Glowinsky v. Glowinsky, 2026 ONSC 4074

1The applicant mother was substantially successful on her motion, which I decided for reasons released on May 27 and June 9, 2026. Subrule 24 (3) of the Family Law Rules creates a presumption of costs in favour of the successful party.

2I have examined the parties’ offers to settle to determine the extent of the mother’s success. Gjorsovski v. Krajisnik, 2026 ONSC 2202; Lynch v. Lewis, 2024 ONCJ 276.

3The applicant mother did not beat her offer to settle (which was non-severable) on all issues. In particular she obtained slightly less spousal support than she offered to accept, substantially less by way of interim disbursements and, she unnecessarily included motion material concerning the OCL’s involvement; the latter issue was ultimately dealt with on consent. It should have been apparent from as early as April 7, 2026 that the OCL issue should be omitted from the materials to be filed on the motion.

4The applicant mother has not met her onus of proving that the order obtained is as good as or better than her offer to settle (subrule 24 (12)). What is required is a general assessment of the overall comparability of the offer as contrasted with the order. Wilson v Kovalev, 2016 ONSC 163. Close is not good enough to attract the costs consequences of 24 (12). Gurley v. Gurley, 2013 ONCJ 482.

5I have also considered Boucher et al. v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), [2004] O.J.No. 2634 (Ont. C.A.) which shows that determining costs is “not simply a mechanical exercise.” Costs must be reasonable and proportionate.

6The applicant mother sought approximately $20,000 on a full indemnity basis inclusive of HST.

7I award the applicant mother $12,000 costs, all-inclusive, on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the respondent father within 30 days.

8On a final note, I disregard the respondent father’s plea for financial leniency on the basis of his supposed inability to pay. His alleged inability to pay has not been established and is a highly unlikely proposition given his earnings (more than $500,000 per year) and having regard to his cash flow available through his three corporations. The Respondent cannot rely on his self-created expenses to create a cash flow problem, if one indeed exists.

C. Stevenson J.