Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-19-146 Date: 2021-11-23 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: N.N., Applicant And: R.N., Respondent

Before: Conlan J.

Counsel: N.N., Self-Represented Ms. K. Morris, for the Respondent

Endorsement on Costs

[1] On 25 October 2021, this Court heard two motions – one by the Respondent father, R.N., dated 23 September 2021, and the other by the Applicant mother, N.N., dated 14 October 2021.

[2] In its decision, this Court made a temporary order on the following issues:

i. communication between the parties and adult conflict (that relief was on consent);

ii. electronic communication between the children and the parties (the Court ruled in favour of the father’s position);

iii. child support to be paid by the father (that relief was on consent);

iv. a sealing order (that relief was requested by the mother and denied by the Court); and

v. decision-making authority, primary residency of the children, parenting time, and alcohol consumption (on all of these issues, the Court ruled in favour of the father’s position but for one caveat regarding the specific wording of the alcohol abstention clause).

[3] This Court invited the parties to resolve the issue of costs, observing that the father was more successful and was, therefore, presumptively entitled to some costs.

[4] The parties were unable to settle the costs of the two motions. The mother is now self-represented, which is a change from when the motions were argued. A brief Zoom attendance was held on 23 November 2021 to hear oral submissions on costs. The father’s counsel also filed a Bill of Costs and his offer to settle dated 13 September 2021.

[5] The father asks for costs in the total amount of $7984.58 (full indemnity) or, alternatively, $5269.82 (partial indemnity). The mother submits that either sum is too high in light of her own legal costs (about $6000.00), her monthly budget (which amounts to a shortfall of about $900.00), and her alleged inability to pay.

[6] My task is to make an award that is fair, just, reasonable, and proportionate. It should take into account the factors contained at Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and ought to keep in mind the objectives of a costs order – (i) to partially indemnify successful litigants, (ii) to encourage settlement, and (iii) to discourage bad or inappropriate conduct.

[7] In my view, there is no justification for full indemnity or substantial indemnity recovery in this case. There is no bad conduct on the part of the mother. I categorically disagree with her positions on parenting, but that is a different thing. Further, the father’s offer to settle contains much relief that was not granted by this Court. It cannot be said that the result was equal to or better than the said offer.

[8] I have reviewed the Bill of Costs filed. There is nothing unreasonable about it.

[9] I reject the mother’s assertion that she has no ability to pay. She works. She will have to adjust her monthly budget to pay these costs. I have not made the costs payable forthwith, as requested by the father.

[10] This Court orders that the mother shall pay to the father, within sixty calendar days of November 24, 2021, his costs on a partial indemnity scale in the total amount of $5269.82.

"C.J. Conlan"

Conlan J.

Date: November 23, 2021