CITATION: Fortier v. Lauzon-Fortier, 2016 ONSC 4855

COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-790

DATE: 20160728

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: LIONEL FORTIER, Applicant

AND

JULIE ANNELLE LAUZON-FORTIER, Respondent

BEFORE: Shelston J.

COUNSEL: Catherine Calvert, counsel for the Applicant

John Summers, counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: In writing (at Ottawa)

COSTs ENDORSEMENT

1Both parties seek costs for the motions argued on June 9, 2016. The applicant seeks costs of $10,057.03 while the respondent seeks costs of $3,000.

2The motions brought dealt with various claims for relief including child support, spousal support, custody and access, the matrimonial home, arrears of child support and financial disclosure.

3A significant amount of evidence filed related to the issue of custody and access. This issue was adjourned.

4The parties settled certain issues before the Court on June 9, 2016 pursuant to Interim Minutes of Settlement dealing with setting an amount of child support arrears, the transfer of the matrimonial home to the respondent, an agreement to exchange reasonable disclosure and the appointment of Ms. Guindon to meet the three children, ascertain their wishes and convey those wishes. The remaining issues were the determination of the applicant’s income to determine the quantum of child support; entitlement, quantum and retroactive spousal support and access were argued.

5The first disputed issue was the applicant’s income in 2016. The respondent argued that his income should be set at $83,688 based on his 2015 income while the applicant argued that the Court should use his actual income in 2016 which is $60,200.00. I found that his income was $60,200. The applicant was successful on this issue.

6The second disputed issue was spousal support. The respondent sought a retroactive amount effective July 1, 2015 in the amount of $700 per month. I declined to make any order on an interim basis. The applicant was successful on this issue.

7The third disputed issue was access pending the report from Ms. Guindon. The applicant sought a specific regime to be put into effect while the respondent advocated no change in the access pending the children’s views being ascertained by Ms. Guindon who the parties agreed would meet with the three children aged 8, 14 and 16. I made no change in the access. The respondent was successful on this issue.

8In Van Rassel v. Van Rassel (2008), 61. R.F.L. (6th) 364, 2008 CanLII 56939 (ON SC), the Court set out the relevant factors to be considered in determining the entitlement to costs including:

(a) Which party was successful;

(b) Offers to settle;

(c) Conduct of the parties;

(d) Reasonableness of costs claimed; and

(e) Financial means of unsuccessful party.

Analysis

Success

Agreed upon issues

9The issue of custody and access was adjourned to August 18, 2016 to allow Ms. Guindon to meet the children.

10The applicant sought an order transferring the matrimonial home to the respondent failing which he sought the sale of the matrimonial home. The parties agreed that the applicant would transfer his interest in the home to the respondent subject to certain conditions failing which the home would be sold. The respondent wished to retain the matrimonial home. The success on this issue was divided.

11The respondent sought arrears of child support for the year 2015. The applicant agreed to pay support based on his actual income being $83,688 while the respondent argued his income should be $107,355 based on imputation of income. The parties agreed to use the income set at $83,688. The applicant was successful on this issue.

Disputed issues

12On the disputed issues, success was divided. The amount of child support and spousal support claimed by the respondent was not granted while the increased access sought by the applicant was not granted.

Offers

13Neither party provided a formal offer to settle although the applicant made an offer in a letter dated April 12, 2016. The respondent did not reply and made no offer to settle.

Conduct of the parties

14Only on the date of the motion did the parties negotiate a partial settlement of the issues.

Lawyer’s rates and time spent

15The lawyer’s rates are reasonable.

16I have received a Bill of Costs from counsel from the respondent which indicates 49.94 hours were charged as well as attaching her bills to her client. Upon a review of the bills, many entries deal with emails with her client and counsel; telephone calls to her client, counsel and the court staff, internal instructions, etc.

17Counsel for the applicant did not provide a Bill of Costs arguing that the previous counsel of the respondent had not provided a final bill. He did provide copies of his accounts from March 11 to May 26, 2016.

Disposition

18Taking into consideration the relief sought in the motions, the positions taken by the parties, the issues settled, the terms of the interim Minutes of Settlement, my decision on the disputed issues, the lack of formal offers and the factors set out in Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, I find that success was divided and consequently, I make no order as to costs.

Shelston J.