|
Family - Costs. Jurrius v. Rasulli
In Jurrius v. Rasulli (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered 'costs' in a family law case, here in an appeal focussing on parenting:[37] The trial judge found that the Mother had been the successful party. He considered her prior offers to settle, undertaking a detailed review of the prior offers to settle pursuant to Rule 18(16) of the Family Law Rules O. Reg. 114/99. He concluded that the time spent by her counsel was reasonable given the issues, the experience of counsel and the quality of representation. He also found that the Father had filed no evidence regarding the amount paid to his counsel to challenge his reasonable expectations of the cost of representation, and although the Father also sought his costs after the trial judge rendered his judgment on the trial issues. These are findings of fact and there is no basis to interfere with them.
[38] Further, the trial judge also found that the Father had acted in bad faith. Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules authorizes the court to decide costs on a full recovery basis where a party has acted in bad faith. Courts have found bad faith where a party attempted to deceive the other party or the Court. A party can be found to be acting in bad faith when their conduct increased costs to such an extent “that they must be taken to know their behaviour is causing the other party major financial harm without justification”: Scalia v. Scalia, 2015 ONCA 492, 126 O.R. (3d) 241, at para. 68; Benzeroual v. Issa and Farag, 2017 ONSC 6225, 97 R.F.L. (7th) 111, at para. 20. . LeGrand v. LeGrand
In LeGrand v. LeGrand (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court upheld an appeal against a family costs award:Costs of the Second Contempt Hearing
[74] Costs decisions are discretionary and attract significant deference. They should only be set aside on appeal if the court below “has made an error in principle or if the costs award is plainly wrong”: see Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303, at para. 27; and Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 271, at para. 247. As set out in Fielding v. Fielding, 2015 ONCA 901, costs in a family law matter attract even greater deference given the enhanced desire to promote finality.
[75] Here, the motions judge applied the considerations set out in Rule 24(12) in her April 21, 2023 endorsement, made a finding of bad faith pursuant to Rule 24(8), which permits a full recovery of costs, and she referenced comparative costs decisions to satisfy herself that the amount sought by the mother was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. I see no basis to disturb the award of costs.
|
