Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

CITATION: Christina Prosdocimo v. Roney Prosdocimo, 2017 ONSC 4653

COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-04295-1

DATE: 20170801

RE: CHRISTINA PROSDOCIMO, Applicant

AND:

RONEY PROSDOCIMO, Respondent

BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J. R. MCCARTHY

COUNSEL: Aida Pasha, Counsel for the Applicant

Adamo Paniccia, Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: In Writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] On June 2, 2017, after a trial lasting four days, I found that income should be imputed to the Respondent Father Roney Prosdocimo (RF) for the purposes of child support in the amount $55,000. Based upon that, child support was set at $1,068 monthly commencing July 1, 2014. The RF’s claim for spousal support together with Applicant Mother’s (AM) claim for s. 7 babysitting expenses were both dismissed.

[2] At the conclusion of my reasons, delivered orally, I invited counsel to make written submissions in respect of costs. I have now received and read those submissions.

[3] Although there were many issues in the original application and some still outstanding leading up to trial, the parties were able to resolve all but three issues between them: the quantum of child support payable by the RF; the RF’s entitlement to spousal support; and the obligation of the RF to make s. 7 payments to the AM for babysitting expenses.

[4] It is apparent to me that neither party matched or exceeded its respective offers to settle. As well, although the RF argues that I should take into account proposed minutes of settlement submitted to the AM’s counsel, I decline to do so for the following reasons: first, the proposed minutes of settlement encompass many issues that did not proceed to trial; two, the proposed minutes of settlement do not qualify as formal offers to settle; and three, the proposed minutes of settlement appear to have been generated out of the negotiations encouraged by the pre-trial judge, my brother Jarvis J. Indeed, the materials submitted by the RF indicate that the proposed minutes were submitted to Jarvis J as part of the negotiation process.

[5] I am not prepared to factor in the conduct of either party or their respective counsel when considering costs. By the time of trial, the parties had successfully resolved many issues and narrowed down the remaining issues for trial to just three. Although the comportment of counsel at trial was less than exemplary, the evidence went in and the trial was conducted within the estimated time frame. Although there was nothing novel about the issues to be tried, the imputation of income issue was moderately complex, requiring a consideration of both corporate income and structure, and the input of a certified income evaluator.

[6] Not only did both parties fail to match or better their respective offers to settle in respect of imputed income and child support, but there was mixed success in respect of s. 7 expenses and spousal support.

[7] In all of the circumstances, I have concluded that it is appropriate and just that the respective parties should bear their own costs of the proceeding throughout. I exercise my discretion accordingly: there shall be no order as to costs.

McCarthy J.

Date: August 1, 2017