COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-49

DATE: 2021 10 15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Kamalnain Bindra, Applicant

AND:

Manoj Arora, Respondent

BEFORE: Coats J.

COUNSEL: Ann L. Stoner/Gurveer Gill, Counsel for the Applicant

Meghan Lawson, Counsel for the Respondent

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

A. Issues:

[1] On September 16, 2021, the parties resolved a motion by way of Temporary Minutes of Settlement filed before me. I did not hear argument of the motion. I accepted the Minutes, reviewed them and made an order to go pursuant to the Minutes filed. I also set a Case Conference date.

[2] Paragraph 17 of the Temporary Minutes provides for written submissions regarding costs. I have since received and reviewed the following:

i. Costs Submissions of the Applicant Kamalnain Bindra; and

ii. Costs Submissions of the Respondent, Manoj Arora.

[3] The motion was to do with parenting time and decision making regarding the parties two children.

B. Positions of the Parties:

[4] It is the Applicant’s position that the Respondent should pay her costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,841.12. Alternately, it is the Applicant’s position that each party should bear his or her own costs of the motion given the settlement reached.

[5] The parties exchanged offers. The offers dealt in part with decision making regarding the children. The Minutes did not have a provision for decision making. The Applicant submits that the Minutes provided for her to have more parenting time with the children than in the Respondent’s offer and that she was therefore successful on this issue. She did not get as much parenting time with the children as she proposed in her offer.

[6] The Applicant also claims that the Respondent acted unreasonably in not proceeding with family therapy in the Fall of 2020 and by indicating that he preferred that a Voice of the Child report be done .The Minutes now provide for therapy.

[7] The Respondent is seeking costs in the amount of $5,000.00, which costs are described as “a fraction” of his total fees of $14,692.83 incurred on the motion.

[8] The Respondent submits that the Applicant made no efforts to resolve the parenting issues prior to the motion. The Applicant included the issue of decision making in her motion when there were no immediate decisions to be made. The Respondent has proposed therapy, a Voice of the Child report and an assessment previous to the motion.

[9] The Respondent submits that the Applicant did not agree to an assessment until the day of the motion and that she did not propose any parenting time schedule, other than equal time with each parent, prior to the day of the motion.

[10] The Respondent acknowledges that pursuant to the Minutes filed, the Applicant will have more parenting time with the children than he proposed in his offer. However, it was significant to the Respondent that an assessment was provided for in the Minutes.

C. Analysis:

[11] Neither party did better than his or her offer by the terms of the Minutes. The Applicant has more parenting time than the Respondent offered but less than her offer. The Minutes did not deal with decision making. Neither party’s offer dealt with an assessment or therapy. A provision for both was included in the Minutes.

[12] I am unable to conclude that either party was the successful party. (Rule 24(1)). The Minutes reflect a true compromise of their positions on parenting time and contain additional terms such as for therapy and for an assessment. Success was divided (Rule 24(6) . There shall be no order for costs.

[13] The motion was not argued before me. I did not make and cannot make any finding that either party acted unreasonably.

D. Conclusion:

[14] There shall be no order as to costs.

Coats J.

Date: October 15, 2021