominium with respect to which Mr. Hosein had been, until a few months before the trial date, paying the condominium maintenance expenses. He was not a father who was refusing to take any responsibility for his son. The wife’s position on support prior to November 30, 2016 was simply not realistic or reasonable in the in the circumstances.

[5] Accordingly, there shall be no order as to costs.

Harvison Young J.

Date: April 14, 2016