Court File and Parties

CITATION: Valencia v. Juhasz, 2026 ONSC 2932

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-43366

DATE: 20260520

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: IVONNE VALENCIA, Applicant

AND: ALEXANDER JUHASZ, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta

COUNSEL: Ana Kraljevic, for the Applicant Self-represented, Respondent

HEARD: In writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] The applicant wife states that despite the divided success on this motion, the applicant should be awarded her partial indemnity costs of $6,037.59, inclusive of HST, due to the respondent husband’s unreasonable litigation conduct. The respondent husband states that no costs should be awarded as success was divided and neither party behaved unreasonably.

ANALYSIS

[2] The modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes: (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants; (2) to encourage settlement; (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and (4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly: Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867, at para. 10.

[3] A detailed overview of the principles related to the award of costs in a family law proceeding were outlined by Monahan J., as he then was, in Sonia v. Ratan, 2023 ONSC 982, at paras. 25-33, and by Madsen J., as she then was, in Grujicic and Grujicic v. Trovao, 2023 ONSC 1518, at paras. 5 -33.

Success

[4] Success on this motion was divided. The applicant was successful in obtaining an order for interim spousal support ($4,236 per month) albeit less than the amount she sought ($4,700 per month) and greater than the amount that the respondent thought appropriate ($2,340 per month).

[5] Significantly, the applicant’s claim for retroactive interim spousal support (at $4,700 per month since October 2018 which totals about $418,300) was not granted nor was the respondent ordered to keep the applicant on his group health benefits insurance policy.

[6] There was divided success on this motion which favoured the respondent.

Unreasonable Litigation Conduct

[7] The applicant wife submits that costs should be awarded to her because the respondent took the position throughout the litigation, and until about one week before the motion, that the applicant was not entitled to spousal support. The respondent states that it had been his position, long before the eve of trial, that the applicant’s entitlement should be below the low end of the SSAGs. On the record, I cannot resolve this dispute.

[8] The applicant also submits that the respondent delayed this motion by obtaining an adjournment several months earlier to obtain a letter from his psychologist to support his view that the applicant’s conduct during the marriage contributed to his PTSD diagnosis. Despite the adjournment being granted, the respondent produced a letter from his doctor. Nevertheless, this delay had no effect on the amount of spousal support awarded as the respondent was ordered to pay interim spousal support from March 1, 2026.

[9] The applicant states that the respondent failed to produce any corroborating evidence to support his claim that the applicant punched, kicked and slapped him on numerous occasions during their marriage. The applicant states that the serious nature of these unproven allegations warrants costs consequences entirely independent of the outcome of the motion. The respondent alleged such misconduct in an attempt to reduce the amount of spousal support to an amount below the low range of the SSAGs. I found that the respondent had not established abuse. The respondent should have expected that such a serious and disputed assertion would not be accepted on a motion without at least some corroborating evidence.

[10] On the other hand, the applicant did not refer me to any precedent for awarding 7 ½ years of retroactive spousal support on a motion under Rule 14 of the Family Law Rules. This was not a motion for summary judgment. Retroactive spousal support claims are typically left for trial and it was unreasonable for such a large retroactive claim to have been advanced on a motion for a temporary order. Could this motion have had much more potential for settlement had this retroactive spousal support claim not been included?

Conclusion

[11] Considering the circumstances described above, I find that it is fair and reasonable to dismiss the applicant’s claim for costs.

Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta

Date: May 20, 2026