Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: MICHAEL CHILDS, Applicant
AND:
PETER CHILDS, ANDREW CHILDS and CAROLINE CHILDS, Respondents
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Graeme Mew
COUNSEL: Matthew Furrow and Daniel Welton-Boucher, for the applicant
Peter Childs and Caroline Childs, self-represented litigants
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT on costs
Background
1The applicant sought and obtained an order passing over himself and the respondents as estate trustees of the estate of Eileen Childs (the “Estate”), as well as a number of other directions and declaratory orders: Childs v. Childs, 2026 ONSC 801.
2The application was supported by the respondent Andrew Childs and opposed by the respondents Peter Childs and Caroline Childs.
3In my reasons for decision I indicated that I was provisionally of the view that the disposition of costs of the application should follow “a blended approach to costs” as described by the Court of Appeal in Sawdon Estate v. Sawdon (2014), 119 O.R. (3d) 81, 370 D.L.R. (4th) 686, 93 E.T.R. (3d) 247, 2014 ONCA 101, at para. 96. Doing so in this case would result in one or more of the respondents paying the applicant’s costs on a partial indemnity basis, with the Estate indemnifying the applicant for the balance.
Costs Submissions
4The applicant filed a costs submission which outlines total costs, on a full indemnity basis, of $76,212.67, inclusive of HST and disbursements. Total fees amount to $66,841 plus HST. Partial indemnity fees are calculated at $40,104 plus HST. $632.70 is claimed for disbursements.
5The applicant submits that the respondents Peter Childs and Caroline Childs should be required to contribute $40,104 plus the disbursements and HST, for a total of $45,950.22, with the balance of $30,262.45 payable to the applicant out of the estate.
6In his costs outline, the applicant acknowledges that the legal issues raised in the application are not complex, but adds that “[t]he bulk of work was to ensure that the Applicant’s materials responded to the various vexatious allegations raised by the self-represented litigants. This was not complex but was time-consuming.”
7The applicant notes that “Peter Childs and Caroline Childs conducted cross-examinations of Michael Childs on October 31, 2025. Their questions focused largely on matters that were res judicata or irrelevant to this proceeding.”
8Subsequent to those cross-examinations, Peter Childs, without having obtained leave to do so, served a further affidavit on 13 January 2026, four working days prior to the hearing of the application, totalling 145 pages inclusive of exhibits, contrary to Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, in which he repeated vexatious allegations of conspiracy and collusion against the applicant and other participants in previous court proceedings.
9Caroline Childs and Peter Childs both delivered costs submissions.
10Caroline Childs questioned the need for two counsel to attend the cross-examinations and the application hearing on behalf of the applicant. It would appear, however, that the applicant was only billed for the attendance of the more senior of the counsel concerned. The applicant’s costs outline also reflects the application of other “courtesy discounts” given to the applicant “to keep costs proportionate”.
11Caroline Childs also distances herself from “litigation of Peter’s that I have never been involved in”. She further submits that she should not be held accountable for the applicant’s “excessive” legal fees. She maintains that the application was not necessary because she could have competently served as an executor as directed in Eileen Childs’ will.
12Peter Childs says that his expenses total $146.50. In the first paragraph of his 20-paragraph submission, he says that “There is no point nit-picking [the applicant’s] costs when the premise of the decision is flawed.”
13Peter Childs devotes all but one other paragraph of his submission to a challenge of my decision. He refers to other judges in disrespectful language and says “I fully expect your intention is to provide a cost decision the applicant can use as grounds to preventing the hearing of the Notice of Appeal I will file shortly. I will not be silenced.” His only other comment that addresses costs is his submission that the Estate should not be burdened with the applicant’s costs, adding that “It was [the applicant’s] choice to spend $76K to prevent review, when he spent nothing during the person [sic] life to see orders followed.”
Analysis
14While I accept that in the past Caroline Childs may have been more aligned with the positions taken by Peter Childs, on this application, she raised principled and tenable grounds for opposing the relief sought.
15By contrast, in his responding materials to the application and his submissions, Peter Childs largely repeated the history of ten years of litigation between the parties, including vitriolic attacks on the integrity of the applicant and others involved in the management of his late mother’s affairs.
16I am concerned about the amount of costs incurred. At first blush they appear disproportionate, particularly having regard to the continually diminishing value of the Estate. However, when viewed in the context of Peter Childs’ sustained and full-frontal opposition, it is understandable how and why costs of such magnitude have been incurred. With some reluctance, I therefore accept that the amount claimed for full indemnity costs is reasonable in all of the circumstances.
17Having carefully considered the costs submissions that have been made, I remain of the view that a blended approach should be taken to the reimbursement of costs.
18Andrew Childs did not take an active part in the application. It would not be appropriate to make any costs award either against him or in his favour.
19I have also concluded that on this application, at least, there should be no costs award made against Caroline Childs. Although she opposed the application and participated in the largely pointless cross-examination of the applicant, her role in the litigation does not appear to me have unduly exacerbated costs that would have been incurred in any event as a result of the position taken by Peter Childs, and the manner in which he has chosen to conduct this litigation.
20Peter Childs’ barely disguised animus towards the applicant, his insistence on repeating past grievances, and his unfiltered attacks on those who he sees as having wronged him and his late mother, have significantly aggravated the costs that have been incurred on this application. He should be required to indemnify the applicant for his costs on a partial indemnity scale. He should consider himself fortunate that the applicant did not ask for those costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
Disposition
21In the result I order that Peter Childs will pay the applicant costs, which I fix in the amount of $45,950.22 inclusive of disbursements and taxes. The balance of the legal fees incurred by the applicant, amounting to $30,262.45, shall be payable to the applicant out of the Estate. In the event that, by the time the Estate is distributed, Peter Childs has failed to pay some or all of the costs that I have awarded against him, the balance, plus any applicable post-judgment interest, shall be paid out of Peter Childs’ share of the proceeds of the Estate.
Mew J.
Date: 18 March 2026