Abridged from Statistics Canada CANSIM table 202-0403 catalogue no. 75-202-XIE

According to Statistics Canada the average married couple with one earner has a 2006 before tax income of 64.5 K. With 2 earners it’s 91.4 K. For families with children it’s slightly higher. The average male lone parent family has an income of 67.1 K, and the average female lone parent family has an income of 40.9 K. Taxes would usually account for 25 – 35 % of incomes, and it would cost at least 15 K per new household to survive for the year. None of these average families can afford the costs of losing an average full divorce without expending more than 2 years of remaining available disposable income. None of these average families could afford to be the loser in a median full divorce without expending more than a full years available income. After consideration of support, it would cost a non custodial parent close to 2 years available income to lose an average variation, and a years income to lose a median one.

The legal costs of most family law related court actions are high enough to cause financial damage to divorced families. Appendix C gives many examples where costs have got out of hand. In some cases legal costs exceeded the value of the issue litigated many times over, or have wound up being so high they could preclude the family from affording higher educations for their children. There are even cases listed where judges have penalized lawyers for protracting the court proceedings. The high costs of litigation may also force divorcing spouses to represent themselves in court. If penalized, they are in effect forced to pay for their partners to hire a lawyer while they do without. Average non custodial parents would generally have incomes too high to qualify for social assistance or government legal aid plans. The data shows that’s 139 out of 402, or 34.6 %, of males penalized were self represented. 21 out of 113, or 18.6 %, of females penalized were self represented. Females are more often custodial parents and support recipients, so that may help explain some of the differences.

