Court File and Parties

Newmarket Court File No.: FC-16-50196-00 Date: 2020-02-05 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Shahreh Khosbin, Applicant And: Farhad Mohammad Nezami, Respondent

Before: The Hon. Madam Justice S.E. Healey

Counsel: L. Settanni, Counsel for the Applicant The Respondent, Farhad Mohammad Nezami, Self-represented

Heard: By written submissions of the Applicant

Endorsement on Costs

[1] Written costs submissions in this matter were due on December 12, 2019 from the applicant and December 19, 2019 from the respondent. Counsel for the applicant requested an extension. The request was granted and the dates were moved back to December 20, 2019 and January 2, 2020, respectively.

[2] The respondent then attended the trial coordinator’s office in Barrie. After it was communicated to me that the respondent was requesting a further extension, this court extended his deadline to January 16, 2020. That date has passed, with no material being filed by the respondent.

[3] The applicant was successful at trial. All relief that she requested in her application was decided in her favour, although retroactive child support was less than what she was seeking. Nonetheless, the main issue at trial was the respondent’s access to his children, and the court’s decision that access between he and the children should terminate was aligned with the applicant’s position. She is presumptively entitled to some of her costs of the trial.

[4] There were no offers made by the parties.

[5] The position taken by the respondent, that he wanted unsupervised access to resume, does not attract an award of costs on a full recovery basis. The termination of access between parent and child is an order infrequently made and the issue was significantly important to the respondent. The court will not penalize him for wanting to attempt to pursue the relationships. However, there were aspects of the respondent’s conduct that were unreasonable and substantially lengthened the amount of preparation and trial time for the applicant’s counsel. These issues were: his denial of his criminal convictions and mistreatment of the applicant; his fixation on details of the marriage that were irrelevant; his unsupportable position that the clinical investigator from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer had conducted an incomplete investigation; and his failure to produce full financial disclosure despite orders that required specific production.

[6] The applicant seeks costs for trial preparation and attendance in the amount of $16,220, inclusive of HST and disbursements for a four-day trial. The hourly rate of the two lawyers who worked on the file is $250 per hour for both lawyers. A review of the applicant’s Bill of Costs shows no duplication in services between the two lawyers. Only one of them, Ms. Settanni, attended court on the trial dates. The amount sought is not unreasonable, but does represent full indemnity costs.

[7] In the circumstances, having regard to the factors in r. 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, and r.1(8), which provides that the court may respond to a failure to follow the Rules or abide by an order by making an order for costs, I find that a just and reasonable award for costs of this trial is $14,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

[8] This court orders that the respondent shall pay costs to the applicant fixed in the amount of $14,000.

HEALEY J.

Date: February 5, 2020