Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-451-16 Date: 2022-05-02

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Family Court

Between:

Allan John Lundrigan, Applicant K. Hughes, for the Applicant

- and -

Irene Martina Friesen, Respondent P. MacLeod, for the Respondent

Before: The Honourable Justice J. R. Henderson

Costs Endorsement

[1] The respondent submits that she was the successful party on the two motions heard together on March 31, 2022. She therefore requests her costs of the motions on a substantial indemnity scale.

[2] The applicant’s motion was a request for police enforcement of the existing parenting order. I dismissed this request by the applicant for reasons set out in my written endorsement.

[3] The respondent’s motion was for an order that required the applicant to provide an accounting of all support payments he had made. I made the order requested by the respondent, although the applicant did not strongly contest this request.

[4] Accordingly, I accept that the respondent was the overall successful party on these two motions. Therefore, the respondent is presumptively entitled to a costs award: see rule 24(1).

[5] However, the court retains a broad discretion with respect to costs awards, and there are factors in this case, in addition to the success of the parties, that should be considered.

[6] In particular, I have considered the fact that the applicant started this round of motions with a motion returnable March 16, 2022, in which the applicant requested several types of relief. After an adjournment of the original motion, the respondent consented to most of the orders requested by the applicant, including an order for ongoing therapy. The applicant’s request for a police enforcement order remained unresolved and that issue was argued before me on March 31, 2022. Thus, I accept that the applicant achieved some success on his original motion.

[7] In addition, I have considered the fact that the applicant’s request for police enforcement was motivated by the improper conduct of the respondent. In my written endorsement, I found that the respondent had been alienating the parties’ daughter, Sofia, from the applicant, that the respondent had not been encouraging the relationship between Sofia and the applicant, and that the respondent had limited the relationship between Sofia and the applicant.

[8] Although I made the decision that a police enforcement order should not issue, it was not because I felt that the respondent was behaving in a responsible manner; rather, it was because of my concern about the effect of such an order on the child. The improper conduct of the respondent should not be rewarded with costs.

[9] Further, I accept that the respondent’s motion for an accounting from the applicant was not absolutely necessary because the Family Responsibility Office was involved, and an accounting could have been obtained from the Family Responsibility Office. I accept that the applicant did not strongly contest this request because, in part, his personal accounting of support payments could help clarify any discrepancies.

[10] In consideration of all of these factors, I find that both parties should be responsible for their own costs. There will be no order as to costs for these two motions.

J. R. Henderson J. Released: 2022-05-02