Appendix 1 Cost Penalties

A) Penalties Against Men

Contents

1 Sex of Judge M – male F - female

2 Region Ce – central east Cs – central south Cw – central east

E – eastern Ne – north east Nw – north west

Sw – south west T - Toronto

3 Sex of Mans Lawyer M – male F – female L – lawyer sr – self represented ex – ex parte

4 Sex of Womans Lawyer M – male F – female L – lawyer sr – self represented ex – ex parte

5 Type of Penalty i – interim d – divorce trial v – variation m - motion

6 Amount of cost penalty ( in 1000 $’s )

Judge

Case

Description

Shaw	M	Nw	sr	M	A.J.B. v. L.M.R.B., 2006 CanLII 26161 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Wife gets 3 K on interim motion, asks for 6 K
Low	F	T	sr	M	A.J.K. v. S.L.M., 2003 CanLII 2409 (ON S.C.)	v	56.0	Wife gets 56 K cost penalty on custody access variation action, offset against 8 K owed in costs for interim motion by husband
Gordon	M	Cs	sr	M	A.P. v. G.P., 2006 CanLII 17600 (ON S.C.)	t	17.9	Divorce action, 17.9 K costs
Herman	F	T	M	M	Adamson v. Steed, 2007 CanLII 1328 (ON S.C.)	t	20.0	3 day trial, wife asks 47.5 K gets 20 K
O’Neill	M	Ne	F	M	Agresti v. Hatcher, 2004 CanLII 8311 (ON S.C.)	i	28.0	28 K to pay ex wifes pretrial costs
Blishen	F	E	ex	F	Ahern v. Ahern, 2007 CanLII 37672 (ON S.C.)	v	5.0	$ 1762 per month child support, $ 270 per month spousal support, s.7 expenses and retroactive support of 35.9 K, 5 K costs
McCartney	M	Nw	sr	M	Almgren v. Almgren, 2006 CanLII 7502 (ON S.C.)	t	12.0	Divorce action, all that was left for trial was support, wife asks 18.6 and gets 12 K
Herman	F	T	M	M	Altobello v. Altobello, 2006 CanLII 44265 (ON S.C.)	m	2.5	Motion, 2.5 K costs
Glithero	M	Cs	L	L	Ashley v. Ashley, 2006 CanLII 32603 (ON S.C.)	m	8.0	Support motion, 8 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	sr	F	Atkinson v. Atkinson, 2007 CanLII 14318 (ON S.C.)	t	14.5	Divorce trial. 14.5 K
Rivard	M	Ne	M	M	Attow v. Bang, 2006 CanLII 6695 (ON S.C.)	m	1.5	Low court award of 10 K costs overturned and 1.5 K costs instead
Gauthier	F	Ne	sr	M	Aube v. Aube, 2008 CanLII 43572 (ON S.C.)	i	8.0	8 K costs for July 2001 motion to vary support of 2.6 K per month and wifes denied motion to strike pleadings
Riopelle	M	Ne	sr	M	Aube v. Aube, 2008 CanLII 43572 (ON S.C.)	m	1.5	Apr 2000 motion setting support at 2.6 K per month, 1.5 K costs
Whalen	M	Ne	sr	M	Aube v. Aube, 2008 CanLII 43572 (ON S.C.)	m	1.0	Non harassment order subject to review made in Apr 2000, 1 K costs
Macdonald	F	T	F	M	Aunger v. Aunger, 2005 CanLII 9665 (ON S.C.)	t	33.8	33.8 K for trial
Kurisko	M	Nw	sr	M	B. P. v. T.-L. P., 2003 CanLII 2446 (ON S.C.)	m	2.0	2 K costs of motion
Clark	M	T	M	M	Babb v. Downer, 2005 CanLII 6047 (ON S.C.)	m	4.0	Costs of motion 4 K
Stach	M	Nw	M	M	Bacskai v. Bacskai, 2006 CanLII 44260 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Interim motion for summary judgment dismissed 1.5 K costs
Backhouse	F	T	sr	F	Ballentine v. Ballentine, 2001 CanLII 28151 (ON S.C.)	v	7.5	7.5 K costs for dismissed motion to vary support, man declared a vextacious litigant, 307 K arrears, 6.2 K costs of appeal
Platana	M	Nw	sr	sr	Bauer v. Bauer, 2006 CanLII 28731 (ON S.C.)	t	8.5	Divorce action, wife gets 8.5 K
Platana	M	Nw	sr	F	Bauer v. Bauer, 2007 CanLII 16624 (ON S.C.)	m	3.5	Husband makes failed motion for contempt, 3.5 K costs
Turnbull	M	Cs	sr	F	Beal v. Beal, 2005 CanLII 30326 (ON S.C.)	t	22.5	Wife gets 22. 5 K costs for divorce action which is roughly equal to what she owes husband for equalization
Riopelle	M	Ne	sr	F	Beaudry v. Beaudry, 2004 CanLII 20399 (ON S.C.)	m	15.0	a lien on his motorcycle transfer of 30 K of RRSP for arrears and lump sum, , 15 K costs
Scott	F	Ce	M	F	Beaumont v. Beaumont, 2006 CanLII 20528 (ON S.C.)	t	87.9	Divorce action, 84.9 K costs, and 3 K costs to apportion award.
Jarvis	M	T	sr	M	Bechler v. Bechler, 2004 CanLII 32270 (ON S.C.)	i	2.5	2.5 K for motion
Sachs	F	T	sr	M	Bechler v. Bechler, 2004 CanLII 879 (ON S.C.)	t	10.8	Divorce action, wife claims 48K gets 10.8 K
Stewart	F	T	M	F	Bekarkhanchi v. Bozchelouei, 2004 CanLII 7044 (ON S.C.)	m	7.0	7 K costs of motion
Sproat	M	Cw	M	M	Benak v. Benak, 2006 CanLII 6906 (ON S.C.)	t	48.6	Divorce action, wife gets 48.6 K costs
Loukidelis	M	Ne	M	M	Bevacqua v. Bevacqua, 2003 CanLII 1936 (ON S.C.)	m	10.0	10 K costs and GST
Aitken	F	E	M	M	Bhoi v. Bhoi, 2001 CanLII 28172 (ON S.C.)	m	2.0	2 K costs of motion
Blishen	F	E	M	M	Biddle v. Biddle, 2005 CanLII 7660 (ON S.C.)	i	12.0	Wife claims 19.5 K for interim support motion and gets 12 K
Campbell	M	Sw	M	M	Biggin v. Maloney, 2006 CanLII 7511 (ON S.C.)	t	1.5	Simple case, 1.5 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	L	L	Boddington v. Boddington, 2003 CanLII 45771 (ON S.C.)	m	8.5	8.5 K costs of motion
Sills	M	Cs	sr	M	Bolentiru v. Radulescu, 2004 CanLII 34775 (ON S.C.)	t	20.6	Divorce action marriage declared invalid, wife asks 45.4 K gets 20.6 K
McCartney	M	Nw	sr	F	Bolt v. Bolt, 2006 CanLII 8876 (ON S.C.)	t	31.0	Divorce action, husbands pleadings struck, wife asks 45.5 K and gets 31 K
O’Neill	M	Ne	M	F	Borden v. Racicot, 2003 CanLII 2065 (ON S.C.)	i	1.3	Interim motion, 1.3 K costs
Fragomeni	M	Cw	M	F	Bradley v. Bradley, 2003 CanLII 28218 (ON S.C.)	i	6.5	Wife gets 6.5 K for interim motion
Hambly	M	Cs	M	M	Brandon v. Brandon, 2003 CanLII 2069 (ON S.C.)	m	0.7	Access motion to determine where children go to school, 0.7 K costs
Polowin	F	E	F	sr	Brazeau v. Lefebvre, 2003 CanLII 2165 (ON S.C.)	m	5.0	Self represented wife gets 5 K costs
Borkovich	M	Cs	M	F	Bremer v. Bremer, 2005 CanLII 6387 (ON S.C.)	m	15.0	15 K costs incurred by wife due to husbands intransience
Campbell	M	Sw	F	F	Brennan v. Brennan, 2002 CanLII 2742 (ON S.C.)	i	2.1	Interim motion,both parties claim to have spent over 30 K, 2.1 K costs
De Sousa	F	E	M	M	Brophy v. Brophy, 2004 CanLII 25419 (ON C.A.)	m	18.5	Default on 8 K per month support, 25 K arrears, 18.5 K costs, 12 K costs of appeal
Stong	M	Ce	M	M	Brown v. Brown, 2004 CanLII 44987 (ON S.C.)	m	12.8	Motion for support, 12.8 K costs
Hambly	M	Cs	sr	M	Buck v. Buck, 2003 CanLII 2072 (ON S.C.)	m	8.5	Unnecesary motion, 8.5 K costs, wife gets proceeds from sale of home as advance on equalization
Gordon D	M	Cs	sr	L	Bukvic v. Bukvic, 2007 CanLII 26600 (ON S.C.)	t	12.5	12.5 K for motion for constructive trust and retroactive support from bankrupt husband
Corbett	M	Cw	M	M	Bullock v. Bullock, 2004 CanLII 16949 (ON S.C.)	m	1.5	1.5 K costs for motion
Croll	F	T	sr		Bush v. Mereshensky, 2007 ONCA 679 (CanLII)	m	1.0	1 K costs of motion
Jarvis	M	T	sr		Bush v. Mereshensky, 2007 ONCA 679 (CanLII)	m	5.0	5 K costs, june 2006
Smith R	M	E	M	M	Butler v. Poelstra, 2006 CanLII 41661 (ON S.C.)	t	5.7	Divorce action, wife asks 16.3 K and gets 5.7 K costs
Scime	M	Cs	M	F	Butsky-Plekan v. Plekan, 2005 CanLII 25103 (ON S.C.)	t	75.0	Divorce, wife asks 117 K and gets 75 K, husband asks 306 K
Perkins	M	Ce	sr	F	Cabral v. Cabral, 2005 CanLII 21872 (ON S.C.)	v	21.3	Custody and access variation, supervised access, security, 21.3 K costs
Mackinnon J	F	E	M	M	Campeau v. Campeau, 2005 CanLII 27600 (ON S.C.)	t	17.0	Uncontested trial judgement against wife set aside, 17 K costs against husband and his lawyer
Power	M	E	M	M	Campeau v. Campeau, 2006 CanLII 19430 (ON S.C.)	i	15.0	15 K for motion to have mans lawyer removed
Hambly	M	Cs	M	M	Cauchy-Eckardt v. Eckardt, 2004 CanLII 6225 (ON S.C.)	m	7.4	Support motion, wife asks 8 K and gets 7.4 K
Snowie	F	Cw	sr	sr	Cavic v. Carroccia, 2006 CanLII 28554 (ON S.C.)	i	1.7	$1650 for interim motion
Timms	M	Ce	sr	F	Chamanlall v. Chamanlall, 2006 CanLII 1668 (ON S.C.)	i	2.5	2.5 K for interim motion
Matheson	M	Cs	M	M	Chapin v. Chapin, 2003 CanLII 2080 (ON S.C.)	v	0.8	Support variation, $ 750 costs
O’Neill	M	Ne	M	M	Charlton v. Ferguson, 2004 CanLII 10401 (ON S.C.)	m	3.5	3.5 K costs
Wein	F	Cw	M	M	Chaudhry v. Chaudhry, 2003 CanLII 2005 (ON S.C.)	i	9.2	Interim motion, wife asks 46 K gets 9.2 K
Henderson	M	Cs	M	M	Cianflone v. Cianflone, 2006 CanLII 37127 (ON S.C.)	t	14.3	Divorce action no kids 14.3 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	M	F	Claer v. Claer, 2006 CanLII 32612 (ON S.C.)	m	5.0	Motion, wife asks 8.5 K gets 5 K
Fragomeni	M	Cw	M	F	Collin v. Collin, 2005 CanLII 48919 (ON S.C.)	v	1.5	Support variation, divided success, wife gets 1.5 K costs
Clark	M	T	M	F	Copp v. Copp, 2004 CanLII 34077 (ON S.C.)	t	15.0	Divorce action, 15 K costs
Lack	F	Ce	M	M	Coscarella v. Coscarella, 2000 CanLII 20376 (ON S.C.)	i	1.4	Interim motion, wife asks 2.6 K and gets 1.4 K, no costs for either side in divorce action
Harris	M	Cs	M	M	Costa v. Costa, 2002 CanLII 2708 (ON S.C.)	t	34.3	Divorce action, 5 day trial, wife asks 41.7 K and gets 34.3 K
Perkins	M	Ce	M	M	Costabile v. Costabile, 2004 CanLII 42934 (ON S.C.)	i	16.0	Wife gets husbands answer struck, 16 K costs and 5 K costs of appeal
Rogers	F	Ce	M	M	Costabile v. Costabile, 2004 CanLII 42935 (ON S.C.)	i	0.7	0.7 K for interim motion
Perkins	M	Ce	M	M	Costabile v. Costabile, 2005 CanLII 44377 (ON C.A.)	i	5.0	2.5 K held for security to be given to wife, pleadings struck, appeal dismissed 5 K costs
Gordon D	M	Cs	F	M	Craig v. Craig, 2004 CanLII 5039 (ON S.C.)	v	6.4	Husbands motion to terminate support, 6.4 K costs
Rutherford	M	E			Craig v. Craig, 2005 CanLII 50263 (ON S.C.)	m	1.5	Contempt motion against man dismissed 1.5 K for motion
Sheffield	M	E	M	F	Craig v. Craig, 2005 CanLII 50263 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	1.5 K for interim motion
Eberhard	F	Ce			Critch v. Critch, 2005 CanLII 16630 (ON S.C.)	m	4.0	Motion, 4 K costs
Rutherford	M	E	sr	M	Cunningham v. Lefebvre, 2006 CanLII 5602 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Interim motion 3 K costs
Sheffield	M	E	sr	M	Cunningham v. Lefebvre, 2006 CanLII 5602 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	Interim motion, 2 K costs
Toscano Romano	F	E	sr	M	Cunningham v. Lefebvre, 2006 CanLII 5602 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Interim motion, 1.5 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	sr	F	Cupolo v. Anzovino, 2003 CanLII 2091 (ON S.C.)	t	1.0	1K for ex parte divorce, requested 11 K
Benotto	F	T	M	M	Cutaia-Mahler v. Mahler, 2001 CanLII 28138 (ON S.C.)	v	15.0	15 K for motion to vary support
Manton	M	E	M	M	D.Q. v. R.A., 2006 CanLII 42375 (ON S.C.)	i	4.1	4.1 K for earlier motion, unemployed man imputed to 40 K
Campbell	M	Sw	F	F	Dababneh v. Dababneh, 2004 CanLII 5858 (ON S.C.)	t	85.0	Divorce action, wife gets 85 K
De Sousa	F	E	M	F	Dahdouh v. Dahdouh, 2003 CanLII 1920 (ON S.C.)	i	3.5	Interim motion for possession of home and leave to appeal, 3.5 K costs
Mackinnon J	F	E	M	F	Dahdouh v. Dahdouh, 2003 CanLII 2041 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	Interim motions, 2 K costs
Marshman	F	Sw	F	F	Dale v. Dale, 2003 CanLII 2006 (ON S.C.)	i	1.8	Wife gets 1.8 K in costs from interim motion
