J.M.M. v. C.R.M., 2025 ONSC 3631

Court File No.: FC 1106-21
Date: 2025-06-19
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
J.M.M., Applicant
– and –
C.R.M., Respondent

Appearances:
Alisa Williams for the Applicant
The Respondent self-represented

Justice: Deborah L. Chappel

Reasons for Judgment Respecting Costs

Part 1: Introduction

[1] I presided over the 54-day trial of this application, which commenced on September 3, 2024 and continued with several breaks until March 14, 2025. In my Reasons for Judgment dated May 26, 2025, I ordered that any party seeking costs must serve and file written Costs Submissions, a Bill of Costs and a Book of Authorities by no later than June 9, 2025. I directed that any Responding Costs Submissions must be served and filed by no later than June 16, 2025. Furthermore, I ordered that there would be no extensions to these deadlines unless otherwise ordered prior to June 16, 2025, upon filing an affidavit setting out proof of extenuating circumstances justifying such an extension.

[2] The Applicant seeks costs, and he served and filed the necessary materials by the June 9, 2025 deadline. Specifically, he requests costs in the amount of $264,413.19, inclusive of disbursements and HST. The Respondent did not file any Costs Submissions or Responding Costs Submissions, and she did not serve and file an affidavit in support of an extension of the deadlines for Submissions by June 16, 2024. I have therefore proceeded with these Reasons for Judgment respecting costs without the benefit of any input from the Respondent.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Applicant is entitled to costs of this proceeding, and that the amount of $150,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST, is a reasonable, proportionate, fair and just costs award. I am ordering that the balance of the proceeds from the sale of the Respondent’s former home located at 1338 Upper Gage Avenue, Unit 6, Hamilton Ontario (“the Upper Gage property”), currently being held in trust by Dudzic Barristers and Solicitors, be immediately released to the Applicant and applied towards this costs award. I have concluded that approximately 20% of the total costs award ($30,000.00) is in relation to support, and that it should therefore be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office. Taking into consideration the Respondent’s overall financial condition, means, needs and circumstances, I conclude that enforcement of that amount against the Respondent’s income sources should be limited to the amount of $200.00 per month commencing July 1, 2025 and continuing on the first day of each month that follows. However, this shall not restrict the Family Responsibility Office from enforcing this sum through avenues other than the Respondent’s income sources. I am also ordering that the balance owing in regard to this costs award shall be paid at minimum at the rate of $6,000.00 by no later than December 31, 2025, and thereafter bi-annually, by no later than July 1st and December 31st each year.

[4] I note at this point that I provided extremely detailed and lengthy Reasons for Judgment in relation to the trial of this matter, and that I rely on those Reasons in support of this costs analysis.

Part 2: The Law Respecting Costs

I. General Principles and Purposes of Costs Awards

[5] Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, as amended, provides that subject to the provisions of an Act or Rules of Court, costs are in the discretion of the court, which may determine by whom and to what extent the costs shall be paid. This section must be read in conjunction with Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, as amended (“the Rules”), which set out numerous principles to guide the court in the exercise of its discretion in the Family Law context.

[6] The modern rules respecting costs aim to foster the following four fundamental purposes:

a. To partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation;
b. To encourage settlement;
c. To discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and
d. To ensure that cases are dealt with justly, in accordance with the primary objective of the Rules set out in Rule 2(2).

(Ryan v. McGregor (1926), 58 O.L.R. 213 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 216; British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371 (S.C.C.); Fong v. Chan, 1999 CarswellOnt 3955, 181 D.L.R. (4th) 614, 46 O.R. (3d) 330 (C.A.); Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 395 (C.A.); Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867 (C.A.))

[7] With respect to the third objective, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized in Okanagan Indian Band that costs awards are a means of sanctioning parties who refuse to initiate or participate in concerted settlement efforts, or who engage in behaviour that increases the duration and expense of litigation or that is otherwise unreasonable or vexatious (at paras. 25-26; see also Firuz v. Said, 2022 ONCJ 17 (O.C.J.), at para. 4; Balzano v. D’Alessandro, 2024 ONCJ 609 (O.C.J.), at para. 6).

[8] While the four objectives set out above provide a general framework for the analysis of costs, the courts must also ensure that the law of costs does not become an impediment to the pursuit of justice. Accordingly, in seeking to advance these purposes, the court should also consider the importance of not unduly deterring potential litigants from pursuing legitimate claims for fear of overly burdensome costs consequences (Cassidy v. Cassidy, 2011 ONSC 1541 (S.C.J.); Climans v. Latner, 2020 ONCA 554 (C.A), at para. 90).

[9] The Court of Appeal has highlighted the discretionary nature of costs awards and the importance of considering all relevant factors based on the unique facts of each case (Andrews v. Andrews, 32 O.R. (2d) 29 (C.A.)). It has emphasized that although court rules respecting costs have circumscribed the broad discretion which section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act grants the court in regard to costs, they have not completely negated this discretion (M.(C.A.) v. M.(D.), 2003 CarswellOnt 3606 (C.A.); Fielding v. Fielding, 2015 ONCA 901 (C.A.)).

[10] The determination of costs is a two-stage process. First, the court must decide whether any party is liable for costs. If liability is established, the court must then determine the appropriate amount of the costs award. Rule 24(1) of the Rules establishes the general principle that the court shall promptly after dealing with a step in the case determine in a summary manner who, if anyone, is entitled to costs in relation to that step and set the amount of any costs, or alternatively shall expressly reserve the decision on costs for determination at a later stage in the case. However, Rule 24(2) provides that the court’s failure to act pursuant to Rule 24(1) in relation to a step in the case does not prevent a judge from awarding costs in relation to the step at a later stage in the case.