Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Court File No.: FC-22-291
Date: 2025/05/22

Parties

Mark Thompson, Applicant
– and –
Vanessa Sorrenti, Respondent

Counsel

• Alison J. Campbell, for the Applicant
• Meagan LePage, for the Respondent

Heard

In Writing

Cost Decision

[1] On January 24, 2025, I released my decision following a one-day focussed trial which dealt with the sole issue of retroactive child support. The mother was the most successful party in this trial, and if the parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs, they were invited to forward written submissions on costs, and I would decide.

[2] Having received those submissions, I order the Applicant father, Mr. Thompson, to pay to the Respondent mother, Ms. Sorrenti, costs in the amount of $18,000, for the following main reasons.

[3] As the successful party, Ms. Sorrenti is presumed entitled to her costs on a partial indemnity basis.

[4] The following findings of facts found in my trial decision support a conclusion that Mr. Thompson’s litigation conduct throughout this proceeding was unreasonable, justifying an award of costs on a substantial basis:

• Mr. Thompson engaged in “serious blameworthy conduct” by failing to comply with his yearly financial disclosure obligations;
• Mr. Thompson failed to produce most of the financial disclosure required of him in previous court orders, including nine of the ten income tax returns relevant to this trial;
• Mr. Thompson behaved unreasonably by forcing Ms. Sorrenti to bring a motion to be permitted to file amended pleadings to seek a retroactive claim for child support after she discovered that Mr. Thompson earned significantly more than he led her to believe over the years.

[5] In my trial decision, I concluded that Ms. Sorrenti had also engaged in blameworthy behavior by failing to provide her own yearly financial disclosure on an ongoing basis (until she initiated these proceedings), and by failing to provide ongoing disclosure of the child’s daycare costs. However, Mr. Thompson’s failure to comply with his financial disclosure obligations pursuant to the Family Law Rules (“FLR”) and court orders made during the proceeding, as the support payor, was far more blameworthy than Ms. Sorrenti’s own failure, as the support recipient, to provide ongoing disclosure before commencing this court proceeding, given that Ms. Sorrenti’s income information was only relevant to the issue of s. 7 apportionment, and she was not seeking any (other than daycare).

[6] Ms. Sorrenti served four offers to settle, none of which attracts the cost consequences of rule 18(14) of the FLR (as they were withdrawn when another offer to settle was made successively, and the last one served (which was more advantageous to Mr. Thompson than the outcome he achieved at trial) was only served two days before trial). Nonetheless, all but one of the offers to settle made by Ms. Sorrenti over the years of this litigation were far more advantageous to Mr. Thompson than the result he achieved at trial.

[7] Having considered all the above, and the parties’ comprehensive submissions, I find that the amount of $18,000 (all inclusive) is reasonable in the circumstances. This cost award shall be deemed child support for the purpose of enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office, as it was incurred (in its entirety) for the purpose of child support.

Justice Audet
Date: May 22, 2025