COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-38

DATE: 2022-06-10

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: C.C., Applicant

AND:

S.C., Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: C.C., Self-represented

Ms. J. Ruskin, for the Respondent

ENDORSEMENT on costs

I. Introduction

The Parties

[1] The Applicant in this proceeding is the mother, C.C., who represents herself. The Respondent is the father, S.C., whose counsel is Ms. Joelle Ruskin.

The Child

[2] The child, C.M., is an adolescent pre-teen. He is this Court’s paramount concern, even at the costs stage. He lives with S.C., and his in-person contact with his mother, C.C., has been suspended.

The Motions Heard at Court on April 12, 2022

[3] On April 12, 2022, this Court heard two motions, one by each parent.

[4] The father moved for, among other things, a temporary suspension of all in-person contact between the child and the mother.

[5] Rather than simply respond to the father’s motion, the mother, unexpectedly, brought her own motion. She asked for, among other relief, a complete reversal of what had been in place for a lengthy period of time, notwithstanding a history of damning commentary against the mother by this Court and by other Courts. She asked for an order that she be granted “immediate full custody” of the child, and she wanted all contact between the father and the child to be suspended.

[6] In its reasons, C.C. v. S.C., 2022 ONSC 2306, this Court dismissed the mother’s motion and granted the father’s motion, subject only to a few clarifications.

The Positions of the Parties on Costs

[7] S.C. requests costs on a full recovery basis in the total amount of $35,837.00. Written submissions and a detailed Bill of Costs have been filed.

[8] C.C. has filed nothing on costs, and the clear deadline for doing so as expressed in this Court’s decision on the motions has passed. This Court waited several extra days in an effort to ensure that the mother’s input would be considered, but to no avail.

II. Decision

[9] In eleven years, I have never awarded a litigant full recovery on costs. Call it “prudential restraint”, or just plain cheap, but I have always seemed to find a way to avoid it.

[10] This Court orders that C.C. shall pay costs to S.C. in the total amount of $35,837.00. Those full recovery costs shall be paid by C.C. by August 31, 2022.

[11] I decline to make the order requested by S.C. that “he shall be at liberty to deduct the total sum awarded from any payments that he is liable to make to C.C., including monthly spousal support”.

[12] The reason is that this Court just made another order in this proceeding, which order dealt with spousal support. In addition, the order sought is too broad in that it could result in C.C. receiving zero spousal support for several months, which, despite the mother’s history of contemptible and shameful conduct, this Court cannot in good conscience condone. Such a result would impede the mother’s therapeutic progress and only delay her reunification with the child, and that relationship is in the boy’s best interests.

[13] I am prepared to consider an amended order that would permit a relatively modest portion of the monthly spousal support to be withheld on account of this costs award, however, I would have to hear submissions by both sides on that point. That could be arranged through the trial office, if desired.

[14] Anyone who reads this Court’s decision on the motions, and prior decisions in this proceeding, would not need any reasons for the full recovery of costs award. But, reasons will be given for the benefit of the mother.

[15] Reason one – her motion should never have been brought. It had no merit. It was based on spurious allegations of child abuse committed by the father and equally baseless assertions of professional malpractice committed by the child’s therapist. It was clearly brought in bad faith and aimed to divert the Court’s attention away from what everyone, including the mother herself, agreed would be the focus of the hearing on April 12th – whether there should be a suspension of in-person contact between mother and child.

[16] Reason two – the mother is intransigent and needs to be deterred from litigating by wildfire. Nothing has deterred that to date. Not even about $450,000.00 in costs orders that have been made by various Courts and which remain unpaid. Nearly half a million dollars of costs arrears, and yet the onslaught continues.

[17] Reason three – the mother has a history of inappropriately writing directly to the Court. She has been warned, too many times to count, to stop doing so. The decision on the motions expressly referred to this unacceptable practice. Yet, after the decision was made, and before this costs decision was written, the mother wrote to the Court again. The full recovery of costs is a way to address that unacceptable conduct.

[18] Costs awards are to be fair, just, and reasonable. They are to be proportionate as well, taking into account the principles and factors outlined in Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules. They are designed to indemnify successful litigants (like S.C.), encourage settlement, and to deal with bad or inappropriate conduct on the part of litigants (like C.C.).

[19] This costs order does all of that, in my view. Frankly, there is nothing else that could reasonably be decided on these facts.

[20] I repeat what I said at paragraph 41 of the decision on the motions – this Court’s goal is to have the mother be an active part of the child’s life, with maximum contact that is in accordance with the boy’s best interests, all this year, in 2022.

[21] Only C.C. will stand in the way of that. I think she will succeed.

Conlan J.

Date: June 10, 2022