Pazaratz	M	Cs	sr	F	Damian v. Damian, 2007 CanLII 18021 (ON S.C.)	t	10.6	Divorce action, wife asks 15.2 K and gets 10.6 K
Olah	F	Ce	M	M	David v. David, 2005 CanLII 10541 (ON S.C.)	t	42.0	Divorce trial, wife gets 42 K
Karakatsanis	F	T	M	M	David v. McCain, 2006 CanLII 9302 (ON S.C.)	i	15.0	Interim motion for custody access, wife asks 20 K and gets 15 K, husband asks 40 K and gets increased access
Perkins	M	Ce	M	M	Davis v. Davis, 2004 CanLII 19156 (ON S.C.)	t	16.2	Dividided success in application, husband pays 15K and 1.2 K for costs ruling
Roy	M	E	sr	M	Davis v. Davis, 2004 CanLII 32470 (ON S.C.)	t	50.7	Divorce action, wife asks 61 K gets 50.7 K
Metivier	F	E	ex	M	Davis v. Morris, 2006 CanLII 8196 (ON C.A.)	i	0.8	8 K costs of striking motion, varied to $ 750 on appeal, 6 K costs of appeal against wife.
Benotto	F	T	M	F	Davis v. Nusca, 2003 CanLII 2301 (ON S.C.D.C.)	i	2.0	2 K costs for motion, leave to appeal denied, mother move to Sweden with children in interim
Herman	F	T	M	F	D'Costa v. D'Costa, 2005 CanLII 56207 (ON S.C.)	v	13.5	Support variation, wife asks for 19.3 K and gets 13.5 K
Backhouse	F	T	M	M	Debora v. Debora, 2005 CanLII 7671 (ON S.C.)	t	2250.0	Wife asks for 2.6 million and gets 2.25 million for divorce
Smith GP	M	Nw	F	M	DeCicco v. DeCicco, 2003 CanLII 2094 (ON S.C.)	t	20.0	Divorce action 20 K costs
Marshman	F	Sw	M	M	Deelstra v. Van Osch, 2003 CanLII 2007 (ON S.C.)	t	30.6	Divorce action, 4 day trial, wife gets custody 30.6 K
Glithero	M	Cs	M	M	Defoe v. Defoe, 2004 CanLII 5040 (ON S.C.)	t	1.2	Divorce action, all but support settled on consent, wife gets 1.2 K
Flynn	M	Cs	sr	F	Del Net v. Benger, 2003 CanLII 2096 (ON S.C.)	m	6.8	Mother allowed to move with child, 6.8 K costs
Aston	M	T	M	M	Delellis v. Delellis and Delellis, 2005 CanLII 36447 (ON S.C.)	t	45.0	Family claim including constructive trust, wife and child win 50 K and 10 K cost, claim 45 K costs
Olah	F	Ce	M	F	Denby v. Denby, 2003 CanLII 2097 (ON S.C.)	t	28.7	Divorve action, 4 day trial, 28.7 K costs
Campbell	M	Sw	sr	F	DePace v. Michienzi, 2000 CanLII 22460 (ON S.C.)	i	19.3	Mans pleadings struck 19.3 K costs
Eberhard	F	Ce	sr	F	Di Manno v. Di Manno, 2002 CanLII 2673 (ON S.C.)	t	40.0	Divorce action, wife asks 58 K gets 40 K, man had a lawyer at trial
Cusinato	M	Sw	M	F	Dias v. Dias, 2005 CanLII 41541 (ON S.C.)	i	2.3	Interim motion on sale of property, 2.3 K costs
Stewart	F	T	F	M	Dickie v. Dickie, 2006 CanLII 10735 (ON C.A.)	m	16.5	Contempt motion, 16.5 K
Marshman	F	Sw	M	M	Dietrich v. Franklin, 2003 CanLII 41467 (ON S.C.)	t	41.0	Divorce action and appeal, 41 K costs
Aitken	F	E	sr	M	Doherty v. Wilcox, 2007 CanLII 5527 (ON S.C.)	v	4.0	Support variation, divided success, wife asks 8.3 K and gets 4 K
Wildman	F	Ce	sr	L	Domb v. Domb, 2002 CanLII 2661 (ON S.C.)	i	15.0	15 K costs, summary judgment, pleadings struck, 1 million insurance policy
Perkins	M	Ce	sr	F	Domb v. Domb, 2002 CanLII 45568 (ON S.C.)	i	12.0	Husbands pleadings struck, 12 K costs for motion
Cusson	M	E	sr	M	Donaldson v. Dénommée, 2004 CanLII 53115 (ON S.C.)	t	8.0	$ 625 child support and $ 800 spousal support, man makes 78 K per year, 8 K costs
Ferguson	F	Ce	F	M	Dorion v. Merkley, 2006 CanLII 38357 (ON S.C.)	i	5.2	Husband loses interim motion 5.2 K costs
Whitten	M	Cs	M	M	Drygala v. Pauli, 2003 CanLII 48241 (ON C.A.)	t	26.0	15 K costs of trial and 9.5 K costs of appeal, and 1.5 K costs of stay motion, all to be enforced by FRO, 6 K security for appeal
Power	M	E	sr	M	Dunklin v. Dunklin, 2006 CanLII 15761 (ON S.C.)	m	8.5	Wife claims 16.5 K and gets 8.5 K for motion
Power	M	E	sr	M	Dunklin v. Dunklin, 2006 CanLII 5877 (ON S.C.)	i	0.8	Interim motion $ 750 costs
Stong	M	Ce	sr	F	Dunn v. Menear, 2003 CanLII 20236 (ON S.C.)	v	4.3	Support variation, 4.3 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	sr	L	Duquette v. Gregorio, 2006 CanLII 32615 (ON S.C.)	m	2.4	2.4 K costs for access motion
Timms	M	Ce	sr	M	Dvernichuk v. Larouche, 2003 CanLII 2107 (ON S.C.)	m	4.5	Motion for access and custody, 4.5 K costs
Loukidelis	M	Ne	M	M	Dwyer v. Dwyer, 2005 CanLII 5852 (ON S.C.)	m	9.3	9.3 K costs
Steinberg	M	Cs	sr	sr	Edgar v. Sikora, 2004 CanLII 13394 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	1.5 K costs of interim motion
Fragomeni	M	Cw	M	M	Elder v. Elder, 2006 CanLII 3276 (ON S.C.)	v	3.5	Motion to vary support, husband asks 10.3 K and wife gets 3.5 K
Perkins	M	Ce	M	M	Elieff v. Elieff, 2007 CanLII 15787 (ON S.C.)	i	15.5	Interims motions, wife claims 20 K gets 15.5 K
Macdonald	F	T	M	F	Emamghorashi v. Nateghi, 2003 CanLII 2306 (ON S.C.)	m	1.5	Husband gets default of over 13 K in costs penalties set aside but gets cost penalty of 1.5 K
McWatt	F	T	M	F	Emamghorashi v. Nateghi, 2003 CanLII 2306 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	1.5 K costs for interim motion
Rivard	M	Ne	M	M	Emamghorashi v. Nateghi, 2003 CanLII 2306 (ON S.C.)	i	0.8	0.8 K costs of interim motion, ex parte default with 12.5 K cost penalty and 4 K security for costs eventually set aside
Glithero	M	Cs	M	F	Erb v. Erb, 2003 CanLII 2308 (ON S.C.)	t	18.9	Divorce action, wife asks 23.8 K gets 18.9 K
Eberhard	F	Ce	sr	M	Ernyes v. Rachlin, 2004 CanLII 47867 (ON S.C.)	m	4.5	Contempt motion, 4.5 K costs
Mackinnon J	F	E	F	M	F. v. V., 2002 CanLII 2767 (ON S.C.)	t	95.0	Divorce action, wife asks for 158 K and gets 95 K costs
Steinberg	M	Cs	sr	M	F.(J.) v. C.(V.) (No. 7), 2002 CanLII 46717 (ON S.C.)	t	90.0	Divorce action with 73 day trial, wife asks 290 K and gets 90 K
Gordon D	M	Cs	M	F	F.J.N. v. J.L.N., 2004 CanLII 34783 (ON S.C.)	t	15.0	Divorce action including mobility, wife asks 20.2 K gets 15 K
Henderson	M	Cs	sr	M	Facchin v. Taylor, 2004 CanLII 33118 (ON S.C.)	m	2.0	Appeal of support variance, 2 K costs
Mackenzie	M	Cw	M	M	Fancett v. Deprato, 2006 CanLII 2402 (ON S.C.)	t	34.0	Wife asks for 68 K and gets 34 K for divorce action
Wein	F	Cw	L	L	Federici v. Therrien, 2004 CanLII 5037 (ON S.C.)	t	7.2	Mans claim for a constructive trust dismissed 7.2 K costs
Belobaba	M	T	M	F	Feher v. Healey, 2006 CanLII 33312 (ON S.C.)	m	14.0	Husband sues wife over transfer of home and loses, wife asks for 26 K and gets 14 K
Polowin	F	E	sr	M	Fequet v. Petelka Fequet, 2003 CanLII 2200 (ON S.C.)	t	9.7	Divorce action, husband asks for 21 K and wife gets 9.7 K
Campbell	M	Sw	sr	M	Ficca v. Ficca, 2004 CanLII 6226 (ON S.C.)	v	1.9	Motion to change access, 1.9 K costs
Kruzick	M	Cw	M	F	Finch v. Finch, 2003 CanLII 9776 (ON S.C.)	v	6.0	Support variation, wife asks for 23 K and gets 6 K
Panet	M	E	sr	M	Fisher v. Green, 2003 CanLII 2120 (ON S.C.)	m	6.5	Wifes motion for retroactive support, wife claims 44 K gets 6.5 K
Hambly	M	Cs	M	M	Fleming v. Fleming, 2005 CanLII 19832 (ON S.C.)	v	0.8	Motion to vary access to unsupervised dismissed, 0.8 K costs
Belch	M	E	M	F	Fleming v. Lamb, 2004 CanLII 5001 (ON S.C.)	m	3.5	Wife asks 11 K and gets 3.5 K for support / income determination motion
Lafreniere	F	Cs	F	M	Fletcher v. McDonnell, 2005 CanLII 23108 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	2 K costs of interim motion reserverved for trial judge
Fragomeni	M	Cw	M	M	Flewelling v. Flewelling, 2007 CanLII 16442 (ON S.C.)	i	2.5	Interim motion, 2.5 K costs
Matheson	M	Cs	M	M	Flewelling v. Flewelling, 2007 CanLII 16442 (ON S.C.)	m	6.0	Motion unsuccessfully appealed 6 K costs
Paisley	M	T	M	F	Flikerski v. Flikerski, 2001 CanLII 28126 (ON S.C.)	m	1.5	$1500 costs of motion
Smith R	M	E	F	M	Fournier v. Burton, 2006 CanLII 42370 (ON S.C.)	v	4.0	Husband loses motion to have support terminated, 4 K costs
Karakatsanis	F	T	M	F	Fox v. Fox, 2006 CanLII 21065 (ON S.C.)	t	85.8	Divorce action with a 10 day trial, wife asks 200 K gets 85.8 K
Hambly	M	Cs	M	M	Fulmer v. Kaleo-Fulmer, 2002 CanLII 2719 (ON S.C.)	v	2.6	2.6 K costs for custody variation motion, changed to sole custody to wife
Wright	M	Nw	M	F	G.P.M. v. S.J.F., 2005 CanLII 19840 (ON S.C.)	t	36.4	Divorce action 36.4 Kcosts
Lofchik	M	Cs	M	F	Galambos v. Towers, 2006 CanLII 29661 (ON S.C.)	t	44.7	Divorce action no children, wife asks for 60.4 K and gets 44.7 K
Sachs	F	T	M	F	Gardiman v. Brown, 2006 CanLII 40789 (ON S.C.)	m	4.0	Motion for access and crossmotion for support, 4 K costs
Stach	M	Nw	M	F	Gardiman v. Brown, 2006 CanLII 40789 (ON S.C.)	i	6.0	6 K total costs of multiple issues and motions
Hambly	M	Cs	M	M	Gentle v. Gentle, 2007 CanLII 26606 (ON S.C.)	v	3.8	Motion to vary support. 3.8 K costs
Young	F	T	M	M	Giacco v. Papadopoulos, 2006 CanLII 40790 (ON S.C.)	m	20.0	Combined $ 6021 per month child support and spousal support, husband claims 72 K income and is imputed to 100 K, wife get interim disbursement of 25 K, 20 K costs
Marshman	F	Sw	M	M	Giguere v. Giguere, 2004 CanLII 5004 (ON S.C.)	t	12.1	Trial of support, 12.1 K costs
Kruzick	M	Cw	M	F	Gill v. Gill, 2006 CanLII 8467 (ON S.C.)	i	0.8	0.75 K for interim motion
Seppi	F	Cw	L	L	Gill v. Gill, 2006 CanLII 8467 (ON S.C.)	i	2.5	2.5 K costs for interim motion
Tucker	F	Cs	sr	M	Gill v. Knack, 2007 CanLII 1332 (ON S.C.)	t	3.5	Only remaining issue was Christmas access, 3.5 K costs
Greer	F	T	F	sr	Gingo v. Ginglo, 2004 CanLII 1546 (ON S.C.)	m	17.8	17.8 K arrears on costs and 12.8 K interest on arrears on costs, interest on costs rescinded,
Mesbur	F	T	F	L	Gingo v. Ginglo, 2004 CanLII 1546 (ON S.C.)	i	1.0	$ 1000 to wife and mans motion to vary may proceed
Mackinnon J	F	E	M	M	Gomez v. Bartusch, 2003 CanLII 37828 (ON S.C.)	i	3.5	Summary judgment denied, 3.5 K costs of motion
Beaulieu	F	T	M	M	Gonawati v. Teitsson, 2000 CanLII 22541 (ON S.C.)	t	42.0	Wife gets unstated prejudgment interest, 42 K costs
Power	M	E	M	M	Graff v. Graff, 2002 CanLII 2788 (ON S.C.)	i	3.8	Interim motion, 3.8 K costs
Millanetti	F	Cs	M	F	Graham v. Graham, 2005 CanLII 23682 (ON S.C.)	t	40.0	Wife gets 40 K costs
Whitten	M	Cs	M	M	Grant v. Stemmler, 2006 CanLII 9972 (ON S.C.)	i	4.0	Interim motion 4 K costs
Shaw	M	Nw	sr	F	Gray v. Gray, 2006 CanLII 28736 (ON S.C.)	t	5.5	5.5 K costs for uncontested divorce action
Thorburn	F	T	sr		Grimalyuk v. Concelos, 2007 CanLII 1325 (ON S.C.)	m	4.0	4 K total costs
Mackinnon j	F	E	M	M	Guy v. Tulloch, 2004 CanLII 15397 (ON S.C.)	t	25.0	Divorce action, wife asks 35 K and gets 25 K costs
Gordon D	M	Cs	sr	M	H.1 v. H.2, 2004 CanLII 43947 (ON S.C.)	t	5.9	1 day simple trial, 5.9 K costs
Macdonald	F	T	M	M	H.1 v. H.2, 2004 CanLII 43947 (ON S.C.)	t	70.0	Divorce action, 70 K cost
Turnbull	M	Cs	M	M	Hachey v. Hachey, 2007 CanLII 52987 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Man claims 70 K income and is imputed to 90 K, wife claims 14 K per year and is imputed to 35 K, 1 K per month spousal support 0.7 K child support, 3 K costs of interim motion
Blishen	F	E	F	M	Hackett v. Leung, 2005 CanLII 42254 (ON S.C.)	m	4.0	Motion, wife claims 8.4 K and gets 4 K
