ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-00029715-0000
DATE: 20260206
BETWEEN:
Sandra Ang Applicant – and – Winston Ang Respondent
Hanna Kofman, for the Applicant
Self-Represented
HEARD: December 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, 2025
C. STEVENSON J
REASONS FOR COSTS DECISION
[ 1 ] I find that the Applicant (Sandra) has prevailed in her claim in all significant respects. She is presumptively entitled to her costs pursuant to Family Law Rule 24(3).
[ 2 ] Furthermore, Sandra beat her offers dated Oct 21, 2025, and Dec 5, 2025. Although I did not impose a “therapeutic” process or parenting coach on the respondent in my reasons for judgment, this was not relevant to the first offer and severable in the second. In any event, this was a minor component of the reasons. Success was not “divided” as the respondent argued.
[ 3 ] The court is not required to examine each term of the offer as compared to the terms of the order and weigh with microscopic precision the equivalence of the terms. 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 .
[ 4 ] My decision takes into account the Applicant’s offers to settle (rule 18 and subrule 24(12)), and all the factors in subrule 24(14), including the cost consequences of failing to accept an offer, and the Respondent’s unproductive and unreasonable posture throughout these proceedings, including at trial.
[ 5 ] In this regard I accept the entirety of Sandra’s submissions about Winston’s unreasonable behaviour. As she stated in her costs’ submissions:
“Winston’s conduct was patently unreasonable—it is the precise kind of conduct costs rules are designed to discourage and sanction. Winston failed to advise Sandra of the relief he was seeking until after the conclusion of the evidence. He did not provide a draft order until he presented his closing submissions, notwithstanding that he undertaken, at his questioning on September 24, 2025, to advise of the relief he would be seeking at trial. As such, Sandra did not know the case to meet at trial. Winston’s draft order (when finally provided) was logically incoherent and indicative of his unreasonable positions from the outset of the case. He sought primary decision-making and primary parenting; but Sandra would have to arrange for all of Elise’s medical appointments and be available to pick up Elise whenever he could not. Winston ignored court-ordered deadlines, including for questioning, and for the delivery of his collateral affidavits and exhibit books. Counsel had to repeatedly follow up on the status of his materials, increasing Sandra’s costs. Winston then, disingenuously, advised the Court that he was unaware of the deadlines. Further, Winston did not cooperate in having his wife, Jacqueline, attend as a witness. Sandra was required to summons Jacqueline, and to file a motion for subservice. Yet, at trial, Winston advised (for the first time) that he wanted Jacqueline to testify. During trial, time was expended on this issue. Winston’s assertions that he could not compel his wife to testify were at odds with his claims that he planned to co-parent with her.”
[ 6 ] The sum sought (and awarded) represents recovery of Sandra’s legal costs on a substantial indemnity basis up to her offer of October 21, 2025, and full recovery costs thereafter, in the amount of $139,790, inclusive of HST.
[ 7 ] I find that this sum is appropriate based on counsel’s time and hourly rates (all of which were reasonable) as well as all the expenses which were properly incurred, and which should be reimbursed in full. This includes all costs incurred for Dr. Radovanovic both up to and at trial. Two counsel (one a first-year call and the other an eighth-year call) acted for the applicant at trial and they divided their time and responsibilities in a manner that was fair and proportionate. This trial involved the vital issue of parenting time and decision making for the parties’ daughter. The issues were sufficiently complex, and the proceeding was so contentious (thanks mainly to the respondent) that two counsel were warranted.
[ 8 ] Dr. Radovanovic’s fees total $39,617. Pursuant to Justice Sharma’s November 15, 2022, endorsement Dr. Radovanovic’s fees were to be “borne equally by the parties, subject to later re- apportionment.” Other than initial payments Winston made in 2023, he did not pay any of Dr. Radovanovic’s fees.
[ 9 ] Sandra is entitled to full reimbursement for amounts she paid to Dr. Radovanovic in 2024 ($26,170) and 2025 ($13,477).
[ 10 ] These sums are not “exorbitant” as the respondent suggests. They are and were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties if this proceeding was to be as hard fought and contentious as the Respondent made sure it was. He gave no quarter, and he cannot now complain that Sandra’s counsel spent the time and effort they did in proving Sandra’s case and rebutting his spurious positions.
[ 11 ] This costs order will promote the objectives of modern costs rules as set out in Mattina v. Mattina , 2018 ONCA 867 para. 10 : (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants; (2) to encourage settlement; (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; (4) to ensure, in accordance with subrule 2(2), that cases are dealt with justly.
[ 12 ] In conclusion, Sandra is entitled to her costs in the all-inclusive amount of $179,407. This sum is payable by the respondent within 30 days.
[ 13 ] In the interests of completeness, I confirm that para. 25b of the draft Order should only say Saturday.
C. Stevenson J.
Released: February 06, 2026
COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-00029715-0000
DATE: 20260206
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Sandra Ang Applicant -and- Winston Ang Respondent REASONS FOR COSTS DECISION C. STEVENSON J.
Released: February 06, 2026