Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-2819 DATE: 20160509 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Lisa Shouldice, Applicant AND Robert Roland Shouldice, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

COUNSEL: Wade L. Smith, counsel for the Plaintiff Carol J. Craig, counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: By written submissions

Costs Endorsement

[1] The Applicant was successful on her motion to take over the parties’ rental property and to use the rental income for the support for herself and their three children. She had also brought a motion to strike the Respondent’s pleadings for nonpayment of child and spousal support.

[2] The Respondent brought a cross-motion wherein and he sought to have support obligations reduced to zero. He also sought to have Nadine Crawley’s recommendations regarding access incorporated into an order.

[3] While the Applicant did not agree with all of Ms. Crawley’s recommendations, at the outset motion, her counsel indicated that she was prepared to accept those recommendations and he prepared a draft order which I signed. Her counsel also made it clear that he was not seeking to strike the Respondent’s pleadings although it was open to him to pursue that relief.

[4] The argument focused on the Applicant’s claim for possession of the rental property and the use of the rental income and on the Respondent’s claim of an inability to pay any support.

[5] On these issues, the Applicant was completely successful. I dismissed the Respondent’s claims that he was unable to work for psychiatric reasons. Moreover, I found that the Respondent had failed to disclose significant financial information at his previous attendances before the court. Moreover, he had arranged his financial affairs in such a way as to completely cut off the Applicant’s access to any funds. The Applicant had no choice to bring her motion.

[6] Rule 24(11) sets out the factors that the court must consider in determining costs which 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 to properly spent on the case, including conversations and correspondence, attempts to settle, preparation, argument and preparation and signature of the order; (e) expenses partly paid or payable; and (f) any other relevant matter.

[7] The Applicant seeks her costs on a complete indemnity scale and argues that the Respondent has ignored court orders with impunity. Given the primary importance of providing support to his family, the Applicant maintains that the Respondent’s behaviour is certainly unreasonable. She seeks her costs on a complete indemnity scale in the amount of $7,000 for fees, disbursements and HST. She also asks that these be paid within seven days of this endorsement.

[8] The Respondent argues that there was mixed success and disputes the claims that he was acting unreasonably. He continues to claim an inability to pay any support and asks that any costs award be addressed in the final accounting that will take place at trial.

Decision

[9] I find that the Respondent behaved unreasonably by refusing to pay court ordered support and by blocking the Applicant’s access to any financial sources of support for herself and their three children. The Respondent’s evidence of an inability to work was neither credible nor reliable. He failed to account for the $110,000 that he withdrew from the parties’ joint line of credit in September of 2015. He appears to have paid other creditors in priority and has left nothing for his family.

[10] For these reasons, I order the Respondent to pay costs on a substantial indemnity scale which I fix in the amount of $5,600 which sum is to be paid within 30 days.

[11] After the exchange of their respective costs submissions, the parties engaged in the exchange of further reply submissions. These submissions made allegations of continued misconduct on each other’s part. The practice of ongoing submissions is not to be encouraged. Any further issues arising between the parties are properly addressed by way of motion or at trial.

Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin Date: May 09, 2016