Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-17-1480 Date: 2023/03/09 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: G.S., Applicant And S.B., Respondent

Before: Justice Engelking

Counsel: Applicant, Self-Represented Jennifer Jolly and Mary Cybulski, for the Respondent

Heard: In writing

Endorsement on Costs

[1] On December 15, 2022, I released my Reasons for Decision on the trial of this matter, which was heard August 2, 3, 4, November 29 and 30, and December 1 and 2, 2022. In my decision, I noted that as the entirely successful party, Ms. S.B. was entitled to an order for costs and invited submissions on costs if the parties were unable to agree on the quantum. S.B. has provided such submissions; G.S. has not. This is my decision on costs.

[2] S.B. seeks an order for costs on a full indemnity scale in the sum of $157,681.47. She set out: a) that she provided an Offer to Settle to Mr. S. six days after the parties received the December 31, 2021, report of the Section 30 of the CLRA assessment from Ms. Hasbani which was far more favourable to Mr. S. than was the outcome of the trial; and b) Mr. S. has acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, which included his years of coercive and controlling behaviour as described by the court, his failure to follow court orders, his surreptitious recordings of conversations, his threatening of the section 30 assessor, his false allegations against S.B., his deliberate interference in and/or withholding of S.B.’s parenting time with J, and his disruption of J’s relationships with others who had been important to him, such as S.B.’s father, mother and stepmother. To this I would add his failure to provide financial disclosure.

[3] Mr. S., additionally, provided no formal offer to settle to Ms. B.

[4] The mother’s counsel were required to prepare for trial five times – prior to January of 2022, May of 2022, August of 2022, September of 2022 and November of 2022. They were also required to bring a motion for the appointment of Amicus Curaie due to the non-participation of Mr. S. and to defend a motion for the recusal of the trial judge for bias. They needed to review voluminous evidence of Mr. S. – over 10,000 pages belatedly uploaded into Caselines, much of which was dated and irrelevant, and some of which was ultimately found inadmissible.

[5] Although two counsel were retained on behalf of S.B., both reduced their hourly rates to ones that were manageable, and they divided tasks such that fees were not being duplicated. I find both their hourly rates and the time spent on the litigation reasonable.

[6] This is a case in which much valued court time was wasted over and over. Granted, the May adjournment of the trial was not the fault of Mr. S. as it could not be reached by the court. Mr. S. was, however, responsible for every other delay and extra step in the proceeding. He, additionally, behaved, in the best-case scenario unreasonably, and in the worst, in bad faith. As per Pazaratz J. in Izyuk v. Blolousov, 2015 ONSC 3684, this is a case in which costs sanctions must be made “in a meaningful way”.

[7] Costs were previously ordered against Mr. S. by 1) Justice Parfett on February 16, 2021, for $10,000 for the December 2020 motion; 2) the Divisional Court on April 9, 2021, for $2,500; and, 3) Justice Audet on September 15, 2022 of $2,400 for the July 2022 motion. All such costs orders have remained unpaid by Mr. S. Nevertheless, some of the entries in Ms. B.’s Bill of Costs overlap with some of these events for which costs have already been ordered.

[8] Accounting for some of these periods of overlap and the May adjournment, and reducing the fees accordingly (by $3,000 for the period July 2020 to January 2021 and $8000 for trial preparation in May of 2022), I find it reasonable that Mr. S. be required to pay Ms. B. $146,000 for the trial of this matter.

Order

[9] There shall be an order as follows:

1. Within 30 days of today, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $146,000 in costs for the trial of this matter.

Engelking J. Date: March 9, 2023