Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-14-00396507-0000 Date: 2016-05-20

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

Yalda Moghimi, Applicant - and - Ebrahim Dashti, Respondent

Counsel: Joel Etienne, for the Applicant Veena Pohani, for the Respondent

Trial Heard: April 4, 5, 6 & 7, 2016 Costs Addendum Released: May 20, 2016, by Backhouse, J.

Costs Addendum

[1] The applicant wife seeks full indemnity costs of $81,416.25 all in, with respect to my judgment dated April 19, 2016. On a substantial indemnity basis the costs sought are $73,656.35. The respondent submits that there is no basis to award full indemnity costs and that there should be no order or minimal costs awarded.

[2] The applicant was the entirely successful party. She is entitled to costs. The respondent’s submissions ignore the reality of the result. I found that the respondent entered into a trust declaration and registered a second mortgage to defeat the applicant’s claims to an interest in the matrimonial home. In my view this amounts to conduct that is intended to deceive and mislead and constitutes bad faith under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules. Accordingly, costs shall be on a full recovery basis. Rule 24(11) sets out the relevant factors. I will consider each factor in turn.

Rule 24(11) (a) The application was important and the issues were moderately complex and difficult.

Rule 24(11) (b) The applicant’s behaviour was reasonable. Her offer to settle was reasonable. The respondent’s behaviour and offer to settle were unreasonable.

Rule 24(11)(c) The lawyers’ rates are reasonable, considering their years at the bar and expertise.

Rule 24(11)(d) I find that the time spent on this important application was reasonable. This should have been a simple matter of determining the applicant’s claim to net family property. A trial should not have been necessary. Instead, the respondent’s conduct contributed to the difficulty and the time required to deal with his several machinations.

Rule 24(11)(e) The disbursements claimed are reasonable.

Rule 24(11)(f) The maximum amount in issue was the amount the applicant was awarded in the amount of $100,500. Proportionality and what the losing side ought reasonably to have anticipated or expected concerning any responsibility for costs must be considered.

[3] I consider the amount of $60,000 all in to be reasonable, fair and proportionate to the issues and I order the respondent to pay this amount forthwith.

[4] Given paragraph 45 of the judgment, I consider it unnecessary to make a further order as requested in paragraph 29(ii) of the applicant’s costs submissions.

Released May 20, 2016 Backhouse, J.