Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-16-2654-1 Date: 2020-04-22 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: ANNA BLOOM Applicant – and – ROBERT BLOOM Respondent

Counsel: Michael Rappaport, for the Applicant John Summers, for the Respondent

Heard: By written submissions

Reasons for Decision

Audet J.

[1] On March 3, 2020, I granted the Respondent father’s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the applicant mother’s motion to change the parenting and spousal support provisions of Shelston J.’s final order dated January 11, 2019. Simply put, I found the mother’s motion to vary devoid of any merit.

[2] The father now seeks his full costs for the summary judgment motion in the amount of $6,276.55, based on his submission that it was unreasonable for the mother to have commenced her motion to change. There were no offers to settle made by the parties in this case as it did not lend itself to offers to settle at this stage.

[3] I agree that it was unreasonable for the mother to initiate this motion to change, given the evidence filed by her in support of her motion. In my decision, I concluded that there was no material change in circumstances justifying a variation of the parenting provisions of Shelston J.’s order made only a year prior, after an eleven-day trial.

[4] I found that the mother’s allegations were the same ones she made during the course of the trial, based on the same facts, and that she was simply trying to re-litigate the same issues. I found that the mother’s attempt to vary the spousal support provisions of Shelston J.’s Final Order was a disguised attempt to appeal them.

[5] The mother’s overall attitude towards the court process and the orders it makes in relation to this family is best illustrated by her counsel’s response to an offer to resolve the issue of costs for this motion:

“… the real losers in the decision are Aidan and Ethan, who are not in a position to pay costs. However, at 14 and 12 they are old enough to vote with their feet.”

[6] I have reviewed the father’s bill of costs and find that the amounts charged were reasonable. I would reduce it slightly because it includes fees related to the parties’ attendance at the first appearance and at the case conference. Since the father was granted leave to pursue his request for a yearly review of the parties’ child support obligations within the confine of the mother’s motion to vary, his counsel’s attendance to these events would have been required in any event.

[7] The mother shall therefore pay the father costs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable forthwith.

Electronically signed by Madam Justice Julie Audet Released: April 22, 2020