Piper v. Piper, 2026 ONSC 3241

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Piper v. Piper, 2026 ONSC 3241

COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1684

DATE: 2026/06/02

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Kimberley Mabel Piper, Applicant

AND:

Robert James Piper, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Maria N. Sirivar

COUNSEL: Angela Livingstone, for the Plaintiff

Respondent acting in person

HEARD: In Writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

OVERVIEW

1This matter concerns costs arising from a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (“BJDR”) hearing held on November 13, 2025, which culminated in the Court’s Order dated April 2, 2026.¹ The parties were unable to agree on costs and have provided written submissions.

2The Applicant seeks costs of $26,567.02, on a partial indemnity basis before May 14, 2025, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter. The Respondent seeks an order that each party bear their own costs, or, alternatively, that any costs be modest and fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

APPLICANT’S POSITION

3The Applicant submits that she was the successful party and is therefore presumptively entitled to costs. She argues that the result of the BJDR was substantially more favourable to her than both the Respondent’s position and her own offers to settle.

4The Applicant relies on Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules,² asserting that her May 13, 2025, offer to settle met the Rule's requirements and that the final order was more favourable than that offer. The Applicant further submits that the Respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct, including causing delay, failing to provide timely disclosure, and refusing to narrow issues. s.

5The Applicant seeks partial indemnity costs prior to the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter. She submits that her costs are reasonable and proportionate and seeks that they be payable forthwith and enforceable as support through the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”).

RESPONDENT’S POSITION

6The Respondent submits that the outcome of BJDR was mixed and reflected a court-crafted resolution rather than a complete success for either party. Neither party’s position was fully accepted, and both obtained some relief, including a section 7 offset in his favour.

7The Respondent’s primary position is that each party should bear their own costs. Alternatively, if costs are awarded, they should be modest and awarded only on a partial indemnity basis. He argues that success alone is not determinative in mixed or discretionary outcomes. He maintains that he acted in good faith, complied with support obligations, provided disclosure, and fully participated in the proceeding. He notes that there has been no judicial finding of misconduct and that both parties contributed to any delays.

8The Respondent argues that the Applicant cannot rely on Rule 24(12) because the final order is not directly comparable to her offers. The offer used a different structure and methodology, and the outcome was not more favourable on all issues. Accordingly, enhanced cost consequences should not apply.

9The Respondent argues that the costs sought by the Applicant are disproportionate, particularly given that the matter proceeded by BJDR rather than at trial. He emphasizes his ongoing spousal support and arrears obligations and submits that a substantial costs award would impair his ability to meet them.

LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES

10The costs rules are designed to serve four fundamental purposes: to partially indemnify successful litigants; to encourage settlement; to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and to ensure that cases are dealt with justly pursuant to subrule 2(2) of the Rules.³

11Subrule 24(3) of the Rules creates a presumption of costs in favour of the successful party. If success is shared at a step in a case, the court may apportion costs as appropriate. There is a rebuttable presumption that costs should be determined at each stage. A judge who has just completed a step in a case will usually be best placed to evaluate all relevant Rules 18 and 24 considerations.⁴

12Cost awards are discretionary. In exercising its discretion, the Court may consider the following factors set out in subrule 24 (14) of the Rules, which provides:

(a) The reasonableness and proportionality of each of the following factors as it relates to the importance and complexity of the issues.

i. Each party’s behaviour.

ii. The time spent by each party,

iii. Any written offers to settle, including offers that do not meet the conditions set out in subrule (12) or the other requirements of rule 18,

iv. Any legal fees, including the number of licensed representatives and their rates,

v. Any expert witness fees, including the number of licensed representatives and their rates,

vi. Any other expenses properly paid or payable; and

(b) any other relevant matter.

