Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 5141/22 DATE: 2023-09-19 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: SHELBY COULTER Applicant – and – LAURENCE FOREMAN Respondent

Counsel: Ruhaina Dhirani/Ron Shulman, for the Applicant Self-Represented, for the Respondent

HEARD: Written Submissions

Before: Varpio J.

Decision on Costs

[1] I received costs submissions from the applicant in this motion.

[2] Rule 24 governs the imposition of costs.

[3] The applicant was entirely successful in her motion to have the home in question sold.

[4] Further, she served an Offer to Settle which was effectively a “capitulation offer” whereby the offer effectively would have had the respondent concede the entirety of the motion. Given same, the sending of the offer in question has a negligible effect upon my decision regarding costs.

[5] Of more importance, however, is the fact that the respondent failed to participate in these proceedings in a meaningful fashion and did not enable timely resolution of the matter. Costs should, therefore, reflect a higher level of sanction.

[6] The applicant seeks approximately $27,000 in costs.

[7] Simply put, that amount of costs for a relatively simple motion is far too high, even giving full weight to a heightened sanction.

[8] The house in question is in Desbarats, not Toronto. Common sense dictates that the house may not be worth millions. A $27,000 legal bill to force the sale of a home in Desbarats is disproportionate to the subject matter of the motion. Put another way, no lawyer should charge a client $27,000 for a simple motion involving a home in Northern Ontario. A costs award in that quantum would therefore not be in keeping with the principle of proportionality. While I would not suggest that the applicant’s bill of costs reflects duplicative or wasteful time expenditures, it is clear to me that too much time was spent on this file and that costs ought not be awarded using the bill of costs as a baseline.

[9] Therefore, while I accept that the applicant ought to be awarded costs and that the quantum ought to be elevated given the respondent’s behavior in this litigation, an award of $27,000 is unreasonable.

[10] I therefore order that the respondent pay the applicant $10,000 (inclusive of HST). The sum should be paid at the later of either: (a) within 30 days of today’s date; or (b) forthwith upon sale of the home, with the award to be paid from the proceeds of sale (the respondent shall pay any outstanding portion of the costs award not covered by the proceeds of sale forthwith). This sum reflects a reasonable substantial recovery basis on this file.

Varpio J. Released: September 19, 2023