Kaplan v. Kaplan, 2026 ONSC 2184

CITATION: Kaplan v Kaplan, 2026 ONSC 2184

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-00008501-0000

DATE: 20260413

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

ARI NATHAN KAPLAN

Applicant

– and –

RUTH KAPLAN

Respondent

Dana Cohen for the Applicant

Adina E. Schild for the Respondent

READ: April 12, 2026

Mathen J.

COSTS DECISION

INTRODUCTION

1On February 11, 2026, I found that the Applicant, Ari, owed the Respondent, Ruth $9,096 on account of retroactive support. This is my costs decision.

BACKGROUND

2The parties, married in 1997, separated in 2006, and divorced in 2009. They have three adult sons, two of whom are no longer children of the marriage. The youngest is in university and expects to graduate in 2026.

3Ari and Ruth executed Final Minutes of Settlement on April 27, 2015. In 2015, they turned those minutes into a Final Order in 2015 which was signed in 2018.

4The Final Order is over 18 single-spaced pages long. It addresses parenting, child and spousal support, income for the purpose of support, section 7 expenses, arrears, and interest. It called for the parties to execute yearly ‘Amending Agreements’. The parties were only able to execute an Amending Agreement for 2015.

5Ari initiated a motion to change in 2019. By the time of trial, Ari no longer sought his initial relief. He would have been content to let the matter be administratively dismissed. However, as Ruth claimed that she was owed over $430,000, Ari asked for a declaration that he owed no money on the basis that he had significantly overpaid her.

6Over eight days in December 2025, the parties had a trial. In an initial decision released on January 28, 2026, I found that Ari had indeed overpaid Ruth by $39,000. My calculations were based on a spreadsheet provided by Ari that, it turned out, did not embed formulas in particular cells. As a result, when I altered some of Ari’s income the corresponding support calculations did not change. I issued a corrected decision that found that, due to an increase in Ari’s income for some years, he owed Ruth just under $10,000.

PARTY POSITIONS

7Ari states that he is owed full recovery of his costs ($173,660) because:

a. He achieved substantial success on the issues;

b. He behaved reasonably throughout the litigation;

c. Ruth behaved unreasonably at all stages;

d. Ruth made unreasonable Rule 18 Offers to Settle; and

e. Ari achieved a result that was significantly more favourable than his Rule 18 Offers to Settle (his final offer was to pay Ruth $80,000).

8Ruth argues that the parties should bear their own costs because:

a. She was the successful party;

b. Ari took an unreasonable posture throughout; and

c. Ari’s Rule 18 offers do not entitle him to costs, for reasons discussed below.

THE LAW

9Modern costs rules foster four purposes: 1) to indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation; 2) to encourage settlement; 3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behavior by litigants; and 4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly, in accordance with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules set out in Rule 2(2).

10Rule 24(5) of the Rules sets out factors that the court must examine when deciding whether a party has acted reasonably or unreasonably, including whether a party failed to accept an offer or comply with court orders.

11Under Rule 24(8), if a party has acted in bad faith, the court shall decide costs on a full recovery basis which shall be paid immediately.

12Under Rule 24 (12), unless the court orders otherwise, a party who makes an offer is entitled to full costs from that date if, among other things, the offer is made is made at least seven days before trial or hearing date and the party who makes it obtains an order as good as or better than the offer.

ANALYSIS

13For the following reasons, the parties shall bear their own costs.

14First, I find that success in this case was divided.

15To recap, the issues for trial were:

a. Does it violate the principles of natural justice to permit Ari to argue that the income determination clause for him in paragraph 78(a) of the Final Order should be changed? Ari was successful.

b. What is Ari’s income? In particular, has there been a material change in circumstances requiring a different method for calculating income and, if so, what is it? I agreed with Ari on most of his arguments, but found that he did not justify all of his claimed travel expenses. I ordered that 25% of those expenses be grossed up and added back to his income.

c. What is Ruth’s income? Ruth was successful.

d. During the periods in dispute, with whom did the children live and what child support was owed by either party to the other? Ari was successful on the support owing for the older two children. The parties had divided success on support owing for the youngest child.

e. What if anything does Ari owe Ruth for section 7 arrears? Ari was successful.

f. What if anything does Ari owe Ruth for spousal support arrears? Ari was successful.

g. What if anything does Ari owe Ruth in interest? Ari was successful in his interest calculations.

h. What if anything does Ruth owe Ari for lost spousal support deductions? Ari was successful.

i. In the final analysis, what if anything does either party owe to the other? Ruth was successful although to a much lesser degree than her submissions.

16The above set of issues might suggest that Ari was more successful than Ruth. However, Ari took the position that he had overpaid Ruth by tens of thousands of dollars. That was not true, in part because Ari did not adequately account for the fact that some of his claimed travel expenses were personal. The discrepancy affected his income, which in turn significantly affected the amount of child support he should have paid during the relevant years. Therefore, notwithstanding that Ari had the better argument on many of the issues at trial, he was unsuccessful on the core theory of his case.

17Second, Ari’s two offers do not entitle him to recovery:

a. Ari made an offer on November 7, 2025 to pay Ruth $20,000 in full satisfaction of both retroactive and prospective support. I found that Ari owes Ruth $9,096 on account of retroactive support. However, the full amount of Ari’s support is unknown at this time. That is because support for the youngest child ends in August 2026, and it is possible that Ari will owe Ruth something additional on account of child support. Therefore, Ari might have to pay Ruth more than $20,000. For clarity, even if I was satisfied that Ari only owes Ruth $9,096, I would not find that Ari is entitled to costs. First, the disproportionality between such a result and an eight-day trial would make it inappropriate to give Ari the costs he seeks. Second, given that some of my findings went against Ari, I would not find that Ruth alone bears the blame for the trial proceeding. Therefore, were it necessary to reach the issue on the basis of Rule 24(12), I would exercise my discretion to not award costs.

b. Ari made an offer on December 3, 2025 to pay Ruth $80,000. As the trial started on December 8, this offer was not made at least 7 days in advance. It therefore does not meet the criteria under rule 24(12) under which Ari would be entitled to ask for full recovery.

18I find that both parties adopted stringent positions. While I do not characterize either of them as unreasonable, I find that they were each extremely stubborn. Ultimately, neither party has prevailed sufficiently to entitle them to costs. Both parties must bear the brunt of their respective choices, which have led to the result that Ari does owe Ruth, but to a far lesser degree than what she argued for.

ORDER

19In conclusion, I make the following order:

a. Neither party shall pay costs to the other.

Mathen, J.