CITATION: Gow v. Gow, 2016 ONSC 6519
COURT FILE NO.: 6048/13 Sim
DATE: 2016 Oct 20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
David William Gow
Applicant
– and –
Lisa Loretta Gow
Respondent
Cary R. Vervaeke, for the Applicant
Cindy Martin-Hrycak, for the Respondent
HEARD: Written Submissions on Costs
The Honourable Justice R. J. Harper
COSTS ENDORESMENT
[1] On June 29, 2016 I granted summary judgment in favour of the Applicant. At that time, the Applicant had brought a motion for massive disclosure of financial documentation; the payment of interim disbursements to allow for a forensic accounting and for an order for a forensic accounting.
[2] The Applicant brought a motion for summary judgment requesting a dismissal of all claims of the Respondent.
[3] On June 29, 2016, I ruled that the motion of the claims of the Respondent were completely without merit.
[4] The submissions of the Applicant fairly set out the issues and the expanded legal work required as a result of the manner in which the Respondent conducted this litigation:
[a] The Applicant and Respondent were married on September 30, 1995 and separated on October 23, 2011. They had two children. Both parties signed a Separation Agreement dated November 23, 2011. The Agreement was signed with independent legal advice and disclosure by the Applicant. That Agreement had provisions related to custody/access, child support, equalization and mutual releases of spousal support, property, estates, etc.
[b] On June 19, 2013, the Applicant filed an Application for a simple divorce. The Respondent then filed an Answer in which she sought various relief including equalization of net family properties, spousal and child support, costs and, by implication, an order setting aside the said Separation Agreement. The Applicant was then required to file an amended Application in which he sought an Order, inter alia, declaring that the Separation Agreement was a legal, valid and binding Agreement.
[c] Subsequently, the parties attended for a Case Conference and later a Settlement Conference.
[d] In 2015, the Respondent delivered voluminous bank disclosure related to joint accounts the parties owned on the date of separation, which went back many years before the date of separation, notwithstanding, that the Applicant had, during the negotiation of the Separation Agreement, provided to the Respondent's then solicitor disclosure related to those specific accounts. The disclosure which involved hundreds of bank transactions going back many years was coupled with numerous questions by the Respondent's lawyer about transactions that occurred during many years before the date of separation. This required the Applicant and his solicitor to spend tremendous amounts of time reviewing these transactions line by line.
[e] The Respondent then brought a voluminous motion of over a 100 pages (including exhibits) in which they sought very comprehensive and oppressive Orders against the Applicant. In their motion materials, the Respondent did not even mention the Separation Agreement outlined above. The Respondent replied with a Motion for summary judgment which included an initial Affidavit of the Respondent in excess of 100 pages (including exhibits).
[5] I ordered costs on a full indemnity basis and allowed the successful party time to submit a summary of fees and disbursements. I have reviewed the summary. Mr Van seeks costs in the amount of $31,448.41 in fees disbursements and HST. I find that the hours charged by Mr Van to be excessive. He details, in his summary, that his involvement exceeded 87 hours. In addition, he claimed travelling costs at a rate of $150 per hour to travel. Under the circumstances, I find that a fair number of hours to be charged should be 60 hours. I do not feel that it is appropriate to charge for travel time and would disallow that claim.
[6] The Respondent shall pay costs to the Applicant the sum of $21,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
Harper, J.
Released: October 20, 2016