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]
Costs Analysis
I have reviewed both parties’ written submissions in relation to the costs of the motions.
2The applicant seeks $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements “for costs of temporary proceedings.” The respondent submits there should be no costs awarded.
3I have considered all the factors in r. 24(11).
4The 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.
5The 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.
6Further, I find that both parties behaved unreasonably. The unreasonable behaviour was first identified by Henderson J. in his endorsement dated June 1, 2016.
7The applicant’s attempt to proceed ex parte was found to boarder “… on a flagrant disregard of r. 14(12) …” (see my endorsement, para. 7).
8The Office of the Children’s Lawyer also criticized the conduct of both parties, although the harshest criticism was directed at the respondent.
9Some of the applicant’s time dockets that were relied on were in relation to matters other than motions.
10The 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]
Disposition
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