Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-09-1058-4 Date: 2018/06/29 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Ms. Nafar-Ross, Applicant And Mr. Raahemi, Respondent

Before: Justice P.E. Roger

Counsel: Kellie Stewart, lawyer for the Applicant John E. Summers, lawyer for the Respondent

Endorsement on Costs

P.E. ROGER

[1] The respondent brought a motion to change, seeking to terminate child support for the parties’ eighteen-year-old daughter on the basis that she has rejected any relationship with him. I did not terminate child support, but I ordered amounts that are a better result for the respondent than if the motion had not been argued.

[2] Costs are governed by rule 24 of the Family Law Rules which provides for a presumption of entitlement to costs for the successful party.

[3] Although success was divided, the respondent was the more successful party considering the amounts that I ordered as child support, the required yearly disclosure by the applicant, and the contribution to be made by the child towards the cost of her post-secondary education (and yearly retrospective adjustments depending on the child’s income). Consequently, the respondent is presumptively entitled to costs, although with required adjustments considering the mixed result.

[4] I have reviewed the offer served by the applicant and find that the party who made the offer (the applicant) did not obtain an order on this motion that is as favourable as, or more favourable than, the offer. Consequently, this offer does not impact the presumptive finding made above.

[5] Costs are designed to partially indemnify the successful party, encouraged settlement, and discourage inappropriate behaviour. Costs should be ordered in an amount that is fair and reasonable. An indication of what is fair and reasonable for an unsuccessful party to pay in a particular proceeding is the unsuccessful party’s expectations towards the payment of costs.

[6] Here, the applicant seeks, as a contribution towards her costs, the amount of $10,396.07. By opposition, the respondent’s actual fees total $7,124.65, and the respondent seeks $2,825 in costs considering the divided outcome. The amount sought for costs by the respondent is therefore well within the reasonable expectations of the applicant.

[7] This motion was important to the parties and fairly complicated considering the challenging factual history. Both parties acted reasonably on this motion, which is refreshing considering their past conduct. The lawyers’ rates are reasonable and the time spent appears reasonable for what was required on this motion.

[8] Although I did find in my earlier decision that the applicant alienated the child from the respondent, I also found that the history in this case is complex and that if any blame is to be allocated, it should be shouldered by both parents in varying degrees over time. Consequently, I did not consider the parties' past conduct while deciding the issue of costs for this motion.

[9] The overriding principle in awarding costs is reasonableness, and not an exact mathematical measure of the actual costs of the successful party.

[10] Considering the divided success, which nonetheless slightly favours of the respondent; the above comments; as well as the factors outlined at rule 24, what seems a reasonable amount in order to indemnify the successful party while balancing the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party is to fix costs in the amount of $2,150.

[11] Consequently, an order shall issue requiring the applicant to pay within the next 30 days to the respondent the costs of this motion in the amount of $2,150, all inclusive.

Mr. Justice P.E. Roger Date: 2018/06/29