CITATION: Laforest v. Buckley, 2026 ONSC 4859
PERTH COURT FILE NO.: FC-09-00000918-0002
DATE: 20260824
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Claire Laforest, Applicant
AND:
Charles Joseph Buckley, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brian Abrams
COUNSEL: Sarah Kennedy, Counsel for the Applicant
David Sinclair, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: August 21, 2026
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Overview
[1] The parties resolved the substantive issues arising from the Applicant's Motion to Change dated August 12, 2024, by Minutes of Settlement executed on June 3 and 4, 2026. They were unable to resolve the issue of costs and specifically agreed that costs would either be resolved by further agreement or determined by the Court.
[2] The Applicant seeks costs of $27,339.90 on a full recovery basis, $21,872.96 on a substantial indemnity basis, or $16,406.02 on a partial indemnity basis.
[3] The Respondent seeks costs of $10,944.05 inclusive of HST.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Applicant was the successful party for the purposes of Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules. I fix the Applicant's costs in the amount of $8,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
The Governing Principles
[5] Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act confers a broad discretion upon the Court to determine by whom and to what extent costs shall be paid.
[6] Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules provides that there is a presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs.
[7] The determination of success in family litigation is not a mathematical exercise. The court must identify the real issues in dispute and determine whether a party achieved success on those issues.
[8] Rule 24 requires the Court to consider the reasonableness of the parties' positions and behaviour, the importance and complexity of the issues, any offers to settle, and all other relevant circumstances.
[9] Rule 18 remains an important consideration. However, settlement offers do not operate in a vacuum. Their significance must be considered in light of the issues that truly drove the litigation and the outcome ultimately achieved.
What Was This Litigation About?
[10] The parties disagree fundamentally about how success should be characterized.
[11] The Respondent submits, in effect, that the Applicant sought extensive relief, including spousal support, broad retroactive support, tax relief and additional claims, many of which were not obtained. The Respondent further relies upon his Offer to Settle dated May 29, 2026, which ultimately bore a close resemblance to the final settlement.
[12] While those submissions have merit, they do not adequately capture the central issue that required judicial intervention.
[13] The real dispute was not whether child support should be $1,474 per month or some other amount.
[14] The real dispute was whether the Respondent had any ongoing child support obligation at all.
[15] The 2012 Final Order provided that neither party would pay child support to the other. The Applicant commenced this proceeding because, as a result of Sara's catastrophic brain injury and permanent incapacity, circumstances had fundamentally changed from those existing when the Final Order was made.
[16] The Applicant's evidence was that Sara would never be capable of withdrawing from parental charge, required round-the-clock care, and faced the prospect that the financial resources arising from her personal injury settlement would eventually be exhausted.
[17] The Respondent did not concede the Applicant's claim.
[18] In his Response to Motion to Change, the Respondent expressly sought dismissal of the Motion and asserted that Sara's settlement funds and investment income should be sufficient to meet her needs. He further maintained that if child support were payable, it should not necessarily be determined by ordinary table support principles.
[19] Had the Applicant not brought these proceedings, there is nothing before the Court suggesting that the Respondent intended voluntarily to commence payment of child support.
[20] To the contrary, the record demonstrates that the Respondent actively opposed that claim until the matter approached trial resolution.
[21] In my view, that reality is central to the costs analysis.
The Result Achieved
[22] The Applicant succeeded in establishing that Sara remains entitled to parental support.
[23] The Minutes of Settlement require the Respondent to pay table child support pursuant to s. 3(2)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines on an indefinite basis. The Respondent is required to pay $1,474 monthly together with arrears of $13,462.
[24] The Applicant also obtained annual disclosure obligations, annual review rights, variation rights, and security provisions intended to protect Sara's future entitlement to support.
[25] These are not merely procedural achievements.
[26] They constitute recognition of an ongoing legal obligation that previously did not exist.
[27] In practical terms, the litigation transformed a situation in which the Respondent was paying no support into one in which he became obligated to pay ongoing support indefinitely together with arrears.
[28] That was the principal objective of the proceeding.
[29] On that issue, the Applicant succeeded.
The Respondent's Successes
[30] The Respondent was not unsuccessful.
[31] The Applicant sought spousal support notwithstanding the comprehensive waiver contained in the 2012 order. That claim was not pursued to judgment and did not form part of the final settlement.
[32] The Applicant also sought broader retroactive relief, tax-related relief and additional financial remedies that were not obtained.
[33] The Court accepts that the Respondent achieved considerable success in narrowing both the scope and value of the relief ultimately granted.
[34] Those successes must be reflected in any costs award.
The Offers to Settle
[35] The Applicant delivered an Offer to Settle dated October 7, 2025. The Respondent delivered an Offer to Settle dated May 29, 2026.
[36] The Respondent's offer was particularly significant. The final Minutes of Settlement resemble that offer in many important respects.
[37] I therefore accept that the Respondent occupied a favourable settlement position by late May 2026.
[38] However, Rule 18 is not intended to erase the reality of success already achieved through litigation.
[39] By May 2026 the Applicant had already succeeded in advancing a claim that transformed the Respondent's position from one of paying no support to one of acknowledging a continuing support obligation.
[40] The Respondent's offer was not an offer to maintain the status quo.
[41] It was an offer that conceded the central relief sought by the Applicant, namely the existence of a continuing child support obligation.
[42] That factor distinguishes this case from one in which an unsuccessful claimant simply accepts an offer that substantially defeats the claim.
Reasonableness and Proportionality
[43] The issues before the Court were serious.
[44] They concerned support for a catastrophically injured adult child who requires lifelong care and remains entirely dependent upon others.
[45] The litigation required consideration of complex issues involving adult-child support, disability, caregiving responsibilities, support obligations and long-term financial planning.
[46] Neither party acted unreasonably.
[47] Both advanced positions that had legitimate legal foundations.
[48] Nevertheless, Rule 24 starts from the proposition that a successful party should ordinarily receive costs.
[49] Having identified the central issue as entitlement to support, I find that the Applicant was the successful party.
Costs Quantum
[50] I do not accept the Applicant's request for costs approaching or exceeding $20,000.
[51] Such an award would fail to recognize the Respondent's substantial success on several important issues, most notably spousal support and retroactivity.
[52] Equally, I do not accept the Respondent's submissions that he should receive costs or that there should be no order for costs.
[53] Both of the outcomes suggested by the Respondent would fail to recognize that the Applicant was required to bring and pursue litigation in order to establish an ongoing support obligation for Sara.
[54] Taking into account:
a. the Applicant's success on the principal issue;
b. the Respondent's success on several secondary issues;
c. the Respondent's favourable May 29, 2026, Offer to Settle;
d. the complexity and importance of the issues; and
e. the principles of proportionality and fairness;
I conclude that a moderate partial indemnity award is appropriate.
Order
[55] The Applicant, Claire Louise Laforest, is awarded costs fixed in the amount of $8,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
[56] The Respondent, Joseph Buckley, shall pay those costs within 30 days.
___________________________
Mr. Justice Brian Abrams
Date: August 24, 2026