CITATION: Gordon v. Scriver, 2017 ONSC 6017

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-53272-00

DATE: 20171016

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – FAMILY COURT

RE: Lisa Rayna Gordon, Applicant and Brent Edward Scriver, Respondent

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

COUNSEL: M. Greenstein, Counsel for the Applicant K. Lewis, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: August 31, 2017 (Motion)

Ruling on costs

jarvis j.

[1] On August 31, 2017 this court dismissed the mother's urgent motion for an Order that the children attend a school which, except for the then completed academic year, they had previously attended.

[2] As the successful party, the father seeks costs of $4,405.70 all inclusive.

[3] The mother requested each party be ordered to pay their own costs and that, in any event, the father's costs claim is excessive.

[4] Each party served a Rule 18 - compliant Offer to Settle. The father’s Offer was dated August 28, 2017 and mirrored the Order made in the sense that the children were to continue attending the school where they had attended in the 2016/2017 academic year. The mother’s Offer was dated August 23, 2017 and, in essence, proposed the relief which the court dismissed.

[5] The father is entitled to costs as the successful party.

[6] In reviewing the Bill of Costs submitted by the father's lawyer, his lawyer notes that her hourly rate claimed ($250) was less than her regularly bill rate ($350) and that her clerk was billed out at $125 an hour. The rates claimed by the father's lawyer are reasonable but those of the law clerk, while modest, are higher than warranted. Disbursements were reasonably incurred.

[7] No comparative Bill of Costs accompanied the mother's submissions.

[8] The mother argues that if costs are ordered that they should be no more than $2,855.70. In reviewing the mother's objections, she focuses on docketed entries which do not, she submits, directly link to the motion but, from this court's standpoint, would be needed to schedule and prepare for a motion. Her complaints are more in the nature of an attempt to whittle down the father's claim, and mostly meritless.

[9] Considering the provisions of Family Law Rules 18 and 24 a costs award in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST is reasonable. This amount takes into account the father's success, the time appropriately spent and discounts modestly applied to the overall fees claimed. An award of this kind is easily within the reasonable range which parties to a motion such as this should be expected to incur, and pay if unsuccessful.

Justice D.A. Jarvis

Date: October 16, 2017