COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-00096622-0000
DATE: 2023 02 21
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Micheline BOUTIN
Robert M. Halpern and Victoria Varro, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
Victor BOUTIN
Gary S. Joseph and Aria MacEachern, for the Respondent
Respondent
JSVB Holdings Ltd. and Juan Speck Added Parties
Rohit R. Kumar
HEARD: In Writing.
COST ENDORSEMENT
RSJ RICCHETTI
[1] The motion was heard by me on December 29, 2022. The primary purpose of the urgently scheduled December 29, 2022 hearing was set out in my December 5, 2022 endorsement:
Mr. Boutin is seeking to put before this court an issue involving a joint venture, a dispute over the renewal of a mortgage (not on one of the 8 properties ordered to be sold) and the distribution of the monies from the sale of the first of the 8 properties.
[2] The issues eventually put before me included the proposed joint venture and:
a) Renewal of the 311 Dundas Street, Woodstock mortgage – This relief sought by Mr. Boutin was essentially granted.
b) Variation of the Contempt Sentence – this relief sought by Mr. Boutin was adjourned to January 24, 2023.
c) Distribution/Release of some monies to Mr. Boutin from the trust funds – this relief sought by Mr. Boutin was essentially denied as the court determined that Mrs. Boutin’s should be paid amounts ordered by the court first.
[3] Raising issues, even those not scheduled by the court, has become habit in this case. The most significant (and time consuming) at the December 29, 2022 hearing was the “joint venture” issue (and related issues), followed by the “mortgage renewal” issue. Almost all other issues were deferred to another date.
[4] Mrs. Boutin was successful on the “joint venture” issue.
[5] Mr. Boutin was successful on the “mortgage renewal” issue.
[6] The “joint venture” issue was an attempt by Mr. Boutin to seriously undermine much of the effect of this court’s prior orders. For the reasons I articulated, this “joint venture” proposal was wholly without merit and inconsistent with an existing court order. The proposed joint would have been prejudicial to Mrs. Boutin’s claims. Mr. Boutin’s position on this issue was unreasonable.
[7] Mr. Boutin was successful on the “mortgage renewal” issue. The consent to the renewal of the mortgage on the same terms and conditions to prevent mortgagee enforcement should not have required a motion. Mrs. Boutin’s objection was not well thought out and should never have required the court’s intervention. Mrs. Boutin’s position on this issue was unreasonable.
[8] In these circumstances where there has been divided success on the significant issues dealt with on December 29, 2022, I do not award costs of the December 29, 2022 hearing to either party.
[9] Some comments.
[10] When the parties or their counsel believe that they have unlimited access to judicial resources to dispute, object and litigate any and all issues, whenever they arise, then progress towards a resolution or final judicial determination is undermined.
[11] In this case, the parties have taken positions, sometimes unreasonable positions, simply because they don’t trust the other side or because they are the other side. This does not advance the objects set out in the FLA.
Released: February 21, 2023 RSJ Ricchetti
COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-00096622-0000
DATE: 2023 02 21
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Micheline BOUTIN
Applicant
--and –
Victor BOUTIN
Respondent
COST ENDORSEMENT
RSJ Ricchetti
Released: February 21, 2023