COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-009107

DATE: 20220614

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Lisa Marie Francis

Applicant

– and –

James Albert Francis

Respondent

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

– and –

Director, Family Responsibility Office

Maha Mashhadi, for the Director, FRO

HEARD: In Writing

pinto j.

costs endorsement

Overview

[1] I heard and granted the respondent husband’s motion for an order suspending enforcement of support arrears, and an order staying the ongoing support obligation. I issued my Reasons for Decision on April 1, 2022: Francis v. Francis, 2022 ONSC 2035. The parties were unable to agree on costs and required this decision based on their written costs submissions.

[2] The respondent seeks costs in the amount of $16,353.36 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

[3] The respondent argues that successful parties, absent misconduct, are generally entitled to their costs. He feels that several factors support his request for costs:

(a) The applicant came to court on two occasions without being prepared.

(b) The applicant thought that FRO would act on her behalf and provided no paperwork.

(c) The applicant was unreasonable and supported the removal of the respondent’s driver’s license.

(d) The applicant’s submissions were not focused, wasting the court’s time and the respondent’s resources.

(e) The respondent acted diligently and asked the applicant to negotiate a change in support when he lost his job in March of 2020, but the applicant refused.

(f) The respondent attempted to resolve the issue of costs, but the applicant was not cooperative.

(g) The respondent is presently self-represented, but was represented at the time of the underlying motion and expended legal costs on the motion.

[4] The applicant responds that the respondent ended up owing arrears and she kept in regular contact with FRO trying to ascertain the situation.

[5] She asserts that the respondent was not cooperative in respect of developing a payment plan to address the arrears that had developed.

[6] The applicant further submits that ultimately, the respondent was not successful in staying ongoing support, it was only the quantum of support payments that was reduced.

Decision on Costs

[7] Modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes:

(1) to partially indemnify successful litigants,

(2) to encourage settlement,

(3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants, and

(4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly pursuant to r. 2 (2) of the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99 as am. (FLRs). See Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867.

[8] I find that, although the respondent was not successful in completely staying the order for support, he was the more successful party on the motion and that he should be awarded costs.

[9] I find that his requested costs of $16,353.36 inclusive of HST and disbursement is somewhat excessive in light of the costs that the applicant could have reasonably expected to pay.

[10] I find that costs fixed in the amount of $12,000 in favour of the respondent are appropriate.

[11] I order that the respondent’s costs be “paid” via his arrears to the applicant being reduced by $12,000. An Order shall go accordingly.

Pinto J.

Released: June 14, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-009107

DATE: 20220614

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Lisa Marie Francis

Applicant

– and –

James Albert Francis

Respondent

– and –

Director, Family Responsibility Office

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

Pinto J.

Released: June 14, 2022