COURT FILE NO.: FS 18-32 DATE: 20190513 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Lisa Ann Leggo, Applicant AND: Stephen Harrington Hulme, Respondent

BEFORE: Fragomeni J.

COUNSEL: Leena Leva Kumar, Counsel, for the Applicant Noel A. Nolasco da Silva, Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: April 1, 2019 and April 8, 2019

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1] On October 29, 2018 Price, J. made a comprehensive order relating to the children Brooklyn Leggo-Hulme, born March 23, 2009 and Ava Leggo-Hulme, born September 2, 2011. Justice Price also dealt with financial issues. Justice Price’s order is silent on the issues of costs. Although Justice Price does adjourn the balance of the issues in the applicant’s motion and the respondent’s cross-motion to a long motion date on April 1, 2019 he does not expressly reserve the decision on costs to the long motions justice. Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules states:

(10) Promptly after dealing with a step in a case, the court shall, in a summary manner,

(a) determine who, if anyone, is entitled to costs in relation to that step and set the amount of any costs; or

(b) expressly reserve the decision on costs for determination at a later stage in the case. O. Reg. 298/18, s. 14.

[2] Rule 24(11) states:

The failure of the court to act under subrule (10) in relation to a step in a case does not prevent the court from awarding costs in relation to the step at a later stage in the case. O. Reg. 298/18, s. 14.

[3] The handwritten endorsement of Justice Price states:

Order to go in accordance with draft order which I have signed.

The balance of the motion is adjourned to April 1, 2019 at 10 am for long motion for estimated 3 hours.

[4] At paragraph 18(j) of her costs submissions the Applicant states:

The Applicant requested an adjournment of the October 29th, 2018 motion date because the Respondent’s counsel served an extensive cross-motion for which the Applicant required time to prepare. Ultimately, parties were able to come to a consent agreement on some of the issues.

[5] Paras. 1 to 4 of Justice Price’s order relate to the children and the involvement of the OCL. Para. 5 orders the Applicant to obtain a valuation of her pension. Paras. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are agreed to by the parties, relating to the release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

[6] I am satisfied that considering the nature of the orders set out by Justice Price and that a substantial portion of his order was on agreement by the parties, that each of the parties should bear their own costs of the October 29 2018 attendance.

[7] This matter appeared before me on April 1, 2019 and then again on April 8, 2019. My endorsement is dated April 11, 2019. On April 11, 2019 I made the following order:

1. The mother’s motion to vary the existing consent order dated June 22, 2018 with respect to the residency of the children is dismissed;
2. On the basis of the week about parenting schedule, the mother shall pay to the father child support for the two children of the marriage, the sum of $679 per month as a set off based on the mother’s income of $96,913 and the father’s imputed income of $50,000, commencing May 1, 2019; Section 7 expenses shall be shared on a pro-rata basis.
3. The mother shall pay spousal support to the father in the sum of $300 per month, commencing May 1, 2019;
4. The parties shall each receive the sum of $25,000 from the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home. The balance of the net proceeds of sale shall remain in trust pending trial or written agreement of the parties.
5. The mother shall reinstate the father on her medical and health benefits as long as doing so does not result in any expense to her.
6. The issues relating to reimbursement of expenses by the father to the mother is reserved to the trial judge;
7. The issues relating to pet care expenses is reserved to the trial judge;
8. The issues relating to the retroactivity of child support, spousal support and s. 7 expenses is reserved to the trial judge;
9. The issue relating to reimbursement to the father of $2,800 regarding prescriptions is reserved to the trial judge.

[8] The mother’s Motion to Change the existing consent order was dismissed. The parties agreed to the re-involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. The father was successful on this issue.

[9] The father argued that his income should be imputed at nil and the mother’s income be imputed at $102,331.

[10] In the alternative the father asked that his income be imputed at his 2017 income of $33,710. I determined that the father’s income should be imputed at $50,000 and the mother’s income was found to be $96,913. The mother was successful on this issue.

[11] Each of the parties received $25,000 from the sale of the home. The father had asked for his entire share with the mother’s share to remain in trust. The mother was successful on this issue. The mother was ordered to reinstate the father on her benefits. The father was successful on this issue.

[12] The reimbursement of the expenses by the father was reserved to trial. The issues relating to pet care expenses was reserved to trial. The issues relating to retroactivity of child support, spousal support and s. 7 expenses was reserved to trial. The issue relating to reimbursement to the father of $2,800 regarding his prescription costs was reserved to trial.

[13] I am satisfied that the results of the motion heard by me were mixed. In these circumstances I am also satisfied that each of the parties should bear their own costs.

[14] I have reviewed and considered the numerous Offers to Settle exchanged between the parties and I am not satisfied that the offers made are such that they favour one side more than other considering the mixed results achieved by the parties at the motions heard by me.

DISPOSITION

[15] Each of the parties shall bear their own costs.

Fragomeni J.

Date: May 13, 2019