Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-42 DATE: 2023-06-01 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: J.P, Applicant AND: W.W., Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: Elli M. Cohen, for the Applicant Kevin Roche and Robert McNeillie, for the Respondent

Costs Endorsement

[1] With regard to the two motions heard by this Court in Walkerton on March 23, 2023, decided at J.P. v. W.W., 2023 ONSC 1931, there are no costs ordered.

[2] Why? It is rather simple.

[3] The mother asked for joint decision-making responsibility for the child, with her having the final say. That was contested. She was successful. The mother asked for child support for her older son. That was contested. She was successful. The mother asked for the child, T., to live primarily with her and have fairly limited contact with the father. That was contested. She was unsuccessful. On her motion, overall, success was roughly evenly divided, as the parenting time issue was the one that was fought with the most vigour.

[4] The father asked for sole decision-making responsibility for the child, or joint but not necessarily with the mother as the final arbiter (as ordered). That was contested. He was unsuccessful. The father asked for the involvement of a parenting coordinator, which issue was a tangential one, took no time to deal with, and was dismissed. The exact same for the father’s request that the child not be moved out of Port Elgin. On the biggest issue, the parenting schedule, the father asked for an equal shared parenting regime (week on/week off). That was contested. He was successful. On his motion, overall, success was roughly evenly divided.

[5] On the two motions combined, success was roughly evenly divided.

[6] Nobody acted in bad faith. Nobody was unprepared.

[7] The mother made multiple offers to settle, including one dated February 24, 2023 (entirely severable in its terms). It was a fairly reasonable offer in many respects. Some of it should have been accepted by the father, including, at a minimum, clause 1 (decision-making responsibility) and clause 8 (ongoing child support for the older child). It is not an offer, however, that could attract special costs consequences.

[8] The father made one offer to settle dated January 13, 2023 (also severable in its terms). Relatively speaking, it was less reasonable in its provisions and less capable of acceptance, even in part, by the other side. For example, decision-making responsibility, though offered to be joint, was tied to a dispute resolution process involving a parenting coordinator (not efficient, and not ordered). As a second example, parenting time, though including the week on/week off schedule as ordered, was tied to a host of other terms that were not ordered and, frankly, were unnecessary and not in keeping with what I think is a widely-held view that parents should be encouraged to be parents, that is grown-ups, who do not need to have every inch of their private family lives ruled by court decree.

[9] On encouraging settlement, one of the major objectives of modern costs orders, I would give an edge to the mother. That does not change my view, however. In totality, the most fair, just, and reasonable decision is to say that each side shall bear its own costs. So be it.

[10] Finally, the mother raises some outstanding issues, which she was correct to raise because the Court expressly permitted that to be done in the Endorsement that disposed of the two motions. The father, in his costs submissions, did not address those issues. He cannot be faulted for not doing so; the two sets of written costs submissions have the same date attached to them. I would encourage the parties to work out those two issues that I think are worthy of this Court’s further involvement and further order, if necessary – (i) child support for T., including section 7s, and (ii) holiday parenting time. To be clear, only those two issues shall remain alive (at least for this Court). I am not ordering anything with regard to clause 20 of the mother’s written costs submissions.

[11] If the parties cannot resolve those remaining two issues, then we will have a Zoom attendance to hear brief oral submissions by counsel. That will be the most economical method of dealing with what remains, to save the parties some money and some time. Nothing further would have to be filed by either side. Twenty minutes would suffice, but I am sure that the parties can work it out. Holiday parenting time should be as equally split as possible. And child support is child support. The father’s income needs to be disclosed. Section 9 of the Guidelines is not complicated. Neither is section 7, but for eligibility.

[12] I remain seized of the said two issues. If I am called upon to hear submissions and make an order on either or both, then it is not necessarily to be expected that the within costs determination will be repeated.

[13] I thank both counsel for their continued assistance.

Conlan J. Date: June 1, 2023