CITATION: P. v. K., 2026 ONSC 4527
COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-22546
DATE: 20260805
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
R. J. P.
Applicant
– and –
L. A. K.
Respondent
Brian Ludmer, for the Applicant
Tamara Stomp, for the Respondent
HEARD: Written Submissions
ENDORSEMENT
[1] On June 1, 2026, I held a two-and-a-half hour mid-trial motion for interim orders related to child support, summer parenting time and fall school enrolment.
[2] The respondent mother was successful in obtaining increased interim child support for the children, F.P. and T.P., commencing September 1, 2025. The applicant father was successful in obtaining the summer parenting schedule he requested, as well as an order that the children continue attending Lakeview Montessori School pending the final trial decision. Both parties also sought ancillary parenting orders to reduce the conflict that continues to occur around parenting exchanges, after school clubs and food, and an exceptionality assessment, which I granted.
[3] I invited the parties to make costs submissions if they could not come to an agreement. I received their submissions. This is my endorsement on the issue of costs.
Positions of the Parties
[4] The father seeks full indemnity costs of his motion in the amount of $10,959.50, plus HST. He submits that he was wholly successful and that the mother’s conduct was unreasonable. With respect to the child support motion, he submits that he is entitled to substantial indemnity costs of $5,482.76 because he beat his offer to settle.
[5] In response, the mother states that she did not “wholeheartedly” refuse the father’s requested summer schedule. She submits that she was the successful party on the child support motion and that success across all of the motions was divided. She points out that she was successful on seven issues when accounting for the ancillary parenting orders, while the father was successful on two. The mother attached her bill of costs totaling $6,893.00.
Law and Analysis
[6] Rule 24(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, enacts a presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs of the case. Subrule (14) sets out the factors to be considered in setting the amount of costs, including the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of each party’s behaviour and time spent on the matter. Rule 24(4) provides that costs may be apportioned where success in a step of the proceeding is divided.
[7] Rules 24(7), (8) and (10) of the Family Law Rules expressly contemplate full recovery costs in specific circumstances, such as where a party has behaved unreasonably, in bad faith, or has beat an offer to settle: see also Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840, [2018] O.J. No. 5412, at paras. 9-13. Substantial indemnity costs are awarded when the court wishes to express its disapproval of the conduct of a party to the litigation.
[8] The Court of Appeal has held that “proportionality and reasonableness are the touchstone considerations to be applied in fixing the amount of costs” in a family law case: Beaver v. Hill, at para. 12.
[9] A successful party who behaved unreasonably may be deprived of all or part of their costs and be required to pay the unsuccessful party’s costs: r. 24(7).
[10] Finally, a party who makes an offer to settle may be entitled to full recovery costs from the date of the offer to the conclusion of the step if, among other requirements, they obtain an order as good or better than the offer to settle: r. 24(12).
Mother’s Child Support Motion
[11] The mother first brought a motion to adjust ongoing and retroactive child support a year ago, on the basis that the existing support did not accord with the Child Support Guidelines and the father’s income. Because the issue of retroactive support is a matter at trial, the motion was not argued. However, due to the ongoing delays in concluding the trial, I agreed to hear the motion in June on the basis that the father has an ongoing obligation to pay child support in accordance with the Guidelines and it was unfair to the children to require them to wait until a trial decision is rendered.
[12] The mother sought adjustments retroactive to the date of separation and ongoing support in the amount of $6,700 a month.
[13] At the hearing of the motion, significant time was spent reviewing financial documents prepared by the father’s accountant and served on the eve of the motion. Based on this documentation, I determined that a three-year average would be used to impute the father’s income in 2025. A retroactive adjustment was made to the date the mother brought her motion, not the date of separation. According to the Guidelines, the adjusted child support was $5,160 per month.
[14] The father’s imputed income for 2026 was calculated based on his corporation’s gross income. The Guideline amount for support commencing January 1, 2026, was $5,894.
[15] The father served an offer to settle the day before the motion was heard. The offer contemplated ongoing support of $5,894. While preserving the mother’s claims for retroactive support, the offer did not include an adjustment for support from September 1, 2025 to June 1, 2026, as was ultimately ordered.
[16] It is the father’s burden to prove that the order is as good as or better than his offer to settle: r. 24(13). He has not met that burden. The mother was successful in getting an order for adjusted retroactive support for nine months, relief the father’s offer to settle did not include.
[17] I also reject the father’s suggestion that the mother was unreasonable in bringing her motion. The complicated nature of the father’s corporate affairs may have made it difficult for the father to get accurate income information, but it is his onus to do so, and to ensure that his support payments are consistent with the Guidelines.
[18] The mother is presumptively entitled to costs of her motion. The amounts claimed by her counsel are reasonable. According to the bill of costs, approximately 15 hours total were spent on all of the motions. The dockets do not break down how much time was spent for each motion but approximately half of the hearing was devoted to the child support issue. I will apportion half the time spent by Ms. Stomp to the child support motion. Thus, on a partial indemnity scale, the father shall pay $1,500 plus HST, or $1,695 for costs of this motion.
