Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: D25614/16 DATE: 2017/06/30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Roger William Watson Self-represented Applicant (Responding Party)
- and -
Eileen Ruth Watson James D. Almas, for the Respondent/Moving Party Respondent (Moving Party)
The Honourable Justice T. Maddalena
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] I heard this long motion at Welland on April 7, 2017. I provided written reasons to the parties on April 10, 2017. I have now received and reviewed written costs submissions of both parties.
Position of Respondent (Moving Party)
[2] The respondent/moving party seeks costs of $7,460.83 all inclusive.
[3] According to the bill of costs and submissions, these are her actual costs incurred with respect to the long motion heard on April 7, 2017.
[4] The respondent also submitted an offer to settle, dated February 24, 2017. The respondent acknowledged that the order made by the court resulted in less support than the offer to settle, thus rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules is not applicable.
[5] Further, the respondent’s costs submissions were received several days late, however the court is exercising its discretion to permit filing.
Position of the Applicant (Responding Party)
[6] The applicant requests that the costs submissions of the respondent be dismissed as the costs were filed outside the timeframe requested by the court.
[7] In the alternative, the applicant submits that costs should be fixed at $1,750 all inclusive.
Analysis
[8] Firstly, the court did not request reply submissions. Thus, the reply submissions forwarded by the respondent are not being considered for purposes of these costs.
[9] However, the respondent was the successful party and, in accordance with rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, she is entitled to her costs.
[10] The factors for the court to consider are outlined in rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.
[11] This was a long motion requiring the preparation of a factum, affidavits, and a series of calculations necessary for the determination of spousal support.
[12] I am satisfied that the hourly rates charged, time spent, and the work done, together with the disbursements paid, are all reasonable and necessary.
[13] As well, this was an important issue for the respondent as her financial wellbeing was at issue.
[14] I am also mindful of the unreasonable position taken by the applicant in that he ought not to pay spousal support or, in the alternative, that spousal support should wait for adjudication at trial. I referenced this in para. 27 of the decision. In addition to the principles and factors enunciated in the Family Law Rules, I am also mindful of the principles on costs as enunciated by the court in the case of Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (CA), wherein the court stated that the overall objective of costs is to fix an amount that is “fair and reasonable”.
[15] I also note that the applicant was self-represented at the hearing of this long motion.
[16] All parties to legal proceedings must understand cost consequences.
[17] As the court has held in the case of Mark v. Bhangari, 2010 ONSC 4638, in para. 10 therein:
“Parties cannot expect to be immune from an order of costs … If this were the case, parties would be free to conduct litigation as they wished without fear of reprisal in the form of adverse costs orders …”
[18] Therefore, I conclude that a fair and reasonable amount for the applicant to pay the respondent in costs for the motion on April 7, 2017 is $6,000.00 all inclusive.
Order
[19] The applicant shall pay to the respondent costs of the long motion heard on April 7, 2017 fixed at $6,000.00 all inclusive and payable within 30 days.
Maddalena J.