Baltman	F	Cw	sr	M	Hakim-Kyei v. Kyei, 2005 CanLII 34581 (ON S.C.)	m	5.5	5.5 K costs of motion
Aitken	F	E	sr	F	Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2005 CanLII 47744 (ON S.C.)	t	5.0	5 K cost award for divorce trial, 5 K for 2 interim cost awards also
Roy	M	E	sr	F	Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2005 CanLII 47744 (ON S.C.)	i	2.5	2.5 K costs for motions
Glithero	M	Cs	L	L	Harnum v. Harnum, 2005 CanLII 3231 (ON S.C.)	t	12.5	12.6 K costs for 2 day trial
Keenan	M	T	sr	sr	Harrison v. Harrison, 2004 CanLII 6216 (ON S.C.)	m	1.1	6.2 K arrears and 1.1 K costs, ordered imprisoned if he doesn’t pay
O’Neill	M	Ne	M	F	Hart v. Hart, 2003 CanLII 2130 (ON S.C.)	t	3.5	Trial of support, wife claims 43 K gets 3.5 K, husband also claims over 40 K
Matheson	M	Cs	M	M	Hines v. Hines, 2007 CanLII 2208 (ON S.C.)	m	3.1	Support action, 3.1 K costs
De Sousa	F	E	sr	F	Hinke v. Lake, 2007 CanLII 8635 (ON S.C.)	v	10.0	Man achieves substancial success on motion to vary but wife gven 10 K costs
Sproat	M	Cw	F	F	Hobbs v. Hobbs, 2007 CanLII 26282 (ON S.C.)	m	8.0	Success on motions divided, wife asks 53.5 K and gets 8 K
Glithero	M	Cs	sr	M	Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, 2002 CanLII 2791 (ON S.C.)	t	13.6	Wife gets interim exclusive possession, man declares bankruptcy, 13.6 K costs for trial
Desotti	M	Sw	M	M	Holmes v. Holmes, 2005 CanLII 5488 (ON S.C.)	t	12.0	Divorce action with 3 day trial, wife gets 12 K, husband asks 45 K
Speigel	F	T	sr	F	Hosannah v. Hosannah, 2004 CanLII 9498 (ON S.C.)	m	7.0	Appeal, wife asks for 13.8 K and gets 7 K costs for motion
Langdon	M	Cw	L	L	Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 2002 CanLII 2792 (ON S.C.)	i	6.0	Motion to change jurisdiction, 6 K costs
Rogers	F	Ce	F	F	Ierullo v. Ierullo, 2006 CanLII 33301 (ON C.A.)	v	4.0	4 K costs of motion to vary and 5 K costs of appeal
Mackinnon J	F	E	sr	M	Irace v. Irace, 2004 CanLII 5020 (ON S.C.)	m	3.5	Contempt motion, 3.5 K costs
Mackenzie	M	Cw	F	M	Irwin v. Irwin, 2006 CanLII 5451 (ON S.C.)	t	31.5	Divorce action, wife claims 47 K and gets 31.5 K, husband claims 42 K
Snowie	F	Cw	M	M	Islam v. Rahman, 2006 CanLII 22137 (ON S.C.)	t	183.0	183 K costs of divorce action, 36 K of costs enforceable by FRO
Van Melle	F	Cw	M	F	Islam v. Rahman, 2006 CanLII 22137 (ON S.C.)	t	183.8	Divorce action, 183.8 K
Lalonde	M	E	sr	sr	J.B.G. v. L.B., 2004 CanLII 53230 (ON S.C.)	t	20.0	Restraining order wife gets custody, answer struck, 20 K cost penalty, previous 12K cost penalty
Bellegham	M	Cw	M	F	J.D.K v. K.W.B.K, 2005 CanLII 38100 (ON S.C.)	t	48.0	Divorce action, wife asks 73 K gets 48 K
Quinn JW	M	Cs	sr	M	J.L.C. v. S.B.L., 2006 CanLII 13759 (ON S.C.)	t	46.0	Man accused of being abusive and threatening lawyer and assessor, court orders termination of access and restrictions on motions, 46 K costs
Trousdale	F	E	sr	M	J.M.M. v. G.S.M., 2006 CanLII 6457 (ON S.C.)	t	40.0	Husbands pleadings struck, uncontested trial, imputed income, retroactive support, 40 K costs
Ferguson	F	Ce	M	M	Jackson v. Jackson, 2005 CanLII 6371 (ON S.C.)	i	6.0	6 K costs for interim motions to vary support
Magda	M	Ce	M	M	Jackson v. Jackson, 2005 CanLII 6371 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	3 K costs of interim motion, pleadings struck, 50 K arrears
Brown	M	T	L	L	Javaid v. Valmas, 2006 CanLII 37882 (ON S.C.)	m	5.5	5.5 K costs for contempt motion
Van Melle	F	Cw	M	M	Jhuman v. Moakhan, 2005 CanLII 36266 (ON S.C.)	m	10.0	Contempt for failure to pay support and violation of harassment order 10 K cost penalty, motion for variation dismissed, 15 K security deposit
Flynn	M	Cs	M	M	Johannesson v. Johannesson, 2003 CanLII 2141 (ON S.C.)	m	2.1	Contempt access motion by husband, 2.1 K costs
Spence	M	T	sr	M	Johnson v. Schwalm, 2006 CanLII 13771 (ON S.C.)	m	15.8	Contempt motion, 15.8 K costs, ordered imprisoned if he doesn’t pay
Power	M	E	M	F	Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 38129 (ON S.C.)	m	4.0	Garnishment hearing, 4 K costs
Aitken	F	E	sr	F	Jonas v. Jonas, 2003 CanLII 1967 (ON S.C.)	t	22.5	Divorce action 2 day trial, husbands pleadings struck, 22.5 K costs
Van Melle	F	Cw	sr	sr	Jordan v. Martins, 2004 CanLII 19145 (ON S.C.)	i	0.4	0.2 K costs interim motion plus accrued interest of 0.2 K
Czurtin	M	T	M	F	Jordan v. Stewart, 2007 CanLII 11716 (ON S.C.)	v	7.0	Motion to vary support, wife asks 13.5 K and gets 7 K
Brown	M	T	L	L	Kaplun v. Kaplun, 2007 CanLII 38396 (ON S.C.)	m	7.5	7.5 K for motion
Cusinato	M	Sw	M	F	Kauric v. Kauric, 2006 CanLII 31729 (ON S.C.)	v	12.4	Support variation, 12.4 K costs, 41 K US arrears
Festeryga	M	Cs	M	M	Keen v. Keen, 2007 CanLII 6919 (ON S.C.)	i	3.5	3.5 K interim motion
Henderson	M	Cs	M	M	Keen v. Keen, 2007 CanLII 6919 (ON S.C.)	t	9.4	Divorce action settled on consent except support, 9.4 costs
Gordon D	M	Cs	L	L	Kelly v. Kelly, 2002 CanLII 2700 (ON S.C.)	i	3.2	Interim motion, wife asks 4.6 K and gets 3.2 K
Scott	F	Ce	ex	sr	Kennedy v. Sinclair, 2003 CanLII 57393 (ON C.A.)	t	45.0	Mans answer struck, uncontested trial, income imputed to 60 K, 137 K lump sum support, 45 K costs, appeal dismissed
Pierce	F	Nw	M	F	Kimpton v. Kimpton, 2003 CanLII 2147 (ON S.C.)	t	39.5	Divorce action, wife claims 61 K gets 39.5
Strong	M	Ce	M	M	King v. Sutherland, 2005 CanLII 6377 (ON S.C.)	m	4.7	Motion for support, 4.7 K costs
Glass	M	Ce	M	F	Kirby v. Chappell, 2003 CanLII 1990 (ON S.C.)	t	9.0	Divorce action with trial, 9 K costs
Turnbull	M	Cs	M	F	Kloosterman v. Kloosterman, 2006 CanLII 35629 (ON S.C.)	t	2.8	Wife asks 45 K and gets 2.8 K in divorce action
Ferrier	M	T	M	M	Kondovski v. Kondovski, 2006 CanLII 24455 (ON S.C.)	v	1.5	Mans motion to vary support and rescind arrears dismissed on summary judgment, costs $ 1500
Pierce	F	Nw	sr	M	Korczynski v. Korczynski, 2007 CanLII 16631 (ON S.C.)	t	9.0	Divorce action, wife claims 32.3 K and gets 9 K, man gets supervised access
Clark	M	T	sr	L	Kordic v. Bernachi, 2006 CanLII 38875 (ON S.C.)	i	5.0	15 K security to make motion, 5 K costs, 18 K costs still owing
Backhouse	F	T	sr	M	Kordic v. Bernachi, 2007 CanLII 34844 (ON S.C.)	m	15.0	15 K costs for motion to change support
Low	F	T	sr	L	Kordic v. Bernachi, 2007 CanLII 34844 (ON S.C.)	m	5.0	5 K costs for motion
Eberhard	F	Ce	sr(ex)	F	Koster v. Koster, 2002 CanLII 2693 (ON S.C.)	t	6.0	Ex parte trial, vesting order on home separation agreement overturned, support ordered though man denies being a parent, 6 K costs
Quinn	M	Sw	sr	M	Kuzmanovic v. Kuzmanovic, 2001 CanLII 28195 (ON S.C.)	t	46.8	46.8 K costs of divorce action
Flynn	M	Cs	M	F	Lagos v. Lagos, 2006 CanLII 43492 (ON S.C.)	m	6.9	Motion, 6.9 K costs
Toscano Roccano	F	E	M	M	Lakhani v. Lakhani, 2003 CanLII 2160 (ON S.C.)	m	9.0	9 K to wife for motion
Boyko	F	Ce	M	M	Lascala v. Lascala, 2004 CanLII 5013 (ON S.C.)	t	24.4	Divorce action, husbands pleadings struck, uncontested trial wife asks 100K gets 24.4 K
Dandie	M	Sw	F	M	Lawson v. Lawson, 2004 CanLII 4774 (ON S.C.)	m	15.0	105 K costs overturned on appeal and left for new trial judge, 15 K costs of appeal against man
Desotti	M	Sw	F	M	Leblanc v. Longpre, 2006 CanLII 33319 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	3 K costs interim motion
Gordon D	M	Cs	M	M	Lee-Chin v. Lee-Chin, 2005 CanLII 47758 (ON S.C.)	i	13.4	Several interim motions consolidated into one hearing, wife asks 29.9 K gets 13.4 K, husband asks 37.1 K
Sproat	M	Cw	M	F	Lemmon v. Lemmon, 2004 CanLII 24123 (ON S.C.)	t	3.3	Divorce action, wife gets 3.3 K
Mackinnon J	F	E	F	M	Likins v. MacKenzie, 2004 CanLII 15767 (ON S.C.)	t	10.0	Divorce action. Arbitrators cost award of 110 K reduced to 67 K, 10 K costs
Sills	M	Cs	sr	M	Loebsack v. Loebsack, 2004 CanLII 16872 (ON S.C.)	t	5.0	Divorce action, wife gets 5 K costs
Quinn JW	M	Cs	F	F	Logan v. Logan, 2004 CanLII 195 (ON S.C.)	i	0.5	Interim motion for evidence, wife asks 1.5 K gets 0.5 K costs
Henderson	M	Cs	sr	M	Longpre v. Skursky, 2005 CanLII 31301 (ON S.C.)	v	0.3	Motion to vary support dismissed, $ 250 costs unless higher bill approved
Pierce	F	Nw	M	F	Lord v. Haner-Lord, 2003 CanLII 2174 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Interim motion for access, husband more successful but wife in weaker financial situation wife asks for 4.6 K and gets 3 K, husband asks for 5.6 K
Fragomeni	M	Cw	M	F	Lowe v. Lowe, 2006 CanLII 3280 (ON S.C.)	m	6.0	Motion, 6 K costs
Milanetti	F	Cs	M	F	Lowry v. Kushnir, 2007 CanLII 18146 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Motion, wife asks 75 K in costs and gets 25 K, and wife gets 3 K in cost for case conference
Snowie	F	Cw	M	F	Lowry v. Kushnir, 2007 CanLII 18146 (ON S.C.)	t	997.7	Divorce action, 997.7 K costs, appealed to the Court of Appeal, 20 K more costs
Brown	M	T	L	L	Lyons v. Tuffner, 2007 CanLII 30665 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Interim motion, 1.5 K costs
Pierce	F	Nw	sr	F	M.C.J. v. J.J.J., 2006 CanLII 23936 (ON S.C.)	t	31.4	Divorce action, 31.4 K costs
De Sousa	F	E	M	F	M.I. v. J.R., 2005 CanLII 7663 (ON S.C.)	t	15.0	Divorce action, wife allowed to move to Japan, 15 K costs
Henderson	M	Cs	F	F	MacGregor v. Stone, 2004 CanLII 42944 (ON S.C.)	t	50.0	Divorce trial, 50 K costs, 7.5 K costs of appeal
Marshman	F	Sw	M	M	MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 2004 CanLII 8945 (ON S.C.)	t	49.0	Wife gets 49 K in 6 day trial, 12 K more costs of appeal in 2005, 36 K retroactive support, 10.7 K total monthly support
Jarvis	M	T	sr	F	MacLeod v. MacLeod, 2003 CanLII 2328 (ON S.C.)	i	1.0	1 K for interim motion, man goes bankrupt, retroactive arrears, man doesn’t appear at hearing
Backhouse	F	T	sr	M	Malerba v. Malerba, 2004 CanLII 34791 (ON S.C.)	m	10.0	10 K costs
Greer	F	T	sr	M	Malerba v. Malerba, 2004 CanLII 34791 (ON S.C.)	t	20.0	20 K costs for divorce action
Marshall	M	Cs	M	F	Mancuso v. Mancuso, 2004 CanLII 43770 (ON C.A.)	t	42.0	Mans divorce trial costs lowered to 32 K on appeal, 10 K costs for appeal
Howden	M	Ce	M	M	Manning v. Manning, 2004 CanLII 33295 (ON S.C.)	v	15.0	Support variation, 15.K
Baltman	F	Cw	M	F	Mantella v. Mantella, 2005 CanLII 26320 (ON S.C.)	v	10.9	Motion to set aside separation agreement, wife asks 31.5 K and gets 10.9 K
Corbett	M	Cw	M	M	Mantella v. Mantella, 2006 CanLII 17337 (ON S.C.)	t	38.0	Man sues wife and her divorce lawyer, 14 K plus 1 K for cost submission to wife, 22 K plus 1 K cost submission to lawyer
Cusinato	M	Sw	sr	M	Marar v. Marar, 2004 CanLII 15749 (ON S.C.)	t	15.0	Mans pleadings struck, house vested to wife as security, 15 K costs
Ditomaso	M	Ce	F	F	Margie v. Akogyeram, 2006 CanLII 16369 (ON S.C.)	m	10.2	Default for not abiding by court order to sell home, pleadings struck, 10.2 K costs
Panet	M	E	sr	M	Marie Cunningham v. Charles LeFebvre, 2004 CanLII 54630 (ON S.C.)	i	7.5	Interim motion, 7.5 K costs
