Court File and Parties

CITATION: Gordon v. Pierce, 2017 ONSC 6561

COURT FILE NO.: F1288/16-02

DATE: November 2, 2017

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

FAMILY COURT

RE: LEE GORDON, applicant

AND:

TRACY PIERCE (GORDON), respondent

BEFORE: VOGELSANG J.

COUNSEL: Erin L. Reid for the applicant No one for the respondent Brian Smith, moving party, in person

HEARD: written submissions filed

ENDORSEMENT on costs

[1] Mr. Gordon achieved success in this motion when I dismissed Mr. Smith’s attempt to be added as a party respondent. That success presumptively entitles him to costs: rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. The quantum to be paid, however, must reflect the factors in rule 24(11), viewed flexibly: C.A.M. v. D.M. (2003), 2003 CanLII 18880 (ON CA), 67 O.R. (3d) 181 (C.A.).

[2] I am required to step back and make an assessment of a sensible and fair result consistent with what the more unsuccessful party might reasonably have expected to have to pay: Moon v. Sher (2004), 2004 CanLII 39005 (ON CA), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 440, [2004] O.J. No. 4651 (C.A.). The costs assessment, as well, must reflect some form of proportionality to the actual issues argued, not just an unquestioned reliance on billable hours and documents created: Pagnotta v. Brown, 2002 CarswellOnt 2666 (Sup. Ct.). Indeed, proportionality must always be kept in mind when considering any costs issue: Gale v. Gale, 2006 CarswellOnt 6328 (Div. Ct.).

[3] To my mind, a balanced, fair costs award to Mr. Gordon to reflect his success is $3,750 inclusive of recoverable disbursements and H.S.T. The costs awarded are payable within 45 days.

“Justice Henry Vogelsang”

Justice Henry Vogelsang

Date: November 2, 2017