Father’s Summer Parenting and School Registration Motion
[19] The father was entirely successful in obtaining a 2/2/3/3 schedule for summer parenting. He was also successful in obtaining another interim order regarding school registration.
[20] I do not accept the mother’s submission that she did not “wholeheartedly” object to the proposed summer schedule. Her detailed affidavit opposing both the summer schedule and the children’s return to Lakeview Montessori evidence her strong opposition to the relief sought.
[21] In her cross-motion, the mother asked for transition protocol and ancillary orders related to after-school clubs and food choices at the children’s school. She also sought an order that both children be tested for exceptionality at the father’s expense. I granted the requested orders, with some minor modifications.
[22] The father is presumptively entitled to costs of his motion, while the mother is entitled to costs for her cross-motion. It is appropriate to apportion costs.
[23] Although greater in number, the issues on which the mother was successful did not take up more than one-quarter of the affidavit material or argument at the motion. Based on Ms. Stomp’s bill of costs, I award $750 plus HST, to the mother on a partial indemnity basis for her success on the cross-motion.
[24] The father is entitled to his costs of the summer parenting and school registration motion.
[25] The father delivered a formal offer to settle on May 31, 2026, that is substantially close to the result achieved. This fact entitles him to elevated costs from the time of the offer.
[26] I do not agree with the father that he is entitled to substantial or full indemnity costs for the entire motion. Full indemnity costs are contemplated under the Family Law Rules in specific circumstances, including when a party acted unreasonably or in bad faith: r. 24(7), (8) and (10). Similarly, substantial indemnity costs are reserved for exceptional cases, such as where there is reprehensible conduct or misconduct by a party or counsel, or where proceedings are vexatious, frivolous, or an abuse of process: Lewis v. Lewis, 2019 ONCA 690, at para. 17.
[27] The father submits that the mother made false allegations in her affidavit. She stated that the children have used profanities, threatened and committed actual violence, and been emotionally manipulative in her home after returning from parenting time with the father. She attributes this behaviour to the father.
[28] Without corroborating evidence, I was not prepared to accept these untested allegations on a paper record. However, I am very concerned about the nature of these allegations and the suggestion that they may be false. I expect that their veracity will be tested when the trial resumes next month.
[29] The father also submits that he is entitled to elevated costs because the mother unreasonably refused his proposed schedule. While I ultimately agreed that the father’s proposal was reasonable and in the best interests of the children, that does not mean he is entitled to substantial indemnity costs. As I stated in my July 28, 2025 costs order, if losing a motion was the metric for “unreasonableness”, every losing party would be required to pay substantial indemnity costs. Substantial indemnity costs, however, are not the usual standard for costs awards.
[30] The father is entitled to partial indemnity costs. He claims $3,080 for his own time related to the motion. I agree that as a self-represented litigant, he should recover costs for the work ordinarily performed by counsel: Cuthbert v. Nolis, 2022 ONSC 3002, at para. 9. I would, however, reduce them to a partial indemnity scale.
[31] In addition, the father asks to recover the costs of the unbundled services provided by Mr. Ludmer and his clerk, Ms. Azma, totaling $7,879. Mr. Ludmer docketed 6.8 hours, Ms. Azma docketed 9.3 hours, and R.J. P. docketed 11.2 hours. In contrast, Ms. Stomp docketed 15.25 hours for all motions, but I note she did not include the time she spent drafting the original motion in August 2025.
[32] Having regard to the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, I find that the total hours (27.3) expended by the plaintiff are slightly excessive and warrant a modest reduction. The summer parenting and school registration issues were not complicated. Identical motions were argued last year.
[33] Because the father’s offer to settle was as good as the orders obtained, he is entitled to full indemnity costs of the time spent by Mr. Ludmer from the date of the offer, or 2.9 hours on June 1, 2026.
[34] In the result, having regard to the r. 24 presumption and factors and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, I order that the mother shall pay to the father costs of the motion fixed in the sum of $6,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
Disposition
[35] The court orders that:
a. The father shall pay costs to the mother for the child support motion in the all-inclusive amount of $1,695;
b. The father shall pay costs to the mother for her cross-motion in the all-inclusive amount of $750; and
c. The mother shall pay costs to the father for his motion for summer parenting and school registration in the all-inclusive amount of $6,000.
[36] The cost orders result in the net amount of $3,555, payable by the mother to the father. This amount shall be paid within 60 days.
Jasminka Kalajdzic
Justice
Released: August 5, 2026
CITATION: P. v. K., 2026 ONSC 4527
COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-22546
DATE: 20260805
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
R. J. P.
And
L. A. K.
ENDORSEMENT
Kalajdzic J.
Released: August 5, 2026