Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-2029 DATE: 2022/04/04 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Ramin Danjeh, Applicant -and- Afshan Gaouspoor, Respondent

BEFORE: Anne London-Weinstein J.

COUNSEL: Odette Rwigamba, for the Applicant Rebecca Rosenstock, for the Respondent

HEARD: In Writing

Costs Endorsement

[1] The Applicant brought an application for parenting time with the child of the marriage. The child is now three years old. The parties were married in August 2014 in Tehran, Iran. They began to live together in July of 2016. They separated on April 23, 2021. The Father was unable to have any communication or parenting time with his daughter since the date of separation. The Father brought an urgent motion seeking parenting time with the child.

[2] The Father proposed that he see the child three times a week for four hours, and Saturday and Sunday from noon until 7 p.m.

[3] The Mother requested that the Father’s parenting time be supervised, and that it not be every weekend.

[4] In my ruling, see, Danjeh v. Gaouspoor, 2022 ONSC 1231 I was unable to determine which parent was primarily responsible for the child’s care, given that both parties claimed to be the child’s primary caregiver. I found that supervised parenting time was not warranted. I also found that the parenting schedule suggested by the father was too abrupt a change to the child’s present routine, given that she had not seen her father for 10 months.

[5] I ruled that the Father was to have parenting time with the child as follows: Monday, Wednesday and Friday for the next 30 days, the Father shall have a four hour block of parenting time with the child on each of those days. This order issued on Wednesday, February 23, 2022. The first parenting time between Father and the child would occur on Friday, February 25 for four hours.

[6] After 30 days have elapsed, in addition to having the child on Monday, Wednesday and Friday for four hours, the Father shall have the child every second weekend from Saturday at 9 a.m. until Sunday at 7 p.m. the exact timing of the parenting time during the week is to be worked out by the parties through counsel. The order was made on a temporary and without prejudice basis.

Legal Analysis

[7] There is a presumption in Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 as am that the successful party is entitled to their costs.

[8] The Applicant sought an award of costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $10,263.40.

[9] The purpose of the cost regime under the Family Law Rules is designed to indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation; encourage settlements; and to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants and ensure that cases are dealt with justly.

[10] The relevant factors for the court’s consideration in exercising its discretion in awarding costs include:

• The importance, complexity or difficulty of the issue;
• The reasonableness or unreasonableness of each party’s behaviour in the case;
• The lawyer’s rates;
• The time properly sent on the case;
• Expenses properly paid or payable; and
• Any other relevant matter.

[11] I did not find that the issues in this case were complex. The issue of the Father having parenting time with the child was important, but the legal issues to be argued were not complex.

[12] I did not find, that in the particular circumstances of this case that I was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent had acted in bad faith. The Respondent claims she has been abused by the Respondent. There is an insufficient record before me to make a finding one way or another in regard to those allegations. However, I did find that the Mother’s language difficulties, her change of counsel, and her stated fear of the Father prohibited me from making a finding that she had acted in bad faith to attempt to preclude the Father from having parenting time with the child.

[13] I agree that the Father was largely successful in his motion for parenting time. I did not find that Parenting time needed to be supervised. However, I also did not accede to the schedule provided by the Father, as I found it to be too sudden a change, given the age of the child. The results of the motion were therefore mixed, with the Father overall being successful.

[14] This case is not one which warrants a cost award on a substantial indemnity basis. Costs claimed by the Father are $6,779.12 on a partial indemnity basis. A detailed bill of costs was not submitted. The Mother is funded by Legal Aid Ontario. The Father is also not paying child support at the present time. I am concerned that the order of costs I impose not preclude access to justice to a party, in this case the Mother, who is currently of limited financial means, and is also supporting the child.

[15] In light of the relatively straightforward nature of this motion, without a detailed bill of costs, and given the access to justice concerns I have referenced, I find that a reasonable award of costs in this matter is $4,000 inclusive. Costs are therefore awarded to the Father in the amount of $4,000.

Anne London-Weinstein J. Date: April 4, 2022