Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-17965 DATE: 20180827 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: William Glenn McSkimming, Applicant AND: Diane Roberta Schmuck, Respondent AND: The Director, Family Responsibility Office, for the benefit of Diane Roberta Schmuck
BEFORE: P.J. Monahan J.
COUNSEL: Giovanna Cacciola, for the Applicant Michael Stangarone and Serena Lein, for the Respondent Diane Gillies, counsel for the Family Responsibility Office
HEARD: June 21, 2018
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Overview
[1] In January 2017, the Applicant, William Glenn McSkimming, brought a motion to change (the “Motion to Change”), seeking a declaration that no further spousal support was payable under a 2014 support order, along with a 50% reduction in the costs enforceable as spousal support pursuant to a prior costs order. In her Response to the Motion to Change (the “Response”), the Respondent, Diane Roberta Schmuck, sought an order dismissing the Motion to Change, as well as (amongst other things) an increase in the quantum and duration of spousal support.
[2] The Respondent subsequently filed a separate motion on June 21, 2017, (the “Strike Out Motion”) seeking a variety of relief, including an order striking the Applicant’s Motion to Change as a result of his breaches of prior court orders. In the alternative, if the Applicant’s Motion to Change were not struck out, the Respondent sought an order for security for costs. The Respondent also sought leave to lift a stay of her appeal of an arbitral award. In response to the Respondent’s Strike Out Motion, the Applicant filed a second motion on December 1, 2017 (the “Interim Relief Motion”), in which he sought, on an interim basis, relief largely similar to that sought in his January 2017 Motion to Change.
[3] On July 18, 2018, with one exception, I dismissed both the Respondent’s Strike Out Motion as well as the Applicant’s Interim Relief Motion. (Neither the Motion to Change nor the Response were before me.) I was prepared to grant the Respondent’s request for summary judgment, dismissing the Applicant’s motion to reduce the amount of the costs order payable as child support. But otherwise, I denied the relief sought by both the Respondent and the Applicant.
[4] Each of the parties had served offers to settle prior to hearing of the motions. However, neither party met or exceeded the terms of their offer. The Respondent nevertheless argues that she is entitled to her costs the basis that was successful on one of the grounds advanced in the Strike Out Motion. The Applicant did not file any costs submissions with the Court.
[5] Having reviewed the Respondent’s cost submissions, I am not prepared to order costs on this motion. In my view the Respondent’s Strike Out Motion was largely ill-advised and unnecessary. The primary relief sought by the Respondent was to strike out the Applicant’s pleadings and also to proceed with an appeal of an arbitrator’s award that had previously been stayed on consent. The Respondent was not successful on either of these primary grounds. By bringing the Strike Out Motion, she forced the Applicant to file his own responding motion. In my view, a far more economical and expeditious manner of dealing with this matter would have been to proceed to deal directly with the Motion to Change and the Response. By filing the Strike Out Motion, the Respondent forced the parties into a preliminary proceeding that ultimately failed to resolve the issues or advance the matter significantly.
[6] I therefore make no costs award in respect of these motions.