Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS 88/16 Date: 2017/03/09
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
Anthony Peter DeRose, Applicant David I. Shapiro, for the Applicant
- and -
Rebecca Marjorie DeRose, Respondent Judith Holzman, for the Respondent
Before: The Honourable Justice T. Maddalena
Costs Endorsement
[1] I heard the applicant’s motion to reduce spousal support on November 23, 2016.
[2] I released to the parties my written decision on that motion on December 2, 2016.
[3] I have now received and reviewed costs submissions from both parties.
The Position of the Respondent
[4] It is the respondent’s position that she was entirely successful on the motion. Pursuant to Family Law Rule 24(4) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 the respondent is presumptively entitled to her costs.
[5] The respondent is also seeking costs of the motion heard November 16, 2016, which was adjourned to November 23, 2016, as well as the costs of the case conference heard on November 18, 2016.
[6] The respondent’s position at the motion on November 23, 2016 was that the motion could not proceed as further disclosure was required.
[7] The respondent seeks, including costs of the case conference, costs on a full recovery basis totalling $17,742.07 in accordance with the bill of costs submitted. In the alternative, without the case conference, the respondent seeks full recovery costs in the amount of $16,034.57 in accordance with the bill of costs submitted.
The Position of the Applicant
[8] It is the applicant’s position that costs should be reserved until such time as the final determination of this motion.
[9] Further, the applicant pleaded that neither counsel requested costs from the case conference judge and, therefore, there was no costs order made at the case conference. Therefore, the applicant submits that it is not appropriate to award costs to either party for the case conference under these circumstances.
[10] The applicant also states that given the applicant’s reduction in income it was not unreasonable for him to bring this motion.
[11] Further, if costs are to be awarded, they are to be awarded on a partial indemnity basis. Costs pertaining to the case conference should be removed from the bill of costs of the respondent, thus leaving actual costs of the respondent totalling $15,795.64.
[12] The applicant further states that costs on a partial indemnity basis should be $9,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Analysis
[13] Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 provides that a successful party is entitled to costs. The successful party on the motion was the respondent.
[14] There are no offers to settle that are applicable.
[15] Further, I note that Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 provides that the court shall make a costs decision after each step in a family law case.
[16] Therefore, I will not be dealing with costs of the case conference.
[17] I agree that this will therefore leave the respondent with actual costs of $15,795.64 associated with the motion of November 23, 2016 (which was adjourned from November 16, 2016).
[18] I have considered all of the factors outlined in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
[19] This is a case where costs should be awarded to the respondent, however, on a partial indemnity basis, which I fix at $10,424 all inclusive.
[20] Therefore, my order on costs is that the applicant shall pay to the respondent costs for the motion on November 23, 2016 fixed at $10,424 all inclusive, payable within 60 days.
Maddalena J. Released: March 9, 2017