C. (K. L.) v. H. (T.J.) (Costs)


C. (K. L.) v. H. (T. J.)


Ontario Superior Court of Justice


D.S. Ferguson J.


Judgment: August 10, 2007

Docket: 1494/06

2007 CanLII 31779 (ON SC)


Counsel: John P. Schuman for Applicant, C. (K. L.)


Barry James Carmichael, Paul Zammit for Respondent,  H. (T. J.)




D.S. Ferguson J.:



Endorsement on Costs



1     The Applicant is seeking costs relating to the two motions before me on May 17, 2007.



2     Before I go further I should note that Mr. Zammit became counsel for the Respondent only after the hearing before me.



3     Only one issue in one motion was argued. The motions were before the court on April 26, 2007 and paragraph 6 of the minutes of settlement of that date empowered the court to deal with costs of that date.



4     In my view I have jurisdiction to deal with costs of the two motions before me on May 17.



5     The misconduct of the Respondent I described in my earlier reasons relates to the issues in both motions. In my view it falls within the ambit of Family Law Rules 24(4) and (8) and warrants costs on a full recovery basis.



6     There is a dispute about the time spent and the lack of receipts for the disbursements and the reasonableness of the disbursements. I don't find the disbursements unreasonable and am prepared to rely on the accuracy of information about the amount provided by counsel who are officers of the court.



7     Some of the issues raised in the motions are not yet resolved but the costs should be awarded after each step which is what I am doing: Family Law Rule 24(10).



8     The fact that the Applicant did not achieve the claimed amount of support is not in my view a significant factor as her claim was based on a proposed imputed income. The need for imputing income was the direct result of the Respondent's misconduct and it would have been difficult to know what amount the court would impute on the evidence available.



9     The contentions of the Respondent about the Applicant's misconduct are unfounded. A focus on facts which the court finds unhelpful or unpersuasive is not misconduct.



10     I fix costs of the motions relating to the attendances on April 26 and May 17 at a total of $ 19,089.85 payable immediately by the Respondent to the Applicant.


© John P. Schuman 2012-2015