Paisley	M	T	M	F	Marinangeli v. Marinangeli, 2003 CanLII 27673 (ON C.A.)	t	35.0	Appeal of support dismissed with 40 K reduction, 35 K costs of appeal added to trial
Rutherford	M	E	M	M	Marks v. Tokarewicz, 2002 CanLII 2799 (ON S.C.)	i	7.5	Interim motion on support application wife didn’t pay costs of precious order, 7.5 K costs
Fragomeni	M	Cw	M	F	Marok v. Marok, 2003 CanLII 9094 (ON S.C.)	i	1.7	Interim motion 1.7 K costs
Aston	M	T	M	M	Marshall v. Marshall, 2002 CanLII 2724 (ON S.C.)	v	12.0	Support claim, husband spends 20 K, and is given 12 K cost penalty
Perkins	M	Ce	F	sr	Martin (Shore) v. Shore, 2004 CanLII 5060 (ON S.C.)	i	7.0	15 K security, 7 K costs of security motion
Rogers	F	Ce	F	F	Martin (Shore) v. Shore, 2004 CanLII 5060 (ON S.C.)	t	64.0	Answer struck, uncontested trial, 64 K in costs total, 15 K security already ordered, wifes pleadings also struck
Taylor	M	Cs	M	M	Martin v. Blanchard, 2007 CanLII 26611 (ON S.C.)	t	15.7	Spousal support 2 day trial, 15.7 K
Power	M	E	M	F	Martin v. Martin, 2005 CanLII 11809 (ON S.C.)	t	49.0	Divorce action, wife asks 165 K and gets 49 K
De Sousa	F	E	Sr	F	Martin v. Martin, 2007 CanLII 8638 (ON S.C.)	v	40.0	Support variation,40 K costs
Baltman	F	Cw	M	M	Martins v. Martins, 2006 CanLII 24242 (ON S.C.)	m	7.2	Motion to set arrears, wife claims 13.6 K and gets 7.2 K costs
Ditomaso	M	Ce	M	M	Martin-Shore v. Shore, 2004 CanLII 17019 (ON S.C.)	i	16.6	I0 K costs against husband for questioning at which wife refused to answer, husbands motion to vary support stayed and 6.6 K costs for motion
Karakatsanis	F	T	M	F	Matanovic v. Matanovic, 2005 CanLII 47788 (ON S.C.)	i	2.5	Interim motion, wife asks 10.3 K and gets 2.5 K
Gordon D	M	Cs	M	M	Mayer v. Mayer, 2003 CanLII 2177 (ON S.C.)	i	4.5	Interim motion on parenting schedule, 4.5 K costs, mutual non depletion and harassment order on consent
Belch	M	E	M	M	McCaw v. McCaw, 2007 CanLII 6920 (ON S.C.)	t	35.0	Divorce action, wife asks 69 K gets 35 K costs
Eberhard	F	Ce	sr	M	McCormick v. Vey, 2007 CanLII 35 (ON S.C.)	m	1.0	$ 570 per month child support and $ 10 per month s.7 expenses, 4.8 K retroactive arrears, man claims 26 K income and is imputed to 40 K, 1 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	M	F	McKinnon v. McKinnon, 2004 CanLII 47798 (ON S.C.)	m	19.5	72 K retroactive support, 19.5 K costs
Power	M	E	sr	sr	McLean v. Vallance, 2006 CanLII 28910 (ON S.C.)	m	1.0	Wife claims 4.9 K and gets 1 K
Wein	F	Cw	F	M	McLean v. Vassel, 2004 CanLII 33012 (ON S.C.)	v	9.5	9.5 K for support variation including one of 2 interim motions, wife requested 88 K
Karakatsanis	F	T	M	M	Meikle v. Meikle, 2003 CanLII 2032 (ON S.C.)	v	17.0	Support variaton, 17 K costs
Panet	M	E	M	F	Meredith v. Meredith, 2002 CanLII 2807 (ON S.C.)	t	3.8	Divorce action, divided success, wife gets 3.8 K
Ferguson	F	Ce	M	F	Merkand v. Merkand, 2006 CanLII 33420 (ON S.C.)	i	2.1	Interim motion on access variation, 2.1 K costs
Stong	M	Ce	M	F	Metter v. Solomon, 2005 CanLII 9673 (ON S.C.)	v	15.7	Support variation, 15.7 K costs
Rivard	M	Ne	sr	M	Mgrdichian v. Mgrdichian, 2006 CanLII 13773 (ON S.C.)	m	370.0	80 K in unpaid costs, 370 K cost penalty
Howden	M	Ce	M	F	Millard v. Cargoe, 2004 CanLII 15955 (ON S.C.)	i	4.7	Interim motion to vary support, 4.7 K costs
Turnbull	M	Cs	M	F	Mitton v. Mitton, 2007 CanLII 4323 (ON S.C.)	m	7.4	Support motion, 7.4 K costs, 4 K retroactive support
Clark	M	T	F	M	Molitor v. Andreou, 2006 CanLII 3481 (ON S.C.)	i	5.0	Interim support motion, husband ordered to pay 5.3 K per month support, 5 K costs
Marshman	F	Sw	F	F	Morrison v. Morrison, 2003 CanLII 1950 (ON S.C.)	t	7.5	Divorce action, 7.5 K costs
Strong	M	Ce	M	F	Munro v. Munro, 2004 CanLII 44992 (ON S.C.)	i	3.5	2 K cost penalty seeking leave to appeal 1.5 K cost penalty
Mackinnon J	F	E	sr	M	N.(D.) v. E.(T.), 2000 CanLII 21156 (ON S.C.)	t	6.5	Wife wins trial of custody and gets 6.5 K costs, asks for 10 K
Blishen	F	E	M	M	N.L. v. J.C., 2005 CanLII 4838 (ON S.C.)	i	5.5	Interim motion to strike pleadings, 2.5 K costs, previous interim motion for custody, 5.5 K costs
Cosgrove	M	E	M	F	N.S. v.D.S., 2002 CanLII 2711 (ON S.C.)	m	3.5	3.5 K costs
Howden	M	Ce	M	M	Naidoo v. Naidoo, 2004 CanLII 886 (ON S.C.)	t	91.6	Divorce action, 91.6 K costs
Murray	M	Cw	sr	M	Nanan v. Nanan, 2006 CanLII 12718 (ON S.C.)	t	8.6	Claims 83 K imputed to 88 K, pays 1.5 K spousal support and 2 K mortgage, and 0.7 K child support, 8.6 K costs
Paisley	M	T	M	F	Narayan v. Padathe, 2006 CanLII 19943 (ON S.C.)	t	75.0	Divorce action, 75 K costs
Macdonald	F	T	M	F	Nichele v. Nichele, 2003 CanLII 1901 (ON S.C.)	i	5.0	Preliminary hearing in motion to vary support order, 5 K costs, man is allowed to proceed
Flynn	M	Cs	M	M	Nittel v. Nittel, 2007 CanLII 14340 (ON S.C.)	t	22.0	Divorce action 22 K
Stewart	F	T	M	M	Noethe v. Noethe, 2004 CanLII 31863 (ON S.C.)	m	15.0	Wife gets summary judgment against husband, security had been ordered, 15 K costs
Backhouse	F	T	L	F	Nordin v. Joslin, 2005 CanLII 14004 (ON S.C.D.C.)	m	6.2	6.2 K for support reduction motion and 5 K for appeal
Smith GP	M	Nw	M	F	Norland v. Norland, 2007 CanLII 20786 (ON S.C.)	i	6.6	Wife gets 6.6 K costs for interim motion
Hambly	M	Cs	L	L	O'Connor v. O'Connor, 2004 CanLII 6232 (ON S.C.)	i	1.1	Summary judgment on s.7 expenses and travel consent, 1.1 K costs
Ditomaso	M	Ce	sr	M	Ojo v. Ojo, 2005 CanLII 9674 (ON S.C.)	v	45.9	Motion to stay support and arrears and security, 45.9 K costs
Benotto	F	T	sr	L	Orser v. Grant, 2003 CanLII 2277 (ON S.C.)	m	20.0	20 K costs and interest
Aston	M	T	M	M	Osmar v. Osmar, 2000 CanLII 20380 (ON S.C.)	t	25.0	Wife asks for 33 K and gets 25 K for trial
De Sousa	F	E	sr	F	P.R. v. K.R., 2003 CanLII 1918 (ON S.C.)	t	36.9	Divorce action, pleadings struck, uncontested trial, 36.9 K costs
Mackinnon J	F	E	sr	F	P.R. v. K.R., 2005 CanLII 44186 (ON S.C.)	i	1.8	$ 1750 for 2 interim motions to set aside and leave to appeal the order of Byers J
Polowin	F	E	sr	F	P.R. v. K.R., 2005 CanLII 44186 (ON S.C.)	i	0.5	$ 500 for interim motion
Power	M	E	sr	F	P.R. v. K.R., 2006 CanLII 1676 (ON S.C.)	v	10.0	Support variation, 10 K costs, 10 K costs of appeal
Nolan	F	Sw	sr	L	P.R. v. W.M.R., 2006 CanLII 28911 (ON S.C.)	i	12.6	Both man and wife ask for house, wife gets exclusive possession, mutual non depletion order, restraining order, 12.6 K costs
Greer	F	T	M	M	Paech v. Paech, 2004 CanLII 47780 (ON S.C.)	i	93.0	Interim motion to determine support, wife asks 99 K gets 93 K
Croll	F	T	M	F	Parker v. Parker, 2004 CanLII 14179 (ON S.C.)	i	5.0	Interim motion for custody and support, wife gets 5 K
Matheson	M	Cs	M	M	Parnell v. Viger, 2004 CanLII 27183 (ON S.C.)	t	103.4	Divorce action with 9 days of trial involving constructive trust, 103.4 K costs
Turnbull	M	Cs	M	M	Pasichnyk v. Pasichnyk, 2005 CanLII 46745 (ON S.C.	t	39.0	Divorce action, husband declares bankruptcy, 39 K costs, 30 K is related to support and survives bankruptcy.
McLaren	F	Cs	M	M	Patterson v. Patterson, 2007 CanLII 26288 (ON S.C.)	t	144.6	Divorce action, wife successful on 4 out of 6 issues, wife asks 342 K and gets 144.6 K
Macdonald	F	T	M	M	Pearce v. Murphy, 2004 CanLII 9423 (ON S.C.)	m	70.0	Lump sum of 350 K for child support, costs of 70 K
Lalonde	M	E	ex	F	Perkins v. O'Neill, 2006 CanLII 39035 (ON S.C.)	m	11.0	11 K costs for motion
Turnbull	M	Cs	sr	M	Perry v. Perry, 2007 CanLII 20982 (ON S.C.)	v	11.0	11 K costs of support variation, 20 K arrears, 10 K s.7 arrears, husband declared bankruptcy, imputed income
Belleghem	M	Cw	M	F	Peters v. Peters, 2003 CanLII 2198 (ON S.C.)	t	38.0	Divorce action, divided success wife gets at least 38 K costs
Blishen	F	E	M	F	Piskor v. Piskor, 2004 CanLII 5023 (ON S.C.)	v	18.0	Support variation, 18 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	sr	sr	Platonova v. Platonov, 2005 CanLII 2951 (ON S.C.)	t	2.0	Divorce action, self represented wife gets 2 K costs against intrasient husband
Gordon D	M	Cs	L	L	Plotz v. Boehmer-Plotz, 2004 CanLII 34349 (ON S.C.)	v	8.5	Support variation dismissed, 8.5 K costs
Hambly	M	Cs	L	L	Plotz v. Boehmer-Plotz, 2004 CanLII 34349 (ON S.C.)	v	5.8	Support variation dismissed, 5.8 K costs, previous 15 K cost award unpaid, 27 K arrears
Charbonneau	M	E	L	L	Poirier v. Poirier, 2006 CanLII 2188 (ON S.C.)	t	36.0	Divorce, 36 K costs
Eberhard	F	Ce	sr	F	Pratt v. Pratt, 2003 CanLII 2201 (ON S.C.)	t	10.0	Divorce action, husband given supervised access to children, divided success, 10 K costs
Hambly	M	Cs	M	M	Purvis v. Purvis, 2003 CanLII 18186 (ON S.C.)	i	0.7	Interim motion $ 700 costs, man must pay equalization based on property evaluation 55 K above sale price
Platana	M	Nw	sr	M	Pysznyj v. Pysznyj, 2007 CanLII 16639 (ON S.C.)	t	8.8	Trial of support, wife asks 9.8 K costs and gets 8.8 K
Stewart	F	T	M	M	Qi v. Fung, 2006 CanLII 16366 (ON S.C.)	m	1.5	Motion for child support, husbands income imputed to 40 K, 1.5 K costs
Hambly	M	Cs	M	F	R.W.L. v. K.A.L., 2003 CanLII 2168 (ON S.C.)	v	5.9	Husband brings motion for custody assessment and access, 5.9 K costs
Henderson	M	Cs	M	M	Racz v. Racz, 2004 CanLII 39025 (ON S.C.)	t	4.5	Divorce action settled on consent, 4.5 K costs
Kurisko	M	Nw	F	M	Radcliff v. Radcliff, 2001 CanLII 28204 (ON S.C.)	m	6.0	Costs of motion 6 K to be offset against 11 K cost penalties against wife and 5.7 K interest, wife gets interim retroactive spousal support of 0.8 K per month
Fedak	M	Cs	M	M	Ragis v. Ragis, 2005 CanLII 18854 (ON S.C.)	t	10.0	Divorce action, only issue left for trial was support, 10 K costs
Wein	F	Cw	M	F	Ramcharitar v. Ramcharitar, 2003 CanLII 1997 (ON S.C.)	v	34.0	Wife asks for 55 K partial or 98 K full and gets 34 K, post divorce action for custody access.
Matheson	M	Cs	M	M	Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2006 CanLII 28560 (ON S.C.)	v	8.7	Variation, wife asks 25.7 K and gets 8.7 K
Kozak	M	Nw	F	M	Regaudie v. Thomas, 2002 CanLII 2667 (ON S.C.)	m	1.2	1.2 K for default set aside on consent
Reilly	M	Cs	M	F	Reid v. Mulder, 2006 CanLII 9981 (ON S.C.)	t	6.4	Divorce action, wife allowed to move to fiji with child, no costs for custody but 6.4 K for financial
Snowie	F	Cw	M	F	Reid v. Reid, 2005 CanLII 2743 (ON S.C.)	t	19.5	Divorce action, wife spends 62 K and gets 19.5 K
Hambly	M	Cs	M	M	Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 2004 CanLII 34788 (ON S.C.)	v	58.7	Separation agreement varied, 58.7 K costs
Campbell	M	Sw	sr	F	Ridout v. Ridout, 2006 CanLII 32914 (ON S.C.)	t	7.0	Divorce action, man must pay 7 K costs
Marshman	M	Sw	sr	F	Ridout v. Ridout, 2006 CanLII 32914 (ON S.C.)	i	0.6	Interim motion 0.6 K costs
Croll	F	T	M	M	Riel v. Holland, 2003 CanLII 3433 (ON C.A.)	m	15.0	3.4 spousal support per month, 2.2 child support per month, man claims 55 K and is imputed to 132 K per year, 15 K costs
Jenkins	M	Sw	M	M	Rizzo v. Rizzo, 2001 CanLII 28119 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	1.5 K costs interim motion
