Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
RE: GUYLENE TERRACOL, Applicant AND THIERRY TERRACOL, Respondent
BEFORE: M. Linhares de Sousa J.
COUNSEL: Steven Fried, counsel for the Applicant Thierry Terracol, Self-Represented
HEARD: By Written Submissions
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
1In this motion both parties sought payments from the other party relating to the issue of child support. For reasons given in my endorsement of December 10, 2015, neither party succeeded on their respective claims against the other. Success was therefore clearly divided. In the normal course the question of costs might end here with an order for no costs (Rule 24(1) (6).
2However, Rule 24 directs the Court to consider other factors in the consideration of a costs order besides the success of the parties in the litigation. The parties’ conduct and the presentation of offers to settle are also important considerations when one considers the multiple purposes of a costs award.
3Both parties allege bad faith conduct against the other. On the evidence before me I am not prepared to find bad faith against either party. Nonetheless, having said that, I am of the view that both parties could have prevented this litigation had they had the will to do so.
4Under the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, Rule 24(5), the presentation of offers to settle is considered to be reasonable conduct. Both parties made offers to settle in this case in an attempt to resolve their differences. The reasonableness of any offer is to be examined by the Court, in view of the positions taken by the parties in court and in view of the final decision at the motion.
5After examining all of the offers made by the parties in light of the result on the motion clearly the Applicant’s offers can be found to be extremely reasonable and should have been accepted by the Respondent as either of the Applicant’s offers would have put him in a much more advantageous position than the motion decision by the Court. The Respondent’s own offer was most unreasonable in view of the final decision on the motion.
6I agree with the decision in Osmar v. Osmar, 2000 20380 (ON SC), 8 R.F.L. (5th) 387 at para. 7 (Ont. S. C.) that offers to settle are important and can be a yardstick by which to measure success.
7I have examined the Bill of Costs presented by counsel for the Applicant and find it to be reasonable, given the experience of counsel and the nature of the conflict in this litigation. Given the long standing litigation engaged in by these parties, I must conclude that both of them were fully aware and could have reasonably expected to pay the costs asked for in this matter in the event of their lack of success.
8For these reasons, I find that the Applicant is entitled to her costs fixed in the amount of $6,357.38, all inclusive, payable by the Respondent within 30 days from the release of this endorsement.
M. Linhares de Sousa J.
Released: February 2, 2016
CITATION: Terracol v. Terracol, 2016 ONSC 794
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: GUYLENE TERRACOL, Applicant AND THIERRY TERRACOL, Respondent
BEFORE: M. Linhares de Sousa J.
COUNSEL: Steven Fried, counsel for the Applicant Thierry Terracol, Self-Represented
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
M. Linhares de Sousa J.
Released: February 2, 2016