CITATION: K.S. v. S.N., 2026 ONSC 4741
COURT FILE NO.: 2024-01
DATE: 2026-08-18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
K.S.
Applicant
– and –
S.N.
Respondent
Vlad Floca-Maxim
Krystal Lacroix Prud’homme
HEARD: In writing
COSTS DECISION
M. SMITH J
[1] A high-conflict parenting trial was held in April 2026.
[2] I encouraged the parties to agree on the issue of costs. They were unable to do so.
[3] The Respondent seeks costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,456.56.
[4] The Applicant proposes that the payment of costs be stayed pending appeal. Alternatively, the Applicant proposes that she pay costs in the amount of $15,000.
[5] For reasons to follow, the Applicant shall pay costs to the Respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $20,456.56.
Legal principles
[6] Pursuant to s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, costs are at the discretion of the court. The framework in awarding costs is set out at r. 24 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“FLR”).
[7] Rule 24(1) of the FLR creates a presumption of costs in favour of the successful party. In setting the amount of costs, the court shall consider the factors outlined in r. 24(12) of the FLR, which includes, without limitation, the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties’ behaviour, the time spent, written offers, and legal fees.
[8] Modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants; (2) to encourage settlement; (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and (4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly under subrule 2(2) of the FLR: see Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867.
[9] Proportionality and reasonableness are the touchstone considerations that need to be applied when fixing an amount of costs: see Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840 at para. 4.
Analysis
[10] The Respondent was the most successful party at trial. She is presumptively entitled to her costs.
[11] The issues were not overly complex. They were, however, important to the parties because they involved parenting matters affecting the best interests of the child.
[12] Partial indemnity costs is the norm. However, the Respondent seeks costs on a substantial indemnity basis because of the Applicant’s unreasonable behaviour.
[13] I agree with the Respondent’s position. In the trial decision dated May 6, 2026 (K.S. v. S.N., 2026 ONSC 2675), I set out at paragraphs 25, 49, 54, 56, 57 and 58 the Applicant’s unreasonable conduct. That conduct included the following:
a) Questioning the Respondent’s parentage;
b) Denying the Respondent parenting time contrary to court orders;
c) Failing to keep the Respondent informed regarding the child’s health and medical appointments;
d) Treating the Respondent as a non-parent;
e) Repeatedly erecting obstacles and failing to support or encourage the development of the Respondent’s relationship with the child;
f) Contributing to the child’s distress during exchanges by filming exchanges contrary to court orders and engaging in other negative and inappropriate conduct;
g) Making efforts to sabotage the relationship between the Respondent and the child;
h) Refusing to return the child to the Respondent’s care;
i) Refusing access to the child’s medical records and health card;
j) Failing to comply with parenting orders and agreements;
k) Refusing to share parenting time during holidays and special occasions;
l) Failing to attend scheduled exchanges; and
m) Engaging in a pattern of deliberate and repeated non-compliance with court orders in an effort to limit or eliminate the Respondent’s parenting time.
[14] In addition to the above, I further found that the Applicant’s assertion that she was acting in the child’s best interests when she terminated or significantly limited the Respondent’s parenting time was untenable and that her conduct was not guided by the child’s best interests.
[15] This type of conduct warrants an award of substantial indemnity costs.
[16] I have reviewed the Bill of Costs submitted by counsel for the Respondent. The hourly rates and disbursements claimed are reasonable. The file was conducted by a single counsel and did not involve multiple timekeepers. Accordingly, there is no concern regarding duplication of effort or services.
[17] The Respondent made an offer to settle on April 7, 2026. While this offer to settle does not trigger the costs consequences under the FLR, it nevertheless demonstrates the Respondent’s willingness to resolve the issues. By contrast, there is no evidence before me that the Applicant made any efforts to resolve the costs issue.
DISPOSITION
[18] In the circumstances, I find that an all-inclusive costs award of $20,456.56 is reasonable and proportionate.
[19] The Applicant seeks an order that the payment of costs be stayed pending appeal pursuant to rule 38(34) of the FLR. In my view, no such order is necessary. Under rule 38(34) of the FLR, the commencement of an appeal operates to stay a payment order. Accordingly, if the Applicant elects to appeal the Judgment, any costs order will be stayed by operation of the rule.
[20] This decision was written in English, for the Applicant’s benefit. If the Respondent wishes to obtain a French translation of this decision, she may make the request through the trial coordinator’s office.
M. Smith J
Released: August 18, 2026
CITATION: K.S. v. S.N., 2026 ONSC 4741
COURT FILE NO.: 2024-01
DATE: 2026-08-18
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
K.S.
Applicant
– and –
S.N.
Respondent
costs decision
M. Smith J
Released: August 18, 2026