13Family law litigants are accountable for the positions they take in the litigation.⁵ A party’s limited financial circumstances will not be used as a shield against any liability for costs but will be taken into account regarding the quantum of costs, particularly when they have acted unreasonably and are the author of their own misfortune.⁶

14Costs must be proportional to the issues and amounts in question, as well as to the outcome of the case. Amounts actually incurred by the successful litigant may therefore not be determinative.⁷

15Subrule 24(12) provides for full recovery costs, from the date of the offer, where a party makes an offer to settle and achieves a result that is as favourable or more favourable than the offer. To determine whether an outcome is as favourable as or more favourable than a settlement offer, the court conducts a general assessment of the overall outcome relative to the offers made.⁸

16A costs award arising from disputes over support rights and obligations can be characterized as a “support order” allowing enforcement through the FRO pursuant to subsection 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.⁹

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

17The Applicant is entitled to costs of $26,567.02, on a partial indemnity basis before May 14, 2025, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter. I find that the Applicant was substantially more successful and is presumptively entitled to her costs. Additionally, the Applicant’s offer to settle dated May 1, 2025, which meets the requirements of subrule 24(12), is more favourable than the outcome of the BJDR. In so concluding, I rely on the following:

(a) Spousal support was adjusted from 2018 to 2021 as sought by the Applicant. The Respondent sought to have adjustments commencing in 2021.

(b) The Applicant successfully resisted the Respondent’s claim that she was not entitled to share in post-separation increases in his income.

(c) The Respondent was not successful in his claim to have spousal support terminate on November 17, 2025, or on a step-down basis until February 16, 2028.

(d) The Applicant successfully resisted the Respondent’s claim to set off support arrears against expenses he incurred for summer camps and a vehicle for the parties’ now adult child.

(e) The outcome was as favourable or more favourable than the Applicant’s offer to settle dated May 13, 2025, with respect to child support arrears, spousal support arrears and ongoing spousal support.

18I reject the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant’s costs are disproportionate. He submits that he incurred $72,087.71 in legal fees in responding to this matter. In contrast, the Applicant incurred $31,632.12 in legal fees, which is less than half of the Respondent's fees.

19I have reviewed the Applicant’s cost outline. It provides meaningful details of the work done. The lawyer who worked on the matter was called to the bar in 2021 and charged an hourly rate of $250. Some work was delegated to a law clerk who charged $150 per hour. Previous counsel and law clerks did not charge more than $175 per hour. I find that the amount of time spent, the allocation of work between counsel and law clerks, and the disbursements are reasonable. I also find that the rates charged are not unreasonable.

20The Respondent’s ongoing spousal support obligation cannot shield him from the costs consequences of his conduct in the litigation. It is appropriate, however, to extend the time for payment of costs.

21Given that the issues are entirely related to child and spousal support, there is no basis to reject the Applicant's request to have costs characterized as support for enforcement purposes through FRO.

DISPOSITION

22The Respondent shall pay costs to the Applicant, on a partial indemnity basis prior to May 14, 2025, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter in the amount of $26, 567.02 inclusive of tax and disbursements.

23The costs shall be paid within 90 days of this order.

24This order shall be enforced as a support order. Unless the support order is withdrawn from the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director, and amounts owing under the order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed. A support deduction order will be issued.

Footnotes

1. 1Piper v. Piper, 2026 ONSC 1982
2. 2(the “Rules”)
3. 3Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867
4. 4Laidman v. Pasalic and Laidman, 2020 ONSC 7068; Cameron v. Cameron, 2018 ONSC 6823
5. 5Heuss v. Surkos, 2004 CarswellOnt 3317, 2004 ONCJ 141
6. 6Snih v. Snih, 2007 20774 (ON SC) and Takis v. Takis, [2003] O.J. No. 4059 (S.C.J.)
7. 7Hackett v. Leung, 2005 42254 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 4888 (Ont. S.C.J.)
8. 8Wilson v. Kovalev, 2016 ONSC 163, at para. 25
9. 9Shelley v Shelley, 2019 ONSC 2830