Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: F633/16 DATE: May 25, 2017 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO FAMILY COURT
RE: Meighen Leigh Taylor, applicant AND: Corwin Stuart Clarke, respondent
BEFORE: MITROW J.
COUNSEL: Tamra A. Mann for the applicant Michael R. Nyhof for the respondent
HEARD: written submissions filed
Endorsement on Costs
[1] I have reviewed both parties’ written submissions in relation to the costs of the motions.
[2] The applicant seeks $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements “for costs of temporary proceedings.” The respondent submits there should be no costs awarded.
[3] I have considered all the factors in r. 24(11).
[4] The reality of this interlocutory litigation is that there was divided success. The respondent was more successful than the applicant regarding the orders made by Henderson J. and Heeney J.; in fact, Heeney J. found that there was no urgency that required the applicant’s motion to be heard prior to a case conference.
[5] The applicant did achieve more success than the respondent on her last motion as the restriction regarding her partner was removed; there was a week-about parenting schedule ordered during the summer months, and the regular schedule was increased modestly, in the applicant’s favour, compared to the last order.
[6] Further, I find that both parties behaved unreasonably. The unreasonable behaviour was first identified by Henderson J. in his endorsement dated June 1, 2016.
[7] The applicant’s attempt to proceed ex parte was found to boarder “… on a flagrant disregard of r. 14(12) …” (see my endorsement, para. 7).
[8] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer also criticized the conduct of both parties, although the harshest criticism was directed at the respondent.
[9] Some of the applicant’s time dockets that were relied on were in relation to matters other than motions.
[10] The divided success, coupled with each party’s unreasonable conduct, and a consideration of r. 24(4), leads me to accept the respondent’s submissions as to the costs disposition.
[11] I order that each party is responsible for his or her own costs of the motions.
“Justice Victor Mitrow” Justice Victor Mitrow Date: May 25, 2017