Hummel v. Hummel, 2019 ONSC 450

COURT FILE NO.: 475/14

DATE: 2019-01-16

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Nancy Hummel, Applicant

AND: Rainer Hummel, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: Donna Wowk and Vincent Demarco for the Applicant; James Singer and Jennifer Long for the Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

[1] I decided the following motions in St Catharines on December 14 and 17, 2018: 2018 ONSC 7561.

a. I dismissed the Applicant’s request for an adjournment.

b. I dismissed the Applicant’s motion for a voice of the child report and the Respondent’s motion for a further parenting assessment.

c. I dismissed the Applicant’s motion for an order requiring the Respondent not to dissipate his assets.

d. I dismissed the Applicant’s motion for further disclosure.

e. I granted the Applicant’s motion for increased temporary child support and spousal support.

f. I granted the Respondent’s motion for vacant possession of the matrimonial home on terms.

[2] The Applicant abandoned her request for a litigation disbursement from the Respondent.

[3] Both parties now ask for costs.

[4] The Applicant has submitted a bill of costs in the neighbourhood of $90,000. Partial indemnity would be about $54,000. The Applicant is asking for an award of $30,000, which would reflect the divided success.

[5] The Respondent is asking for $76,660, which reflects for the most part substantial indemnity.

[6] The Applicant points out that success was divided and submits that the Respondent acted in bad faith by submitting a 700-page affidavit close to the time of the motion. I do not agree that the Respondent acted in bad faith. The large affidavit was the result of the Applicant’s extravagant demands for disclosure. The Respondent did his best to answer them.

[7] The Respondent submits that the Applicant acted in bad faith by seeking an adjournment at the last minute so that Mr Niman could appear on the motion. I am afraid that I agree with him, as my reasons on the motion reflect.

[8] I infer that the much of the Applicant’s litigation conduct so far has been designed to prolong her unjustified retention of the matrimonial home, with a view to putting financial pressure on the Respondent.

[9] The Respondent’s position on temporary spousal support was unsuccessful, but not unreasonable. On the other hand, I cannot see any reason for him to take the position that it was too soon to deal with temporary child support.

[10] On June 18, 2018 the Respondent offered to settle the matrimonial home question on better terms than he ended up getting from me. The Applicant then brought her cross motions, which she offered to settle on December 12, 2018. She asked for more than she got on everything, including child support and spousal support.

[11] As I look at the proceedings as a whole, it seems to me that the issue that really concerned the parties was the matrimonial home. The Respondent’s position was reasonable. He needed to sell it for the good of all, including the children. He offered generous terms. The Applicant’s response was to bring a number of motions that lacked merit and were expensive to defend and to act in bad faith by trying to stall the hearing. She also moved for $500,000 in interim disbursements when she was not seriously intending to proceed with it. To my mind it all calls for substantial indemnity to the Respondent, subject to some reduction to reflect the decision on child support and spousal support.

[12] At the end of the day I think an amount that would reasonably have been contemplated is $65,000. I reduce that to $50,000 to reflect the Applicant’s success on the motions for child support and spousal support.

[13] I order the Applicant to pay this amount to the Respondent forthwith. She has ample ability to pay. The Respondent may set off that amount from the $600,000 advance on equalization in my order with respect to the matrimonial home.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2019-01-16