Sedgwick	M	E	sr	M	Roberts v. Aasen, 2003 CanLII 2000 (ON S.C.)	t	60.9	Custody and access 60.9 K award
Rogers	F	Ce	sr	F	Romanenko v. Stolarsky, 2005 CanLII 9677 (ON S.C.)	t	11.0	Uncontested trial, husbands pleadings struck, 11 K costs
De Sousa	F	E	sr	F	Roscoe v. Roscoe, 2003 CanLII 2037 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Mans pleadings struck at interim ex parte motion, 1.5 K costs, denied leave to appeal, uncontested trial
O’Neill	M	Ne	sr	M	Rose v. Rose, 2004 CanLII 17755 (ON S.C.)	v	3.5	Application to vary custody and support dismissed, 3.5 K costs
Perkins	M	Ce	L	L	S.(C.) v. S.(M.), 2007 CanLII 20279 (ON S.C.)	t	320.0	Husband denied access to child must pay 320 K costs
Festeryga	M	Cs	F	F	S.P. v. F.R., 2006 CanLII 19948 (ON S.C.)	t	20.3	Divorce action, wife asks 25 K and gets 20 .3 K, husband Asks 30.3 K
Wein	F	Cw	M	L	S.R.S. v. A.H.H., 2004 CanLII 5038 (ON S.C.)	m	8.2	Husband unemployed and retraining, 8.2 K cost penalty
Kitely	F	T		M	Sait v. Thorne, 2006 CanLII 44280 (ON S.C.)	t	200.0	Over 200 K in costs, 188 K is support related and survives mans bankruptcy
Hambly	M	Cs	F	M	Sanders v. Sanders, 2003 CanLII 2347 (ON S.C.)	t	7.5	Divorce action, 7.5 K costs
Shaw	M	Nw	M	M	Santos v. Santos, 2006 CanLII 28744 (ON S.C.)	i	2.3	Interim motion on sale of home,wife asks 4.5 K and gets 2.3 K, husband asks 5.7 K
Greer	F	T	M		Santos v. Santos, 2007 CanLII 920 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	3.0 K costs for interim motion
Belleghem	M	Cw	M	M	Savage v. Pemberton Savage, 2004 CanLII 48868 (ON S.C.)	v	2.5	Motion to vary support dismissed 2.5 K costs
Bellighem	M	Cw	sr	F	Schmidt v. Seidel, 2004 CanLII 17443 (ON S.C.)	v	0.9	Custody variation. joint custody changed to sole custody to wife, claims wife is alienating children, denied an assessment, $ 850 costs
Perkins	M	Ce	F	F	Sedore v. Sedore, 2006 CanLII 2622 (ON S.C.)	t	7.3	Divorce action, 7.3 K costs
Aitken	F	E	M	M	Seguin v. Masterson, 2004 CanLII 196 (ON S.C.)	i	3.8	Interim motion, wife asks 5.9 K and gets 3.8 K
Whitten	M	Cs	F	M	Shamblaw v. Anger, 2005 CanLII 44380 (ON S.C.)	m	1.0	Support determination 1 K costs
Mackinnon J	F	E	M	M	Shamess v. Berry, 2006 CanLII 42606 (ON S.C.)	v	25.0	Support variation, wife asks 38 K gets 25 K plus prejudgment interest, man owes 79 K in arrears
Rogers	F	Ce	sr	M	Shamli v. Shamli, 2004 CanLII 45956 (ON S.C.)	i	7.0	Interims motions to strike pleadings, 7 K costs
Patterson	M	Sw	ex	F	Sheffiel-Lambros v. Sheffiel, 2005 CanLII 4449 (ON S.C.)	m	4.5	Deceased husband does not appear and is given a 4.5 K cost penalty
Gordon D	M	Cs	M	M	Sheikh v. Sheikh, 2005 CanLII 34589 (ON S.C.)	t	150.0	Divorce action, wife wins mobility, asks 190 K and gets 150 K
Tucker	F	Cs	sr	M	Siconolfi v. Siconolfi, 2007 CanLII 1327 (ON S.C.)	t	7.0	Divorce action partially settled, wife asks 15.5 K gets 7 K
Rogers	F	Ce		sr	Sigro-DiGiosaffatte v. DiGiosaffatte, 2003 CanLII 2238 (ON S.C.)	m	44.0	Lump sum and arrears and costs of 44 K owing, pleadings struck, must pay before he can ask for a variation, non dissipation order
Mackinnon J	F	E	M	M	Silver v. Mercer, 2003 CanLII 2039 (ON S.C.)	m	4.3	Wife gets 4.3 K for motion to set support
Harper	M	Sw	sr	M	Simmons v. Simmons, 2007 CanLII 40221 (ON S.C.)	m	3.0	Default on support 3.0 K costs, man does not comply with disclosure
Leitch	F	Sw	sr	M	Simmons v. Simmons, 2007 CanLII 40221 (ON S.C.)	v	3.3	3.3 K costs for variation, 3.3 K retroactive arrears, 1.4 K credit card lump, 10.5 K arrears, FRO may apply for commital of there’s a default, previous 3 K cost penalty by Harper J
Cusinato	M	Sw	M	M	Simpson v. Simpson, 2006 CanLII 819 (ON S.C.)	t	4.5	All issues settled prior to trial except spousal support, 4.5 K costs
Aston	M	T	M	M	Sims-Howarth v. Bilcliffe, 2000 CanLII 22584 (ON S.C.)	m	5.0	5 K for motion
Smith GP	M	Nw	M	F	Skramrud v. Skramrud, 2007 CanLII 51173 (ON S.C.)	t	9.0	2.5 K spousal per month, $ 400 child support, lump sum of 90 K, man is imputed to former 81 K pay from actual 28 K for taking voluntary retirement, 9 K costs
Aitken	F	E	sr	M	Sleiman v. Sleiman, 2003 CanLII 1983 (ON S.C.)	t	12.1	Wife asks 95.1 K for divorce action And gets 12 K for post appeal motion
Charbonneau	M	E	M	M	Sliwinski v. Marks, 2005 CanLII 23106 (ON S.C.)	t	34.0	Divorce action 34 K costs
Rutherford	M	E	M	M	Sliwinski v. Marks, 2005 CanLII 23106 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	Interim motion 2 K costs
Howden	M	Ce	L	F	Sloan v. Sloan, 2006 CanLII 38366 (ON S.C.)	v	12.5	Support variation denied, 12.5 costs, man is intentionally unemployed
Mackinnon J	F	E	sr	sr	Smith v. Smith, 2000 CanLII 22455 (ON S.C.)	m	1.6	1.6 K costs
Wildman	F	Ce	F	F	Smith v. Smith, 2007 CanLII 22662 (ON S.C.)	i	10.5	Wifes loses motion for summary judgment, man pays 10.5 K costs
Magda	M	Ce	sr	M	Sokoljuk v. Sokoljuk, 2002 CanLII 2814 (ON S.C.)	m	5.0	Non dissipation order against man, wife gets support, man must pay into court funds held in foreign bank account, 5 K costs of motion
Eberhard	F	Ce	sr	M	Stancheff v. Stancheff, 2006 CanLII 22144 (ON S.C.)	v	2.5	Variation, 2.5 K costs
Aitken	F	E	sr	F	Stoate v. Stoate, 2005 CanLII 25768 (ON S.C.)	v	5.0	Motion to vary support, wife asks for 8.7 K and gets 5 K costs
Blishen	F	E	M	M	Stratton v. Kangas, 2002 CanLII 46690 (ON S.C.)	m	2.0	Wife sucessful on 2 out of 3 issues, 3.5 K partial indemnity asked and gets 2 K
De Sousa	F	E	M	M	Surrette v. Johnson, 2003 CanLII 2282 (ON S.C.)	v	1.0	Support variation, divided success, 1 K costs
De Sousa	F	E	sr	M	Szivi v. Schwilgin, 2003 CanLII 2036 (ON S.C.)	i	9.0	Motion for leave to appeal, 9 K costs
Howden	M	Ce	F	M	Tavernier v. Tavernier, 2004 CanLII 5089 (ON S.C.)	m	2.0	2 K for motion
Whitten	M	Cs	M	M	Taylor v. Taylor, 2002 CanLII 44981 (ON C.A.)	t	32.8	10.3 K costs 69 K arrears, 274 K equalization payment, upheld on appeal , 22.5 K costs of appeal
Cavarzan	M	Cs	M	M	Tessarolo v. Tessarolo, 2005 CanLII 30882 (ON S.C.)	m	10.0	Wife asks for 6 K, husband asks for 12 K, wife gets 10 K
Stach	M	Nw	M	M	Tishbi v. Shemesh, 2005 CanLII 3383 (ON S.C.)	t	51.0	51 K and GST for divorce action
Herman	F	T	sr	F	Tock v. Tock, 2006 CanLII 44281 (ON S.C.)	m	4.0	4 K costs remaining owing, 450 K life insurance policy as long as he is obligated to pay support
Platana	M	Nw	M	M	Topetto v. Topetto, 2003 CanLII 1984 (ON S.C.)	t	5.0	Divorce action primarily negotiated between parties, wife asks 9.4 K gets 5 K
Smith GP	M	Nw	sr	M	Trevisanutto v. Crnkovic, 2005 CanLII 19789 (ON S.C.)	v	5.8	5.8 K costs for motion to vary support
Smith R	M	E	sr	F	Trevisanutto v. Crnkovic, 2005 CanLII 19789 (ON S.C.)	v	5.8	Motion to vary support, 5.8 K costs
Fragomeni	M	Cw	sr	F	Trick v. Trick, 2005 CanLII 48923 (ON S.C.)	m	10.0	Wifes motion for husbands non compliance, vesting order, upheld on appeal, 10 K costs
Seppi	F	Cw	M	M	Trick v. Trick, 2006 CanLII 22926 (ON C.A.)	t	117.0	117 K costs for divorce action
Hambly	M	Cs	M	F	Tzeng v. Tzeng, 2007 CanLII 17042 (ON S.C.)	t	112.4	Wife gets 112.4 K costs in assault action against husband, 150 K damage award
Corbett	M	Cw	L	L	Umholtz v. Umholtz, 2004 CanLII 36132 (ON S.C.)	m	2.5	2.5 K costs for motion
Platana	M	Nw	sr	M	Valente v. Valente, 2003 CanLII 1985 (ON S.C.)	m	4.5	4.5 K costs of contempt motion
Wright	M	Nw	sr	M	Valente v. Valente, 2005 CanLII 41388 (ON S.C.)	m	0.9	Wife gets 0.9 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	M	M	Vernon v. Vernon, 2006 CanLII 23266 (ON S.C.)	m	15.0	Motion for support, wifes partial lawyers bill 47 K, 15 K costs
Marshman	F	Sw	M	M	Verscheure v. Verscheure, 2006 CanLII 4493 (ON S.C.)	t	8.0	2.7 K per month child support even though father has child more than 40 %, 3.7 to 3 to 2.5 K spousal support per month, 2.7 K per month child support even though father has child more than 40 %, 3.7 to 3 to 2.5 K spousal support per month 8 K costs
Perkins	M	Ce	F	F	Visconti v. Visconti, 2006 CanLII 2626 (ON S.C.)	m	3.0	Wife gets 3 K on consent motion regarding setting husbands income
Hambly	M	Cs	L	L	Von Feilitz v. Von Feilitz, 2002 CanLII 2821 (ON S.C.)	i	0.8	0.8K for previous interim motion
Pardu	F	Ne	F	M	Walker v. Rutledge, 2003 CanLII 2358 (ON S.C.)	t	18.0	Divorce action, 18 K costs
Snowie	F	Cw	M	M	Walsh v. Walsh, 2003 CanLII 2268 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Interim motion, wife asks 4.5 K gets 3 K
MacDougall	M	Ce	M	F	Warren v. Gilbert, 2006 CanLII 16488 (ON S.C.)	t	15.0	15 K costs of appeal added to costs of trial
Campbell	M	Sw	M	F	Waywell v. Waywell, 2004 CanLII 7577 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	Wife asks 30 K for interim support relief and gets 2 K
Wein	F	Cw	sr	F	Wentzell v. Schumacher, 2004 CanLII 4032 (ON S.C.)	m	19.5	Trial cancelled due to agreement but husband gets 19.5 K costs for contempt motion withdrawn at last moment.
Mackinnon J	F	E	M	L	Westendorp v. Westendorp, 2000 CanLII 22538 (ON S.C.)	m	8.0	8 K costs for constitutional challenge, 4 K to wife and 4 K to FRO
Kruzick	M	Cw	sr	M	Wildman v. Wildman, 2006 CanLII 33540 (ON C.A.)	t	275.0	16 K per month spousal support and 7.5 K per month child support, 524 K arrears, 350 security deposit, appeal dismissed, 275 K costs including appeal
Glass	M	Ce	L	L	Wood v. Wood, 2002 CanLII 2717 (ON S.C.)	i	5.5	Interim motion, wife claims 7.7 K and gets 5.5 K, husband claims 8.2 K
Gordon D	M	Cs	L	L	Wood v. Wood, 2002 CanLII 2717 (ON S.C.)	m	5.9	5.9 K for motion
Glithero	M	Cs	L	L	Wood v. Wood, 2004 CanLII 14407 (ON S.C.)	t	23.9	Wife gets 23.9 K for divorce action
Backhouse	F	T	sr	M	Writer v. Peroff, 2006 CanLII 38363 (ON S.C.)	i	12.5	Mans has his pleadings struck dismissed, 12.5 K costs, 12 K costs of appeal
Greer	F	T	sr	M	Writer v. Peroff, 2006 CanLII 38363 (ON S.C.)	t	34.0	Mans has his pleadings struck dismissed, 12.5 K costs, 12 K costs of appeal, 34 K for costs of uncontested trial
LaFrance-Cardinal	F	E	M	F	Wylie v. Leclair, 2003 CanLII 49737 (ON C.A.)	t	11.0	1K trial costs changed to 11 K but man gets 3 K costs of appeal, 150 K unjust enrichment award reduced to 70 K
Turnbull	M	Cs	M	M	Young v. Staruck, 2006 CanLII 28111 (ON S.C.)	v	4.1	Child support variation, 4.1 K
Henderson	M	Cs	M	M	Zeleny v. Zeleny, 2004 CanLII 5094 (ON S.C.)	m	7.8	Wife agreed to pay lawyer $ 90 per hour but judge raises it to $ 195, 7.8 K for one motion
Day	M	T	sr	F	Ziomek v. La Selva, 2001 CanLII 28197 (ON S.C.)	i	2.5	2.5 K for interim motion
Greer	F	T	sr	F	Ziomek v. La Selva, 2001 CanLII 28197 (ON S.C.)	m	2.0	2 K costs for contempt motion, 6 K arrears, 7 K for forensic accountant, pleadings struck
Himel	F	T	sr	F	Ziomek v. La Selva, 2001 CanLII 28197 (ON S.C.)	m	7.0	Man retroactively imputed to current 250 K imputed income, 7 K costs
Blishen	F	E	M	M	Zlater v. Hartwick, 2007 CanLII 30664 (ON S.C.)	v	9.6	Motion for university expense, 9.6 K costs, ruling better than offer to settle

