Spencer v. Tellier, 2026 ONSC 2691

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Spencer v. Tellier, 2026 ONSC 2691

COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-00000482-0000

DATE: May 11, 2026

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

FAMILY COURT

RE: Jonathon Mark Spencer, Applicant

AND:

Paige Elizabeth Tellier, Respondent

BEFORE: MITROW J.

COUNSEL: William Doran, for the Applicant Michelle Retief, for the Respondent

HEARD: In Chambers, on written submissions filed

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

INTRODUCTION

1I have reviewed the parties’ written costs submissions received pursuant to my order dated March 5, 2026.

2I do not agree with the respondent’s complaint, in her reply, that the applicant was late in serving his written costs submissions on April 2, 2026. In the order, the due date of the applicant’s responding costs submissions was “14 days thereafter”, meaning 14 days after the respondent’s submissions were due, which was March 19, 2026. Therefore, the applicant’s due date was April 2, 2026.

3There is no dispute from the applicant that the respondent is the successful party and is presumptively entitled to costs.

4The two issues on the motions were parenting time and child support. The court rejected the applicant’s request for shared parenting time, and the court rejected the applicant’s position that payment of child support should be pursuant to s. 9 of the guidelines.

5The respondent was successful in obtaining an interim order placing the parties’ child in her primary care and requiring the applicant to pay table amount of child support.

6The respondent’s legal fees totaled $31,199, inclusive of HST, as set out in the respondent’s initial costs submissions. The respondent sought a costs order of $24,960 representing 80 per cent of her legal fees. This amount was increased by $533 to $25,493 to reflect time spent to prepare reply costs submissions.

7The applicant’s total fees were $24,834, inclusive of HST. The respondent submits that the applicant did not provide details such as time dockets to prove the amounts shown in his bill of costs, and that the applicant’s bill of costs should be disregarded entirely. In the circumstances, the applicant’s bill of costs is not being used to support a request for a costs order; rather, the applicant’s bill of costs is being filed pursuant to r. 24(16) which requires a party who opposes costs to provide documents showing the party’s own fees and expenses. It is noted that the applicant’s fees, although lower, are in the “same ballpark” as the respondent’s fees, and I am prepared to use the applicant’s bill of costs as representing his costs incurred on the motions.

8While the applicant does not indicate what amount of costs he should pay, he submits that the scale and quantum of the amount sought by the respondent should be reduced. The applicant further submits that he lost his employment and that his financial circumstances should be taken into account in fixing the costs and in allowing him to pay costs on a monthly basis. The applicant suggests that costs should be fixed in a modest amount that is fair and proportionate to the nature of the motions and the applicant’s limited means in the current circumstances.

9The applicant’s loss of employment was discussed in the reasons. The court raised concerns including: the applicant’s failure to advise of his layoff immediately; his failure to provide any detail regarding his job prospects or any assistance being offered by his former employer; and the fact that the applicant disclosed his layoff in a supplementary affidavit that he served just after the respondent served her supplementary affidavit, which resulted in the respondent being unable to place any evidence before the court relating to the applicant’s layoff.

10At the time of his layoff, the applicant’s income was $160,000. The court imputed income to the applicant, but with a provision in the order allowing both parties to bring a motion varying interim child support after a date specified in the order, depending on the applicant’s employment situation.

11The order also dealt with s. 7 expenses but relating only to daycare costs. This issue was minor, as compared to the issues pertaining to parenting and child support.

12I consider the factors in r. 24(14). I start with the applicant’s behaviour. The applicant has behaved unreasonably, forcing the respondent to run up legal costs in relation to the child support issue. The applicant ignored many reasonable requests from the respondent’s counsel to address child support on a voluntary basis, in circumstances where it was clear that the applicant had an obligation to pay child support, whether under s. 3 or s. 9 of the guidelines.

13The applicant’s intransigence in refusing to pay voluntary child support forced the respondent to bring a needless motion for child support.

14I would not give weight to the respondent’s complaints that the applicant needlessly brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference and that the applicant filed materials that exceeded the maximum page numbers set out in the province-wide practice direction.

15Regarding the former, both parties brought urgent motions prior to a case conference; however, the urgency issue became moot by the time the motions were argued because a case conference had been conducted. As to the issue of exceeding page limits, both parties’ “update” affidavits were struck pursuant to my order dated January 28, 2026, because both parties exceeded the court-ordered maximum page limits for the “update” affidavits. Both parties then were permitted to serve and file fresh update affidavits that were compliant with court-ordered page limits.

16I find all hourly rates for lawyers, clerks and articling students, for both parties, to be reasonable.

17Regarding offers to settle, the respondent made multiple reasonable offers to settle the motions, including via correspondence from the respondent’s counsel. The respondent throughout was making a good-faith effort to settle all issues, while the applicant largely ignored the respondent’s offers and failed to make his own offer. The applicant’s costs submissions do not refer to any offers made by the applicant.

18I do have concerns regarding the time spent by both parties. The issues on the motions were not complex or unusual. Between both parties, the total fees exceeded $56,000, which I find to be excessive and disproportionate considering the finding that the issues were not complex or unusual.

19I find that the amount claimed by the respondent for the applicant to pay in costs is excessive having regard to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality referred to in r. 24(14)(a).

20In dealing with reasonableness, rather than engaging in a mathematical exercise, the judge awarding costs should reflect on what the court views as a reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful party, rather than any exact measure of the actual costs of the successful party: Davies v. Clarington (Municipality), 2009 ONCA 722 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 52.

21The financial situation of a party is a relevant consideration when fixing costs: M.(C.A.) v. M.(D.), 2003 18880 (ON CA), [2003] CarswellOnt. 3606 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 42; Grujicic and Grujicic v. Trovao, 2023 ONSC 1518 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 27. However, a party’s limited financial resources do not create immunity from an order for costs: Mark v. Bhangari, 2010 ONSC 4638 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 10; Grujicic, supra, at para. 28. Where a party has acted unreasonably, then ability to pay is less of a mitigating factor: Grujicic, supra, at para. 29.

22Given the extent of the applicant’s unreasonable behaviour, his financial situation should not affect the quantum of costs, but it is a consideration in fixing the terms of payment. The order below permits some of the costs to be paid on a monthly basis.

23I find that the costs should be fixed at $15,000, which is an amount consistent with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

24The respondent sought an order that any costs order should be enforceable by the Director, given the child support component. Although the applicant acknowledged the respondent’s request to have the costs enforceable as a support order, the applicant makes no other submissions regarding enforcement by the Director. This is a proper case to order costs to be enforced by the Director.

ORDER

25I make the following interim order:

1. The applicant shall pay to the respondent her costs of the motions fixed in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of HST, payable as follows:

a) the sum of $7,500 shall be paid by June 1, 2026; and

b) the balance shall be paid at the rate of $750 per month on the first day of each month commencing July 1, 2026, until paid in full.

2. The costs payable by the applicant pursuant to para. 1 of this order shall be deemed to be a support order and shall be enforceable by the Director.