Court File and Parties
Citation: Elkout v. Elkout, 2017 ONSC 6797
Court File No.: FC-99-60075-2
Date: 2017/11/14
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Nazareen Elkout, Applicant
And
Mahmud Elkout, Respondent
Before: Madam Justice Maria Linhares de Sousa
Counsel: Nazareen Elkout, for self, for the Applicant and Responding Party on Motion Carleigh Taggart, Respondent and Moving Party on Motion
Heard at Ottawa: By written submissions
Endorsement on Costs
[1] This contested motion brought by Mr. Elkout dealt with respective claims for retroactive credits and payments of child support as well as on going child support. It also dealt with claims for retroactive credits and payments of section 7 expenses as well as on going contributions for the section 7 expenses.
[2] Based on my decision in this matter the issues of retroactive child support resulted in divided success for the parties.
[3] With respect to the question of ongoing child support and contribution to section 7 expenses, Mr. Elkout conceded only at the motion that the child Adam, who has mental health challenges, is pursuing his full-time education and that consequently he continued to be a child of the marriage and entitled to support.
[4] Ms. Elkout was therefore successful on this issue and continues to receive child support while Adam finishes his education. Ms. Elkout was also successful in receiving retroactive s. 7 expenses for her son at a more reasonable pro-rata amount than that suggested by Mr. Elkout. As I result I am of the view that Ms. Elkout should receive some contribution to her costs.
[5] Neither party is accusing the other of bad faith nor of acting unreasonably in this case. There is no question that earlier complete disclosure might have prevented this matter from taking so long to be resolved.
[6] In March of 2017, Ms. Elkout filed and served a formal offer to settle demonstrating reasonable behavior on her part. While the offer does not meet the mandatory costs consequences of Rule 18(14), it was a reasonable effort on her part to settle this matter. Had it been responded to this matter could well have settled.
[7] In his written submissions, Mr. Elkout makes reference to an offer to settle made by him at the Settlement conference. There was no other detail given about this offer and therefore it is difficult consider it in the absence of any evidence.
[8] With respect to the Rule 24(11) factors to be considered by this court, this matter was not particularly important except, of course, to the parties concerned. Nor was it complex or difficult.
[9] I have already discussed the reasonableness of the parties behavior in this matter.
[10] I have examined the respective bills of costs. Ms. Elkout’s legal fees are excessive and out of proportion to the issues and results in these proceedings. It is not an amount that a losing party could reasonably have expected to pay in a proceeding of this kind as demonstrated by Mr. Elkout’s legal fees. Ms. Elkout’s given reasons for changing counsel are far from convincing and clearly contributed to her elevated legal fees. Mr. Elkout cannot be expected to pay for her decision to change counsel.
[11] For all of these reasons, I order Mr. Elkout to contribute to Ms. Elkout’s costs that I fix at $2000.00, payable forthwith.
Madam Justice Maria Linhares de Sousa
Date: November 14, 2017
Citation: Elkout v. Elkout, 2017 ONSC 6797
Court File No.: FC-99-60075-2
Date: 2017/11/14
Ontario
Superior Court of Justice
Re: Nazareen Elkout, Applicant
And
Mahmud Elkout, Respondent
Before: Madam Justice Maria Linhares de Sousa
Counsel: Nazareen Elkout, for self, for the Applicant and Responding Party on Motion Carleigh Taggart, Respondent and Moving Party on Motion
Endorsement on Costs
Linhares de Sousa J.
Released: November 14, 2017