CITATION: Winter v. McAnulty, 2026 ONSC 3601
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
FAMILY COURT
RE: Jeffrey Christian Winter, Applicant
AND:
Taryn Elizabeth McAnulty, Respondent
BEFORE: MITROW J.
COUNSEL: David Vallillee, for the Applicant
Rebecca K. Reiss, for the Respondent
HEARD: Written submissions received
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
1I have reviewed all the written costs submissions received pursuant to my order dated April 15, 2026 regarding the parties’ motions heard on April 10, 2026.
2I would note that the applicant has now retained counsel. The applicant was self-represented when the motions were heard.
3The respondent achieved substantial success on the motions. She was awarded interim primary care of both children, and interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. At the time of the motions, the applicant was in possession of the matrimonial home; he refused to vacate the matrimonial home.
4The applicant’s plan was to reside in the matrimonial home with the children: see para. 32 (Reasons1).
5I reject the applicant’s valiant attempts to characterize the parenting order as representing a result that was in some measure consistent with the relief sought by the applicant. It was not. The court rejected the applicant’s plan to reside in the matrimonial home with the children; and the court also refuted the applicant’s characterization of the respondent as being unfit to care for the children due to mental health issues. The applicant’s parenting time was limited to having the children in the community twice per week.
6The respondent seeks $10,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements. This amount is close to full recovery. The respondent’s bill of costs totals $11,754, inclusive of HST.
7The applicant submits that the parties should bear their own costs. In the alternative, the applicant submits that, given his current financial situation, any costs amount should be reduced and a payment plan imposed.
8I consider the factors in r. 24(14). The issues were straightforward and not complex. I find that the applicant behaved unreasonably by filing excessive, unhelpful and prolix material that exceeded the limits authorized by the province-wide direction. This, in turn, caused increased legal costs for the respondent’s lawyer having to review the applicant’s excessive material. Being a self-represented litigant is not a license to flout the province-wide direction.
9I find the hourly rates for the respondent’s counsel and clerks to be reasonable. I would agree with the applicant that some of the time spent is excessive from the perspective of what an unsuccessful party should reasonably expect to pay to the successful party: see Davies v. Clarington (Municipality), 2009 ONCA 722 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 52. For example, the significant time docketed on March 31, 2026 would be excessive as to what the applicant should reasonably be expected to pay.
10Neither party submitted a formal offer to settle.
11At the time of the motions, the applicant was neither employed nor paying child support. The respondent was forced to bring a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. The applicant now relies on his impecuniosity to shield himself from a costs award, and this, despite having behaved unreasonably as discussed earlier.
12The financial situation of a party is a relevant consideration when fixing costs: M.(C.A.) v. M.(D.), 2003 CanLII 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: Hales v. Lightfoot, 2022 ONSC 5892 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 9; Mark v. Bhangari, 2010 ONSC 4638 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 10; 4 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.
13Further, as noted by McGee J. in Mohr v. Sweeney, 2016 ONSC 3238, at para. 17, it is those who are least able to afford to litigate who should be most motivated to seriously pursue settlement, and avoid unnecessary proceedings. This is a description of what the applicant failed to do.
14Given 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.
15I fix the costs payable by the applicant in the amount of $7,500, which is an amount consistent with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.
ORDER
16I make the following interim order:
- The applicant shall pay to the respondent her costs of the motions fixed in the amount of $7,500, inclusive of HST, and payable as follows:
a. The sum of $3,000 shall be paid within 30 days; and
b. The balance of $4,500 shall be paid at the rate of $250 per month, commencing September 1, 2026 until paid in full.
“Justice Victor Mitrow”
_____________________
Justice Victor Mitrow
Released: June 19, 2026