Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-22-00031925-0000 Date: 2025-10-28 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Mei Yang, Applicant And: Weidong Xie (a.k.a. Moses Su), Respondent

Before: Madam Justice A.P. Ramsay

Counsel: Haiyun Wang, for the Applicant Self-Represented Respondent

Heard: In writing

Costs Endorsement

[1] In Reasons for Decision reported at Yang v. Xie, 2025 ONSC 2265, I determined that the date of the party's separation was June 20, 2022, in favour of the applicant.

[2] Following my decision, the respondent brought several motions including a 14(B) motion to stay my costs decision, and another to ask that I "defer deciding the issue of the costs of the trial on the date of separation, pending his appeal is denied." On June 11, 2025, I dismissed the respondent's motion requesting that I defer my costs decision. I directed him to comply with the timelines for his submissions on costs. Despite my directions and the passage of time, the respondent has not provided any costs submissions by the deadline for doing so, nor has he sought any extension of time for making submissions.

[3] Therefore, I have only reviewed the applicant's Costs Submissions and Costs Outline. Both documents were served on the respondent on May 12, 2025, as appears from the affidavit of service filed.

[4] The applicant is seeking costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,377.04 to the date of her offer to settle dated November 21, 2023, and $30,662.55 after the date of her offer. The applicant also asks to recover her disbursements in the amount of $3,409.77. She asks that costs be payable within 30 days.

Legal Framework for Costs Awards

[5] Cost awards are in the discretion of the court under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43. Under r. 24(3), Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, a successful party is presumptively entitled to costs. A party's entitlement to costs however is subject to the factors set out in r. 24: Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918, 128 O.R. (3d) 730, at para. 94; Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840, 143 O.R. (3d) 519, at para. 10.

[6] The applicant was successful and is therefore presumptively entitled to her costs, subject to the factors in r. 24. The applicant relies on an offer to settle, the conduct of the parties, including the respondent's behaviour, which she says lengthened the proceedings, as well as the hours and time spent by her counsel since the proceedings commenced.

Offer to Settle

[7] The applicant says she delivered an offer to settle on November 21, 2023, and argues that her offer matches the judgment she received. The terms of the offer included a provision that: "The Applicant wife and the Respondent husband separated on June 20, 2022", and a provision related to dealing with costs. No affidavit of service was filed, but the respondent has not disputed service. In fact, he has not responded at all.

[8] Rule 18 governs offers to settle. Under r. 18(12.1) of the Family Law Rules, the same costs consequences contained in r. 24 apply to the making, withdrawal, acceptance, and rejection of offers. Under r. 24(12), unless the court orders otherwise, a party who makes a written offer at least seven days before a hearing, which remains open for acceptance until the hearing starts, and obtains an order as good as or better than the offer, is entitled to costs to the date that the offer was served and full recovery costs from that date to the conclusion of the hearing. In this case the applicant's offer complied with the Rules: it was made in writing a year before the hearing; it was not accepted by the respondent; and it was not withdrawn at the time the hearing started.

Scales of Costs

[9] Although the applicant seeks costs both on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, as the Court of Appeal has noted, judges are not constrained to the scales of costs contained in the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, because no scales of costs are mentioned in the Family Law Rules: Beaver, at para. 9. Under the Family Law Rules, the court may increase or decrease costs depending on the existence of offers to settle and the conduct of the parties and the presence or absence of offers to settle: Beaver, at paras. 9 and 10.

Party Conduct

[10] The applicant argues that the respondent refused to accept her offer, despite the evidence, including his own letter dated August 1, 2022, in which he agreed that the separation date was June 20, 2022. She argues that the respondent unnecessarily prolonged the trial "by asking erratic and self-serving questions during cross examination and making claims on the stand". I do not agree with the applicant's characterization of the respondent's questions. Nor do I agree that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable or that his conduct lengthened the trial of the issue in any significant way. I also note that a party is not required to accept an offer served by the adverse party. I am mindful that the respondent represented himself. The hearing lasted four days and, in my view, was lengthened because of the attendance of interpreters.

Scope of Costs Award

[11] The applicant claims her total costs of the proceeding from the commencement of the application, which spans over two years, and the trial of an issue that lasted four days. The only issue before me was a determination of the date of separation. There is no information before me of what the respondent's reasonable expectations are with respect to costs, even though he was representing himself at the hearing. But I would surmise that the respondent's reasonable expectation would be that if he were unsuccessful, he may be liable for the costs related to this step in the proceeding and not all the costs incurred to date.

[12] Therefore, it would not be fair in my view, to award costs related to the entire proceeding. The overriding principle is that costs are to be fixed in a way that is fair to the parties and reasonable in the circumstances: Murray v. Murray, [2005] 79 O.R. (3d) 147; Guertin v. Guertin, 2015 ONSC 5498.

Determination of Costs

[13] The applicant has not clearly delineated the legal fees related to the determination of the threshold issue of the date of separation. I have considered the number of days of hearing (four days), time expended before the trial to prepare affidavits tendered as evidence of the witnesses in chief, the moderate complexity of the issue, the importance of the issues to the parties, and the attempt by the applicant to resolve the issue at an early stage, as well as the fact that she received a judgment which corresponds to her offer to settle.

[14] In determining costs, one of the overarching considerations is whether the costs award is reasonable, fair, and proportionate in the circumstances of the case, and the reasonable expectations of the party: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, [2004] 71 O.R. (3d) 291, at para 26. I have therefore allowed costs of $30,000 plus HST of $3,900 for the trial of the issue, which is fair, reasonable and proportionate. It is my view that Ms. Wang's hourly rate of $450 is reasonable for a 2003 call.

[15] I have not allowed any amounts on this assessment for disbursements, without prejudice to the applicant's right to seek recovery in the future as the disbursements appear to be related to the entire proceeding and the applicant has not identified any disbursement related to the trial of the issue.

Disposition

[16] The respondent shall pay the applicant costs fixed in the amount of $33,900.

[17] The respondent shall pay post judgment interest on costs at a rate of 3% per annum calculated from the date of the order.

A.P. Ramsay, J

Date: 28 October 2025