Court File and Parties
CITATION: Bowen v. Bowen, 2026 ONSC 3843
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Laurie Lynn Bowen, Applicant
-and-
Mark Howard Arthur Bowen, Respondent
COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant
Danielle Russell, counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: June 6, 2026 (Brockville)
Cost Decision
Overview
1At the conclusion of the trial, I delivered oral reasons granting Mr. Bowen’s motion and enforcing the consent order dated September 8, 2020. I asked for submissions on costs. Ms. Bowen left the courtroom before making submissions and, despite being given a further two weeks to do so, failed to provide any written submissions.
2Mr. Bowen seeks his costs. He submits that Ms. Bowen’s conduct warrants substantial indemnity costs. In the alternative, he seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in accordance with his Bill of Costs.
The Law
3Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 governs costs. The court’s discretion is guided by the principles of reasonableness and proportionality: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840, at para. 12; additional reasons 2019 ONCA 156.
4There is a presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, which in family proceedings are generally awarded on a partial indemnity basis: Beaver v. Hill, at para. 13.
5Elevated costs may be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably or in bad faith: Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867 at para. 15. Unreasonable conduct includes conduct that is: 1) disrespectful of other participants or the court; 2) unduly complicates the litigation; or 3) increases the costs of litigation: Harper v Smith, 2021 ONSC 3420, at para 3, citing Beaver v Hill, at para 51, rev’d on other grounds, 2018 ONCA 840. Poor litigation decisions and advancing unreasonable claims or filing meritless and incomplete pleadings may also justify an elevated costs award: Ali Hassan v Abdullah, 2023 ONCJ 186, at para 61; Beaver v Hill (ONSC), at para 51.
6Bad faith represents a higher threshold. It requires more than poor judgment or stubbornness; it involves intentional misconduct such as duplicity, obstruction, or abuse of process: Scipione v. Scipione, 2015 ONSC 5982 at para. 96.
Analysis
7Mr. Bowen was entirely successful. He obtained enforcement of the consent order, transfer of title to the property, occupation rent, and compensation for both carrying costs and the disposition of his personal property. There is no basis to depart from the presumption that he is entitled to his costs.
8Ms. Bowen’s conduct throughout this litigation was clearly unreasonable. She resisted enforcement of a consent order that she acknowledged and understood, advanced a position that there was a binding agreement for her to purchase the property despite conceding there had been no acceptance of her offer, and interfered with Mr. Bowen’s ability to complete the remaining conditions necessary for the transfer of title.
9She remained in possession of the property without legal entitlement, failed to comply with procedural orders, and contributed to delay in the resolution of this matter. Her overall approach had the effect of prolonging the litigation and increasing its cost.
10I accept that Ms. Bowen sought to delay enforcement of the consent order and to impose financial pressure on Mr. Bowen. This constitutes unreasonable conduct within the meaning of r. 24(5).
11The question is whether that conduct rises to the level of bad faith so as to justify substantial indemnity costs. While Ms. Bowen’s behaviour was persistent, obstructive, and self-serving, I am not satisfied that it meets the high threshold required for a finding of bad faith. There is no clear evidence of intentional dishonesty or litigation misconduct of the nature described in Scipione. Her conduct reflects a refusal to accept the legal consequences of the agreement she made, rather than the deliberate commission of a litigation wrong.
12Substantial indemnity costs are therefore not warranted.
13I have reviewed the Bill of Costs. The hourly rates are reasonable, the work performed is proportionate to the issues, and there was appropriate delegation to lower fee earners. The matter was rendered more time-consuming than it ought to have been as a result of Ms. Bowen’s conduct. The overall amount claimed is fair and reasonable.
14Ms. Bowen provided no submissions on costs and no evidence of any inability to pay.
Disposition
15Mr. Bowen is entitled to his costs on a partial indemnity basis.
16The Bill of Costs is approved in the amount of $22,339.73, inclusive of HST.
17Costs are payable forthwith.
Order
18Counsel for Mr. Bowen may provide me with a draft order for review and signature. If Ms. Bowen does not approve the order as to form and content within one week, counsel may send the draft order to my attention without Ms. Bowen’s approval.
Justice K.A. Jensen
Date: July 6, 2026
CITATION: Bowen v. Bowen, 2026 ONSC 3843
COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-244
DATE: 2026/07/06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Laurie Lynn Bowen, Applicant
-and-
Mark Howard Arthur Bowen, Respondent
COUNSEL: Self-represented, for the Applicant
Danielle Russell, for the Respondent
Cost Decision
Justice K.A. Jensen
Released: July 6, 2026