Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-11-81 Date: 2016-06-27 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Zahra Tajik, applicant And: Shahpour Maharlouie, respondent

Before: Justice A. Doyle

Counsel: Kibondo Kilongozi, Counsel for the applicant Philip W. Augustine, Counsel for the respondent

Heard: By written submissions

Costs Endorsement

[1] The Court rendered its decision on a motion by the respondent for an order striking the pleadings of the applicant for failure to provide financial disclosure. After the motion was served, the applicant provided the respondent with the bulk of the Court ordered disclosure. The Court dismissed the motion and set timelines. The Court found that the compliance was only as a result of the respondent bringing the motion.

[2] The position of the applicant is that there should be no costs since they were successful but, if they are to be responsible, then $750 is the appropriate figure.

[3] The respondent indicates that the motion was equivalent to a contempt motion and in accordance with Cassidy v. Cassidy 2011 ONSC 791, it is the rule rather than the exception that costs should be paid. In addition, in Leonardo v. Meloche , [2003] O.J. 1969, the Court found it unreasonable and if there is a significant delay in fulfilling orders for disclosure.

[4] In determining costs, the Court is guided by Family Law Rule 24, there is a presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and the Court must consider importance and complexity, unreasonable behaviour or any acts of bad faith, scales of costs, any offers to settle, hourly rates, time spent, proportionality and reasonable expectations of the losing party.

[5] Here, the applicant was unreasonable in not providing the financial disclosure in the time lines ordered by the Court. Despite numerous correspondences to her counsel, the applicant failed to comply. She still failed to comply when the respondent threatened to bring a motion.

[6] The applicant only started addressing the disclosure immediately after service of the motion. Court orders are not suggestions. They are to be respected. Parties should not be required to bring motions or threaten to bring motions to expect compliance.

[7] The respondent should not have had to bring this motion. He is entitled to costs.

[8] The lawyer is senior family lawyer with extensive experience. His rate is reasonable and the bill of costs outlines the extensive work leading up to the motion, preparation of the documents for the motion, correspondence and attendance of the motion. The total bill is $9147.07 including disbursements and HST. More than half of the time was completed by a law clerk of over 30 years’ experience. It is reasonable for a law firm to employ law clerks to assist in the preparation of pleadings and assembling the evidence for the hearing. It is cost effective for the client and is in keeping with the proportionality principle expected when dealing with costs.

[9] The Court notes that the fees in the bill of costs were discounted to the client to ensure that the party not profit from costs.

[10] Given the factors in Rule 24 and the respondent’s expense in bringing this motion to require compliance by the applicant of Court ordered disclosure, the Court orders the applicant to pay costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000.

Madam Justice A. Doyle

Date: June 27, 2016