B) Penalties Against Women

Boyko	F	Ce	M	M	Costabile v. Costabile, 2004 CanLII 42935 (ON S.C.)	i	0.7	Interim motion, $ 650 costs
Eberhard	F	Ce	L	L	McMurray v. Gerow, 2004 CanLII 5758 (ON S.C.)	i	1.3	$ 1300 for repeated mobility motion, motion does not comply with court order to return the child to Ontario
Ferguson	F	Ce	M	F	Merkand v. Merkand, 2006 CanLII 33420 (ON S.C.)	i	0.3	Interim motion on access variation, 0.3 K costs
Rogers	F	Ce	M	M	Costabile v. Costabile, 2004 CanLII 42935 (ON S.C.)	i	0.7	Interim motion, $ 675 costs
Howden	M	Ce	M	M	Naidoo v. Naidoo, 2004 CanLII 34415 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	2 K for motion about house
Perkins	M	Ce	F	sr	Church v. Church, 2003 CanLII 2084 (ON S.C.)	i	10.0	2 motions 10 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	F	M	Munro v. Munro, 2005 CanLII 22142 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Interim motion, wife and lawyer don’t attend first motion, 3 K costs to wife, 1 K costs to wifes lawyer
Gordon D	M	Cs	M	M	O'Brien v. O'Brien, 2006 CanLII 32637 (ON S.C.)	i	32.0	Interim motions, wife claims 115 K paid to lawyers, husband claims 60 K, 32 K costs
Gordon D	M	Cs	M	M	Scodras v. Scodras, 2005 CanLII 19785 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Interim motion, 3 K costs
Gordon D	M	Cs	M	M	Stockie v. Stockie, 2003 CanLII 2352 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	Interim motion, 2 K costs
Hambly	M	Cs	M	F	Bjornson v. Creighton, 2007 CanLII 14321 (ON S.C.)	i		Interim motion, 1.5 K costs
Hambly	M	Cs	M	sr	Girard v. Girard, 2007 CanLII 28740 (ON S.C.)	i	0.1	Interim access motion not needed, costs to husband $ 100
Harris	M	Cs	sr	M	Montemurro v. Shavalier, 2003 CanLII 43349 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Interim motion, wifes lawyer doesn’t respond, 1.5 K costs
Quinn JW	M	Cs	M	M	Riss v. Greenough, 2003 CanLII 2224 (ON S.C.)	i	5.3	5.3 K for 2 motions
Turnbull	M	Cs	M	M	Smith v. Smith, 2007 CanLII 8024 (ON S.C.)	i	0.8	Interim motion, 0.8 K costs
Blair	F	Cw	F	M	Bourque v. Haney, 2003 CanLII 2068 (ON S.C.)	i	5.8	Husband wins interim motion to stop wife moving with children, asks 6.9 K gets 5.8 K
Wein	F	Cw	M	M	Lanfrey v. Lanfrey, 2003 CanLII 2326 (ON S.C.)	i	0.2	Interim motion, $ 150, wife has not paid 6 K costs of trial which is under appeal
Wein	F	Cw	M	L	Stanley v. Stanley, 2003 CanLII 2351 (ON S.C.)	i	13.7	Husband gets wifes action stayed 13.7 K costs
Belleghem	M	Cw	L	L	Smolders v. Smolders, 2003 CanLII 2246 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Interim motion to set support, 3 K costs, wife gets 5 K per month support
Corbett	M	Cw	M	F	Moudry v. Moudry, 2005 CanLII 22220 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	2.0 K costs for interim motion
Tulloch	M	Cw	M	sr	Walsh v. Walsh, 2006 CanLII 20857 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	3 K costs of interim motion
Charboneau	M	E	F	M	Guénette v. Brisebois, 2004 CanLII 33294 (ON S.C.)	i	1.0	Husband gets interim custody, divided success, 3 motions 1 K costs to be paid by wife
Rutherford	M	E	M	M	Craig v. Craig, 2005 CanLII 50263 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Contempt motion for disclosure dismissed, 1.5 K costs
Pierce	F	Nw	M	M	Kuluski v. Adams, 2002 CanLII 2684 (ON S.C.)	i	4.2	Husband wins interim motion to stop wife moving with children, 4.2 K
Kurisko	M	Nw	F	M	Radcliff v. Radcliff, 2001 CanLII 28204 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	1.5 K for interim support motion withdrawn
McCartney	M	Nw	F	M	Hensel v. Hensel, 2006 CanLII 40672 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Interim motion for daycare, 1.5 K costs
McCartney	M	Nw	M	ex	McEvoy v. McEvoy, 2003 CanLII 2178 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	3 K costs for striking motion
McCartney	M	Nw	F	sr	St. James v. St. James, 2006 CanLII 31618 (ON S.C.)	i	0.5	Interim motion for freezing order dismissed, 0.5 K costs
Stach	M	Nw	M	M	Gale v. Gale, 2006 CanLII 40788 (ON S.C.)	i	4.2	Interim motions in 3 courts, 4.2 K total
Wright	M	Nw	M	M	Willson v. Willson, 2003 CanLII 2274 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	1.5 K costs for motion withdrawn if wife turns out entitled to interim support and 3.5 K costs if she wasn’t
Zelinski	M	Nw	F	M	Radcliff v. Radcliff, 2001 CanLII 28204 (ON S.C.)	i	0.3	0.3 K costs for interim motion
Zelinski	M	Nw	L	L	White v. Richardson, 2005 CanLII 34818 (ON S.C.)	i	0.2	Wife is under a 0.2 K cost order
Marshman	F	Sw	M	M	Al-Mutter v. Al-Ekabi, 2003 CanLII 1945 (ON S.C.)	i	6.5	Wife must pay 6.5 K costs for interim motion
Marshman	F	Sw	F	F	Miller v. Miller, 2005 CanLII 463 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Wife motion for supervised access fails 1.5 K costs
Marshman	F	Sw	M	M	Verscheure v. Verscheure, 2006 CanLII 13238 (ON S.C.)	i	8.0	Divorce, husband gets 8 K costs for interim motion to be offset against his support payments
Cusinato	M	Sw	M	M	Moore v. Riley, 2005 CanLII 24928 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	2 K costs of interim motion
Herman	F	T	M	sr	Dagorne v. Cormack, 2007 CanLII 28223 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	Interim motion, 0.75 K cost penalty, second interim 0.75 cost penalty, wife hasn’t paid first penalty
Mesbur	F	T	M	M	Burmi v. Dhiman, 2001 CanLII 28206 (ON S.C.)	i	2.0	2 K costs for motion to amend pleadings for damage claim and add husbands parents, motion allowed but spousal support denied fo 7 week marriage
Mesbur	F	T	M	sr	Santos v. Santos, 2007 CanLII 920 (ON S.C.)	i	1.5	1.5 K costs of interim motion
Del Frate	M	Ne	M	M	Ansara v. Ansara, 2007 CanLII 6235 (ON S.C.)	i	3.0	Interim motion on acces and support, 3 K costs deferred to trial
Eberhard	F	Ce	sr	sr	Crocker v. Critch, 2005 CanLII 48314 (ON S.C.)	m	1.8	$ 1750 costs offset against 4.5 K support arrears, mans arrears reduced
Ditomaso	M	Ce	M	F	Heath v. Heath, 2006 CanLII 19458 (ON S.C.)	m	15.0	Contempt motion, wife empties house with moving van against direct court order, 5 K penalty, 15 K costs
Ditomaso	M	Ce			Ross v. Pishalski, 2005 CanLII 9678 (ON S.C.)	m	3.5	3.5 K for denied jurisdiction motion
Glass	M	Ce	M	F	Hill v. Hill, 2005 CanLII 3476 (ON S.C.)	m	16.0	Motion to enforce a separation agreement, husband claims 21 K gets 16 K
Perkins	M	Ce	M	F	Savoie v. Richard, 2004 CanLII 47793 (ON S.C.)	m	2.0	Motion, husband asks for 6.8 K gets 2 K
Timms	M	Ce	M	M	Caldwell v. Caldwell, 2007 CanLII 8918 (ON S.C.)	m	20.0	Motion for support against wife who hasn’t paid, 20 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	F	sr	Duquette v. Gregorio, 2006 CanLII 32615 (ON S.C.)	m	2.4	Motion for expanded access, 2.4 K costs
Glithero	M	Cs	M	M	Cornaz v. Cornaz-Nikyuluw, 2005 CanLII 47770 (ON S.C.)	m	31.0	Hague convention case to return child to husband, husband asks 62 K gets 31 K
Quinn JW	M	Cs	M	sr	Coletta v. Jones Coletta, 2003 CanLII 2412 (ON S.C.)	m	2.5	2.5 K costs for contempt motion
Snowie	F	Cw	M	sr	Euteneier v. Euteneier, 2007 CanLII 9609 (ON S.C.)	m	6.3	6.3 K costs of motion, woman declared a vextacious litigant and must get leave of court to file
Snowie	F	Cw	F	F	Moudry v. Moudry, 2005 CanLII 22220 (ON S.C.)	m	14.5	Found in contempt for denial of access and false allegations, custody given to man, 14.5 K cost penalty
Tulloch	M	Cw	F	M	Finucan v. Finucan, 2006 CanLII 30590 (ON S.C.)	m	3.0	Motion, 3 K costs
DeSousa	F	E	F	F	A.D. v. M.J., 2006 CanLII 37515 (ON S.C.)	m	8.0	Motion, wife found in contempt, 8 K costs
De Sousa	F	E	M	F	Sloss v. Forget, 2005 CanLII 4843 (ON S.C.)	m	6.0	Motion for mobility and support, 6 K costs
Shaw	M	Nw	M	F	Petit v. Petit, 2007 CanLII 20789 (ON S.C.)	m	4.0	4.0 K for withdrawn motion
Campbell	M	Sw	M	M	MacRae v. Simpson, 2003 CanLII 2307 (ON S.C.)	m	5.8	Half day motion, husband asks 27.8 K and gets 5.8 K
Campbell	M	Sw	M	M	Walker v. Walker, 2006 CanLII 20095 (ON S.C.)	m	5.0	Husband gets 5 K
Vogelsang	M	Sw	M	F	Marshall v. Marshall, 2004 CanLII 4015 (ON S.C.)	m	2.7	Custody and access motion, 2.7 K costs
Macdonald	F	T	F	M	Bespaly v. Bespaly, 2003 CanLII 2287 (ON S.C.)	m	4.25	Contempt motion for arrears, 4.25 K cost including 0.75 K for cost submissions
Macdonald	F	T	M	F	Brittain v. Brittain, 2003 CanLII 2289 (ON S.C.)	m	3.5	3.5 K for costs of denied mobility motion
Macdonald	F	T	M	M	McDougall Pearce v. Murphy, 2004 CanLII 5877 (ON S.C.)	m	2.0	2 K costs for motion to be paid out of 55 K lump sum
Mesbur	F	T	M	M	Cundill v. Cundill, 2004 CanLII 30891 (ON S.C.)	m	5.5	5.5 K for costs of motion
Glass	M	Ce	F	M	McKenzie v. McKenzie, 2002 CanLII 2803 (ON S.C.)	t	9.0	Divorce action, 9 K costs
Howden	M	Ce	M	M	Donnelly v. Donnelly, 2004 CanLII 9296 (ON S.C.)	t	40.0	Wife pays 40 K costs for divorce action
Timms	M	Ce	M	F	Mercieca v. Merciera, 2003 CanLII 2184 (ON S.C.)	t	15.0	Divorce action, 15 K costs
Hambly	M	Cs	M	sr	Hockey-Sweeney v. Sweeney, 2002 CanLII 2721 (ON S.C.)	t	215.0	Divorce action, wife acts unreasonably, 200 K costs and 15 K costs of appeal, husband gets custody and must pay 5 K per month spousal support
Tucker	F	Cs	M	F	St. Louis v. St. Louis, 2007 CanLII 11730 (ON S.C.)	t	10.0	Divorce action, husband seeks 21 K gets 10 K
Festeryga	M	Cs	M	M	Harrington v. Harrington, 2007 CanLII 27754 (ON S.C.)	t	89.0	Divorce action, husband asks 129 K gets 89 K
Flynn	M	Cs	M	F	Debruyn v. Debruyn, 2005 CanLII 11206 (ON S.C.)	t	9.5	Divorce action, wife gets 9.5 K costs and her lawyer gets 5 K costs and can’t bill wife for trial time
Glithero	M	Cs	F	sr	Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, 2002 CanLII 2791 (ON S.C.)	t	13.6	Divorce action 13.6 K costs
Glithero	M	Cs	M	M	Visneskie v. Visneskie, 2003 CanLII 2264 (ON S.C.)	t	45.5	Divorce action, husband asks for 54.5 K and gets 45.5 K
Gordon D	M	Cs	M	M	Takis v. Takis, 2003 CanLII 2256 (ON S.C.)	t	32.0	Divorce action, husband asks 64 K and gets 32 K
Mazza	M	Cs	F	M	Raguckas v. Raguckas, 2007 CanLII 2360 (ON S.C.)	t	40.7	Divorce action, 40.7 K
Turnbull	M	Cs	M	L	Bolduc v. Bolduc, 2006 CanLII 35976 (ON S.C.)	t	15.0	Trial, husband claims 25 K gets 15 K
Quigly	M	Cw	M	sr	Walsh v. Walsh, 2007 ONCA 218 (CanLII)	t	21.6	21.6 K costs of divorce action, upheld on appeal, 3.5 K costs of appeal, leave provision rescinded
Snowie	F	Cw	M	M	A.F. v. I.V., 2006 CanLII 32619 (ON S.C.)	t	252.9	Divorce action lasting 11 years where wife made numerous false allegations, 252.9 K costs
Wein	F	Cw	M	F	Voce v. Gibson, 2003 CanLII 778 (ON C.A.)	t	4.0	12 K costs of trial overturned to 4 K on appeal
Belleghem	M	Cw	M	sr	Murphy v. Murphy, 2003 CanLII 2186 (ON S.C.)	t	14.5	Divorce action, husband asks 40 K costs and gets 12 K, 2 adjournments $ 1250
Tulloch	M	Cw	M	M	Sincovich v. Sincovich, 2005 CanLII 33591 (ON S.C.)	t	12.0	Husband successful in custody support application, claims 45 K gets 12 K costs
De Sousa	F	E	F	F	Ladisa v. Ladisa, 2004 CanLII 15138 (ON S.C.)	t	10.0	Divorce action, wife claims 35 K costs, husband claims 28 K and gets 10 K, appeal dismissed
De Sousa	F	E	M	M	Marks v. Tokarewicz, 2003 CanLII 1995 (ON S.C.)	t	28.8	20K costs, 8.8 K costs of appeal
De Sousa	F	E	F	M	Viertelhausen v. Burbridge, 2006 CanLII 11238 (ON S.C.)	t	7.0	Support trial, 7 K costs
Mackinnon J	F	E	F	M	D.W. v. C.O, 2006 CanLII 16361 (ON S.C.)	t	3.0	Child support application, 3 K costs
Panet	M	E	F	M	Nicholls v. Peterson, 2007 CanLII 43497 (ON S.C.)	t	1.3	$1,250 for uncontested trial, womans pleadings struck, 2 other $ 500 cost penalties
Smith R	M	E	M	sr	Coady v. Boyle, 2004 CanLII 15122 (ON S.C.)	t	70.0	70 K costs against wife
McCartney	M	Nw	F	M	Goeldner v. Goeldner, 2004 CanLII 14348 (ON S.C.)	t	20.0	Divorce action no children, costs 47 K plus 2.6 K prejudgment interest, changed to 20 K costs on appeal
Platana	M	Nw	M	sr	Coady v. Boyle, 2004 CanLII 15122 (ON S.C.)	t	67.0	Divorce action, wife makes fraud claim, husband asks 102 K gets 67 K
Platana	M	Nw	sr	sr	L.J.J.C. v. V.S.C., 2006 CanLII 21777 (ON S.C.)	t	27.5	Husband claims 50 K for divorce and gets 27.5 K, wife claims 91 K
Marshman	F	Sw	M	M	Al-Mutter v. Al-Ekabi, 2003 CanLII 1945 (ON S.C.)	t	32.5	Divorce action, 15 day trial, wife must pay 32.5 K and her lawyer 5 K in costs
Campbell	M	Sw	M	M	Cumpson v. Templeton, 2005 CanLII 50010 (ON S.C.)	t	14.0	Husband wins custody and mobility trial, 14 K costs
Campbell	M	Sw	M	M	Snih v. Snih, 2007 CanLII 20774 (ON S.C.)	t	18.0	Wife loses custody action, husband claims 30 K and gets 18 K
Benotto	F	T	M	sr	C.A.M. v. D.M., 2003 CanLII 18880 (ON C.A.)	t	45.0	Woman given supervised access and 45 K cost penalty, appeal dismissed
Benotto	F	T	M	M	Woolf v. Woolf, 2001 CanLII 8591 (ON C.A.)	t	25.0	Womans pleadings struck, appeal dismissed, 25 K costs
Del Frate	M	Ne	F	sr	Levesque v. Little, 2007 CanLII 1910 (ON S.C.)	t	27.5	Divorce action, husband asks 53.2 K and gets 27.5 K
Loukidelis	M	Ne	M	M	Borsos v. Borsos, 2006 CanLII 31201 (ON S.C.)	t	7.5	Divorce action, husband asks 47.1 K and gets 7.5 K
Whalen	M	Ne	M	M	Feng v. Philips, 2006 CanLII 13769 (ON S.C.)	t	211.0	Divorce action, 5 ½ years to get to trial, 211 K costs
Wood	M	Ce	M	M	S.M.G. v. M.J.J.G., 2006 CanLII 16 (ON S.C.)	v	7.5	Custody variance, husband asks 50 K gets 7.5 K
Wildman	F	Ce	M	F	L.K. v. T.G., 2007 CanLII 10411 (ON S.C.)	v	10.0	Husband wins motion for unsupervised access, claims 20 K and gets 10 K, his contempt motion denied
Cavarzan	M	Cs	M	M	Belanger v. Belanger, 2005 CanLII 30867 (ON S.C.)	v	9.5	9.5 K costs of support variation against wife, husband has custody
Festeryga	M	Cs	M	F	Graham v. Kuntz, 2005 CanLII 44387 (ON S.C.)	v	9.0	Support variation, 9 K costs
Flynn	M	Cs	M	M	Miner v. Miner, 2004 CanLII 16229 (ON S.C.)	v	16.0	Husband asks 58 K and gets 16 K in support variation
Flynn	M	Cs	M	F	Rossi v. Rossi, 2005 CanLII 47780 (ON S.C.)	v	35.0	3 day trial of support variation, 35 K cost penalty
Glithero	M	Cs	F	M	Balaban v. Balaban, 2007 CanLII 7990 (ON S.C.)	v	6.4	Husbands motion to terminate support, 6.4 K costs
Hambly	M	Cs	F	M	Tucker v. Tucker, 2002 CanLII 2761 (ON S.C.)	v	5.2	Motion to vary support, 5.2 K costs
Belleghem	M	Cw	M	F	J.P.S.V. v. M.V., 2006 CanLII 10530 (ON S.C.)	v	2.5	Support variation, 2.5 K costs
Blishen	F	E	F	F	O'Connor v. O'Connor, 2007 CanLII 8930 (ON S.C.)	v	5.0	Motion to vary support, husband claims 19.8 K and gets 5 K, wife claims 8.4 K
Mackinnon J	F	E	M	M	Zadegan v. Zadegan, 2005 CanLII 48697 (ON S.C.)	v	4.8	Motion to vary support, husband gets 4.8 K
Hackland	M	E	M	M	Charron v. Fulham, 2004 CanLII 17656 (ON S.C.)	v	4.5	4.5 K costs on child support variation
McCartney	M	Nw	F	sr	Jones v. Cole, 2007 CanLII 21956 (ON S.C.)	v	28.0	Wifes motion to vary support fails, husband asks for 76 K and gets 28 K
Marshman	F	Sw	F	M	Bowcock v. Bowcock, 2005 CanLII 18193 (ON S.C.)	v	5.5	Husband must call motion to terminate support because of wifes actions, asks for 6.8 K gets 5.5 K
Karakatsanis	F	T	F	M	A.J.K. v. S.L.M., 2003 CanLII 2409 (ON S.C.)	v	56.0	Wife gets 56 K cost penalty on custody access variation action, offset against 8 K owed in costs for interim motion by husband
Aston	M	T	M	M	Gartley v. Church, 2002 CanLII 2727 (ON S.C.)	v	3.5	Motion to adjust support overpayment, Husband is partially successful and claims 27 K and gets 3.5 K, wife claims 25 K
Aston	M	T	M	M	Sharpe v. Ebers, 2002 CanLII 2725 (ON S.C.)	v	4.0	Support variation, 4 K costs
Riopelle	M	Ne	M	F	Chertow v. Chertow, 2005 CanLII 35478 (ON S.C.)	v	2.5	2.5 K costs of motion to vary support, recalculation leaves father 38 K arrears

