Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 835/17 Date: 20181128
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: MAGDALENA DULEBA, Applicant And: STEVE GUY SORGE, Respondent And: MOBILE FRINGE INC., Non-Party
Before: Conlan, J.
Counsel: Jessica Brown, Counsel for the Applicant Steve Guy Sorge, Self-Represented Andreus Snelius, Counsel for the Non-Party
Endorsement on Costs
Conlan J.
I. Introduction
[1] The Applicant mother, Magdalena Duleba-Lapensee (“Magdalena”), and the Respondent father, Steve Guy Sorge (“Steve”), are divorced spouses with two children together.
[2] Pursuant to a Separation Agreement, Steve was to pay child support in the amount of $1452.00 monthly.
[3] By way of an Application, Magdalena sought to review the issue of child support payable by Steve.
[4] In the context of that Application, Magdalena brought a Motion for certain disclosure to be provided by an Ontario company named Mobile Fringe Inc. (“Mobile”), which entity Steve has a minority ownership interest in.
[5] Magdalena also sought disclosure from another Ontario company, 2121572 Ontario Inc., which entity is owned solely by Steve.
[6] Magdalena’s Motion was opposed by Steve and, in so far as it related to Mobile, by that corporation as well.
[7] In written Reasons, this Court dismissed Magdalena’s Motion.
[8] Unable to settle the issue of costs, written submissions have been filed by all concerned.
II. The Basic Principles Related to Costs
[9] There is no controversy in the submissions on costs that this Court has jurisdiction to make an award in favour of Mobile, the non-party.
[10] Costs awards are designed to (i) indemnify successful parties, at least in part, (ii) encourage settlement, and (iii) discourage inappropriate behaviour by litigants.
[11] As the successful “parties” on the Motion, it is presumed that Steve and Mobile are entitled to some costs (the quotation marks are a recognition that Mobile is not actually a party to the Application). Quantum of costs is largely discretionary. The overriding objective is to make an award that is fair, just, reasonable, and proportionate. All of the circumstances should be considered, including the reasonable expectations of the losing side and those factors outlined in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.
III. The Positions of the Parties
[12] Steve requests costs in his favour in the amount of $3500.00, on a partial indemnity scale.
[13] Mobile asks for costs in its favour in the amount of $9421.00, on a full recovery basis.
[14] Magdalena suggests that there be no costs ordered payable by anyone.
IV. Decision
[15] I will deal first with the costs being sought by Steve. I disagree with Magdalena that no costs order in favour of Steve is warranted. Simply put, there is no reason to depart from the normal presumption that Steve, having been entirely successful on the Motion, deserves to be awarded something for costs.
[16] I disagree, further, with Magdalena that Steve has failed to demonstrate that (i) he devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer and (ii) he incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity.
[17] I found Steve’s presentation at Court on the hearing of the Motion to be fairly well done. His materials filed on the Motion, especially for a self-represented litigant, were relevant and helpful. His Bill of Costs outlines work that, indeed, would normally be done by a lawyer, in particular with regard to the Factum that he prepared and filed.
[18] I accept Steve’s submission that he lost some wages due to his attendance at Court to argue the Motion.
[19] On quantum of costs, however, I do agree with Magdalena that the $3500.00 being sought by Steve should be discounted, for two reasons. First, he did not lose a full day’s wages for attending Court to argue the Motion. The $500.00 noted in his Bill of Costs ought to, therefore, be cut in half. Second, there is no reason to award to Steve full recovery of the legal fees charged to him by the law firm that he consulted. The $1205.15 noted in his Bill of Costs ought to, therefore, be reduced. Two-thirds of that amount is reasonable, rounded down to an even $800.00.
[20] The net result is a reduction of $655.15 ($250.00 plus $405.15) from the $3500.00 figure being requested by Steve. That equals $2844.85, which I will round up to an even $2845.00.
[21] Turning next to the costs being sought by Mobile, for the same reasons already stated regarding Steve, I disagree with Magdalena that no costs ought to be awarded to Mobile.
[22] I do agree with Magdalena, however, that there is no reason to provide full recovery of costs to Mobile. Seeing nothing unreasonable about the amount of time spent or the hourly rate charged by counsel for Mobile, in my view, two-thirds of the amount claimed by Mobile ($9421.00) is a reasonable result. That equals $6280.00.
[23] For these reasons, this Court orders that (i) Magdalena shall pay costs to Steve in the amount of $2845.00, and (ii) Magdalena shall pay costs to Mobile in the amount of $6280.00.
[24] I thank counsel and Steve for their assistance in dealing with this matter.
Conlan J.
Released: November 28, 2018