Bridgeford v. Bridgeford, 2016 ONSC 7805

Court File and Parties

Citation: Bridgeford v. Bridgeford, 2016 ONSC 7805 Court File No.: 16-51612 Date: 2016-12-12 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Amy Bridgeford – Applicant And: Jeffrey Bridgeford – Respondent

Before: James W. Sloan

Counsel: Tania Harper - Counsel, for the Applicant Brian R. Kelly - Counsel, for the Respondent

Heard: November 23, 2016

Cost Endorsement

[1]

Background

The respondent was successful on all of the major issues including having the ex parte order rescinded and obtaining non-supervised access to the children.

2Despite the fact, based on the admissions of the applicant at her questioning, that the ex parte order would likely be rescinded or at least substantially modified, her position that the respondent father should only have supervised access and that the restraining order should remain in place remained unchanged.

3Despite the fact, that the court, after confirming the true facts of the applicant’s original affidavit, rescinded its order, the applicant continued to play “hardball”.

4Despite comments from the court and a mid-motion conference by Justice Campbell, the applicant’s position remained intransigent.

5In light of the applicant’s concessions that she was less than truthful when she applied for her somewhat draconian ex parte order, her refusal to negotiate in any meaningful way, left the respondent from the beginning of this action to the end of the motion, with no alternative but to mount the best defence and offense that he could.

[6]

Analysis

The respondent father now asks for full indemnity costs in the amount of $32,118.96.

7Among other responses to this request, the applicant mother submits that she is of modest means and earns approximately $32,000 per year.

8The court commented at the start of this motion that both parties were of modest means and that it was unfortunate a less expensive method of resolving their differences had not been found.

9About the only thing in the applicant’s favour in this entire matter, is that she admitted on her questioning to the non-and mis-disclosure contained in her ex parte materials.

10The applicant was at all times represented by a seasoned family law lawyer and would or should have been well aware of her obligations to put a fair affidavit before the court.

11She did not do so and the court can only come to the conclusion that she didn’t do so because she knew or at least suspected, that her chances of obtaining the order she wanted would be greatly enhanced by the affidavit she swore.

12There is very little doubt in the court’s mind that for the cost of a few thousand dollars an interim interim solution could have been found, but that of course was impossible given the applicant mother’s intransigent position.

13For her to now say that she should not be responsible for a significant portion of the respondent father’s legal costs is simply disingenuous.

[14]

Disposition

On the material before me I award costs to the respondent payable by the applicant on an all-inclusive basis in the amount of $20,000.