Superior Court of Justice – Ontario – Family Court

CITATION: Patel v. Patel, 2017 ONSC 5900

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-49335-00

DATE: 20171004

RE: Shweta Pareshkumar Patel, Applicant and Hiren Kirtikumar Patel, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice D.A. Jarvis

COUNSEL: R. Tekriwal, Counsel for the Applicant Karen D. Mitchell, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: April 12, 2017 (Motion)

costs directions

jarvis j.

[1] On April 12, 2017 the applicant wife (“the wife”) brought a motion for, among other relief requests, directions with respect to an access protocol involving the parties’ 10-year-old child and the respondent father (“the father”). At the outset of the motion, the court conveyed to the parties its views with respect to those issues upon which counsel should focus their argument. Shortly afterwards, the parties agreed to discuss a potential resolution of the outstanding issues without the need for formal argument.

[2] The parties succeeded in reaching a Consent with respect to the issues raised in the wife's motion, and a temporary Order was accordingly made. The parties were, however, unable to resolve the issue of costs, the determination of which was “reserved to be addressed after the settlement conference.” If (the issues) could not be resolved then the parties were invited to submit their costs submissions in writing. Directions were given.

[3] It was the expectation of this Court that, as a result of the considerable progress which the parties had made in negotiating the Consent upon which the Order was made, the likelihood of a successful resolution of all of the outstanding issues in this case at the forthcoming Settlement Conference was high.

[4] A Settlement Conference was held by Bennett J. on August 1, 2017 and not concluded. It was rescheduled to December 18, 2017.

[5] As the Settlement Conference process has not been completed this court will not deal at this time, and until then, with the costs associated with the wife's above-referenced motion. Any issue with respect to those costs should be canvassed at the continued settlement conference and in the context of an overall resolution of the outstanding issues between the parties. That is what this court intended when it reserved the issue of costs in the endorsement made April 12, 2017. The parties should be prepared to address that issue at the Conference. Only if there is no resolution of that issue then, whether in the context of an overall settlement or as a stand-alone issue, will I deal with it. A copy of this endorsement is to be contained in an updated Settlement Conference Brief to be provided to Bennett J. by the wife.

Justice D.A. Jarvis

Date: October 4, 2017