Al Tamimi v. Ramnarine, 2021 ONSC 1387

Court File and Parties

Date: 2021-02-23 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Shereen Al Tamimi, Applicant And: Sean Ramnarine, Respondent

Before: Sossin J.

Counsel: Todd Slonim and Jennifer Howard, Counsel for the Applicant Brian Ludmer, Counsel for the Respondent

Costs Endorsement

[1]

Background

These motions were first returnable on December 19, 2019, before Justice Paisley. Justice Paisley adjourned the hearing of the motions to March 17, 2020. The motions were adjourned once again due to the COVID-19 restrictions, until finally heard in July, 2020 (with reasons reported at Al Tamimi v. Ramnarine, 2020 ONSC 4558).

2In this motion and cross-motion, the applicant, Shereen Al Tamimi, and the respondent, Sean Ramnarine, sought remedies in relation to parenting time and parental decision-making with respect to their two-year old son Daniel.

3The respondent brought a cross-motion, requesting “an Order for, inter alia, equal shared parenting time, and that the parties to have joint custody of Daniel, as well as the sale and partition of the matrimonial home...”

4While neither party received all the relief sought on the motions, the applicant was largely successful at the December 2019 motion, while the respondent was largely successful on the key issue in dispute in the July 2020, with a revised order in relation to additional parenting time.

5The reasons set out that if the parties could not agree on costs, submissions could be provided by the respondent by August 14, 2020, with submissions from the applicant to follow by August 28, 2020.

6The respondent’s costs’ submissions were received on February 3, 2021. The reason for the long delay is unclear.

7The respondent is seeking costs on a substantial indemnity basis, inclusive of HST and disbursements, in the fixed amount of $71,204.80 for the July 17, 2020 long motion and $11,951.78 for the December 19, 2019 motion.

8The applicant’s costs’ submissions were received on February 17, 2021.

9The applicant is seeking costs for both motions fixed in the amount of $7,500.00 inclusive of HST disbursements.

[10]

Legal Framework

Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, provides that, in exercising its discretion to award costs, the court must consider the following factors:

(a) the importance, complexity or difficulty of the issues; (b) the reasonableness or unreasonableness of each party’s behaviour in the case; (c) the lawyer’s rates; (d) the time properly spent on the case; (e) expenses properly paid or payable; and (f) any other relevant matter.

11Costs rules advance three fundamental goals: (a) to indemnify successful litigants; (b) to encourage settlements; and (c) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants. Proportionality and reasonableness are the “touchstone considerations” in a costs award in a Family Law context; Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840 at para. 12.

[12]

Analysis

Both the applicant and respondent made offers to settle this dispute.

13The July 2020 motion was more favourable than the respondent’s offer to settle with respect to parenting time.

14Each party believes the conduct of the other party made the motions more acrimonious and expensive.

15The applicant also points out that the substantial costs claimed by the respondent were the result, in part, of the respondent filing materials in excess of the applicable Rules and Notices to the Profession with respect to the number and length of affidavits.

16While the legal issues involved in the motions were not especially complex, the factual environment and divergent narratives of the parties added a degree of difficulty to the adjudication of the motions.

17In this relatively high-conflict environment, I find each party could have taken steps to resolve or narrow the issues in dispute, in order to avoid or significantly reduce the cost of the motions at issue.

18I find the respondent is entitled to costs, but these costs must be discounted to reflect the relative success of the applicant at the December 2019 motion, the fact that the respondent did not achieve complete success on the July 2020 motion, and the importance of proportionality and reasonableness in the determination of costs.

[19]

Disposition

Bearing these considerations in mind, I find costs in favour of the respondent in the amount of $25,000.00, all inclusive, is fair and reasonable.

20Therefore, the applicant will pay the respondent costs in the amount of $25,000.00, all inclusive, within 30 days of this endorsement.

Sossin J.