Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FC-22-321 Date: 2025-11-07 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Amandeep Kaur Verma, Applicant And: Ankush Verma, Respondent
Before: The Honourable Justice J. Breithaupt Smith
Counsel: A. Towlson, Counsel for the Applicant R. Noll, Counsel for the Respondent
Heard: In Writing
Costs Endorsement
Background
[1] This matter was addressed as an uncontested trial held in two phases before me. On March 5, 2025 all parenting and support issues were finalized; on April 4, 2025, I heard argument on property issues and my endorsement in that regard was released dated April 16, 2025. On September 15, 2025, further submissions were heard pursuant to Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules to address errors in the Order made. I ordered that written submissions were to be made on the final issue of costs, and this is my costs endorsement.
[2] I received costs submissions on behalf of the Applicant and responding submissions on behalf of the Respondent, however a search of the court's records indicates that no reply submissions were received from the Applicant.
Scope of Costs
[3] Firstly, we must define the scope of costs about which an order is being made. I agree with Mr. Noll's submissions that Justice Mountford ordered the sum of $10,000 in costs as being payable since the matter became uncontested, therefore covering the period from November 10, 2023 to January 8, 2025. I also agree that costs incurred in the pre-Application period are not properly recoverable. The focus is therefore on fees of $1,612.50 plus HST of $209.63 and disbursements of $45.25 for the period between the preparation of the Application (approximately July 19, 2022) and the determination of its status as being uncontested; and further $11,075 in fees plus HST of $1,439.75 and disbursements of $34.50 for the period from January 9, 2025 to date. The total for determination is therefore $14,416.63.
Legal Framework
[4] Justice Kristjanson's reasons in Cedeno v. Cedeno, 2023 ONSC 6686 are of great assistance, as Her Honour addressed costs following an uncontested trial. I adopt her reasoning, which can be summarized as follows:
a. Much of the pre-Application period, where attempts were made to settle the matter without litigation, are not attributable to the litigation, although drafting the Application is recoverable.
b. Where a matter is uncontested, the expediency of the proceeding overall is a factor: were there motions or other court attendances in addition to the hearing of the uncontested trial for which costs were not already awarded?
c. The Court of Appeal's four fundamental purposes from Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867 at para. 10 are applicable:
- (1) partially indemnifying successful litigants;
- (2) encouraging settlement;
- (3) discouraging and sanctioning inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and
- (4) ensuring, in accordance with Rule 2(2), that cases are dealt with justly.
d. Reasonableness and proportionality are the touchstone considerations to be applied in fixing costs. I would add that a determination of these factors includes a comparison against costs incurred by the defaulting party, if such information is available.
e. The court must step back and exercise judgment, having regard to all the circumstances as to what fair and reasonable amount should be paid by the unsuccessful party rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful litigant: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, (2004) 71 O.R. (3d) 291.
f. Bad faith and unreasonable behaviour are to be considered. A refusal to make financial disclosure is unreasonable behaviour.
g. In the circumstances of an uncontested trial, the court must be cautious to ensure that a Bill of Costs does not cover too much ground.
Application of Legal Principles
[5] According to the endorsements available to me upon the preparation of these reasons on costs, the only failed court appearance was before Justice Mountford. The balance of the proceeding was addressed in Chambers and did not involve the expense of attending court. Regarding the Mattina principles, the main considerations are unreasonable behaviour by the Respondent (in his failure to make full and frank financial disclosure) and the partial indemnifying of the successful Applicant. On the connected themes of reasonableness and proportionality, the amount paid by the Respondent to address only the issues of the implementation of the Final Order and costs is very instructive. If the Respondent incurred $13,489.38 from July to October of this year, surely $14,416.63 over 24 months of legal work is both reasonable and proportionate. I do not find bad faith. Having regard to the resolution of costs for the initial uncontested period through Justice Mountford's Order, and having limited costs to those strictly associated with the litigation, we can be certain that the defined amount does not "cover too much ground."
Costs Award
[6] Overall, I find that the Applicant is entitled to recover 80% of her costs of $14,416.63, namely $11,533.30.
Final Order
[7] Final Order to issue:
The Respondent, Ankush Verma, shall pay costs to the Applicant, Amandeep Kaur Verma, fixed in the amount of $11,533.30.
Such amount is to be paid out from the Respondent's share of the net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home currently standing in the real estate solicitor's trust account or, if insufficient funds are available, any balance owed is to be paid within thirty (30) days.
J. Breithaupt Smith J.
Date: November 7, 2025