COURT FILE NO.: FS17-5361
DATE: 20180516
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: T.B., Applicant v. M.B., Respondent
BEFORE: Justice C.J. Conlan
COUNSEL: Mr. P. Phillips and Ms C. Watson, for the Applicant
M.B., Self-Represented Respondent
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
Conlan J.
I. Introduction
[1] On March 28, 2018, after a very short trial, in Reasons for Judgment reported at 2018 ONSC 2024, this Court disposed of all issues raised on both sides: (i) the parties were divorced, (ii) the wife’s (T.B.’s) claim for an unequal division of net family property was denied, (iii) the wife’s claim for child support was granted, (iv) the wife’s claim for reimbursement of certain monies paid by her regarding the matrimonial home was granted, and (v) the husband’s (M.B.’s) claim for spousal support was dismissed.
[2] This Court stated the following at paragraph 39 of the Reasons for Judgment:
[39] The wife has been more successful than the husband. Neither party was entirely successful. The husband earns far, far less money than the wife.
[3] The parties were invited to settle costs but have not done so. T.B. has filed written submissions. Although the deadline stipulated by the Court has passed, nothing was filed by M.B.
II. The Law on Costs
[4] Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules provides that T.B., having been largely (though not entirely) successful after trial, is presumed to be entitled to some costs; and that this Court, in determining the quantum of costs to be awarded to her, should consider the nature of the case, the behaviour of the parties, the lawyer’s rates, the time properly spent on the matter, proper expenses, and any other relevant item.
[5] The latter includes settlement offers, whether they would normally attract full recovery costs or not.
[6] The chief objective is to make an award that is fair, just, and reasonable in all of the circumstances, including the prudent expectations of the unsuccessful side.
[7] Modern costs awards are designed to (i) partially indemnify successful litigants, (ii) encourage settlement, and (iii) discourage or sanction inappropriate conduct by litigants.
III. The Positions of the Parties
[8] T.B. seeks $11,042.34 in costs, calculated on a substantial indemnity scale from the date of the Settlement Conference on August 16, 2017 through to the end of the trial on March 26, 2018.
[9] Although M.B. has not bothered to let the Court know his position, I will grant him the benefit of assuming that he takes the stance that no costs ought to be awarded to either side.
IV. Conclusion
[10] I have reviewed T.B.’s Offer to Settle dated October 19, 2017. It was a very reasonable one. It would have provided some spousal support in favour of M.B., which claim this Court dismissed in its Reasons for Judgment.
[11] I have also reviewed M.B.’s Offer to Settle dated November 7, 2017, which the wife’s counsel had the decency to file as part of her costs submissions. It was unreasonable. It demanded that spousal support be paid to him for an indefinite period of time and in the amount of nearly $1500.00 monthly, and it included no provision for child support payable by the husband.
[12] T.B.’s position on costs is unassailable, however, because of M.B.’s very difficult personal circumstances (his health problems and his unemployment), I will temper the award to something between partial indemnity ($7148.17) and substantial indemnity ($11,042.34) recovery.
[13] This Court orders that costs be paid by M.B. to T.B. in the total amount of $8000.00, all-inclusive.
Conlan, J.
DATE: May 16, 2018
COURT FILE NO.: FS17-5361
DATE: 20180516
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: T.B., Applicant v. M.B., Respondent
BEFORE: Justice C.J. Conlan
COUNSEL: Mr. P. Phillips and
Ms C. Watson, for the Applicant
M.B.,
Self-Represented Respondent
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
Conlan, J.
DATE: May 16, 2018