Court File and Parties
Garland v. Brouwer, CITATION: 2016 ONSC 6379 COURT FILE NO.: 552/10 DATE: 2016-10-13 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Michael David Garland, Applicant AND: Candace Brouwer, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay
COUNSEL: Elizabeth Mourao for the Applicant Claude Leduc for the Respondent
Endorsement
[1]
Introduction
The Applicant moved successfully to change previous orders for joint custody of the parties’ child to expand his residence time with the child: 2016 ONSC 5966. He now moves in writing for full indemnity for costs in the amount of $26,700 or in the alternative partial indemnity in the amount of $19,500.
[2]
Analysis
The Applicant made a modest proposal for increased overnight weekly access, which I granted. He made a proposal for sharing holidays which I did not grant, but the parties will end up sharing holidays. The overall effect was a decisive success for the Applicant. In some ways he got more than he offered to accept. In other ways he got at least as much. If he got any less in some details, it was not significant.
3The Respondent’s argument depended on her contention that there had been no material change in circumstances and that accordingly I had no jurisdiction to change the previous orders. Once I rejected that proposition, her objections to the increased access were not tenable. The Respondent has assets and a job and is able to pay costs.
4I think that substantial indemnity is appropriate. I agree with the submissions of counsel for the Respondent, however, that a smaller amount than that which is sought would have been reasonably contemplated and that the Respondent should not be responsible for the Applicant’s choice of a lawyer who had to travel. I note that the bill of costs of the Respondent was in the range of $14,000.
[5]
Disposition
I think that a fair amount would be $12,000. I order the Respondent to pay that amount forthwith.
J.A. Ramsay J.
Date: 2016-10-13