Appendix C Cost Penalty Case Extracts

Janmaat v. Janmaat, 2005 CanLII 25900 (ON S.C.)

[33] Not surprisingly the submissions with respect to costs have consumed many pages – to my way of thinking a shockingly excessive number of pages. Taken together the costs claimed total about $400,000.00 – considerably more than the equalization payment and more than 50% of the net worth of both parties at the date of the separation.

[34] To my way of thinking a justice system that permits plunder of that nature, particularly when children are involved, is in desperate need of overhauling, and, but for the censure I have recently received for interfering too much with counsel at trial, I would never have permitted this trial to proceed as it did.

Lampshire v. Lampshire, 2002 CanLII 2737 (ON S.C.)

[13] The average household does not have the income to fund a heated legal battle and also save for their children’s future education. Monies expended on costly litigation over custody may well equal or exceed the costs of sending a child to college or university.

Dube v. Horzempa, 2007 CanLII 20776 (ON S.C.)

[16] I am concerned that costs in family proceedings are becoming so high that it threatens to jeopardize access to justice for many litigants contrary to a fundamental principle of any democratic society. Access to justice and to the courts of our country cannot be restricted to only those who can afford it.

Kolody Ardan v. Ardan, 2002 CanLII 2689 (ON S.C.)

At this point, neither party ought to be blamed for the circumstances in which the family has been living for some time. If costs are awarded, it will suggest both blame and vindication.

Reid v. Mulder, 2006 CanLII 9981 (ON S.C.)

I refuse to recognize her as a “winner” at trial and designate father a “loser” by an award of costs for the trial in favour of mother. To do so, in my view, would be unjust and indeed unconscionable.

C.R.M. v. F.J.F., 2007 CanLII 53242 (ON S.C.)

Mr. F.J.F. suggests that he spent $50,000 in legal fees during the prior round of litigation and that Ms C.R.M. likely did, as well. He has chosen to represent himself in these subsequent proceedings due to the financial costs.

T.P.S. v. K.E.S, 2007 CanLII 17382 (ON S.C.)

The parties were unrepresented at trial. The children were represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. Mr. T.P.S. claims that he has incurred legal costs in regard to his separation from Ms. K.E.S. in the amount of $85,827. He wishes to recover 75% of those costs. Ms. K.E.S. claims that she has incurred legal costs of $62,756. In addition she has lost $20,000 in wages.

Mr. T.P.S. incurred legal expenses of $76,819, though some of these may have related to issues not strictly covered by this matrimonial litigation. Ms. K.E.S. incurred legal expenses of $47,000. Both figures include the cost of the family unit assessment

At this point, Mr. T.P.S. incurred $9,000 in legal expenses and Ms. K.E.S. incurred $18,700 in legal expenses. This latter amount includes the cost of various court appearances required because Mr. T.P.S. was not making proper financial disclosure.

In regard to the legal costs incurred by Ms. K.E.S., the evidence is that she paid $10,038 to Peter Brennan in Waterloo, $9,373 to Karen Thompson in Oakville, $21,567 to Susan Von Achten in Milton, $2,453 to Ian Vallance in Ottawa, and $16,325 to Sean Jones in Ottawa.

Ms. K.E.S.’s legal expenses were incurred more evenly between 2000 and 2006. It was only in the period leading up to the trial and at trial that Ms. K.E.S. was unrepresented

Holmes v. Holmes, 2005 CanLII 5488 (ON S.C.)

[10] Money that was spent foolishly on this pointless litigation could have been utilized by both of them to better their lives and the lives of their children. How this couple ended up involved in this money draining ‘sinkhole’ of litigation is truly a tragedy for them and the administration of justice

Even the cost submissions probably expended thousands of additional dollars, money that the parties could not afford to spend.

Stefureak v. Chambers, 2005 CanLII 7890 (ON S.C.)

3.1(c): $100,000 in Legal Costs Incurred by the Mother

[9] Although it is obscene that anyone should have to spend $100,000 in respect of a custody application (the equivalent, perhaps, of five years of university, including tuition, books, room and board), that sad fact alone does not prove the motion. (And I expect that the father has paid, or is liable to pay, a similar amount to his counsel.)

Gartley v. Church, 2002 CanLII 2727 (ON S.C.)

[1] Mr. Gartley claimed $17,000 for the overpayment of child support to Ms. Church. He recovered judgment in the amount of $4,500 after a two-day trial and seeks costs of about $27,000. Ms. Church responds with a claim for costs in her favour of more than $25,000. The costs in issue are, therefore, about three times the maximum amount in issue on the merits and more than ten times the amount of the judgment.

O'Reilly v. O'Reilly, 2006 CanLII 44279 (ON S.C.)

[1] On September 18, 2006, I issued a decision in which I ordered that Mr. O’Reilly pay child support on an interim basis in the amount of $205 based on an imputed income of $24,228 and that Ms. O’Reilly pay spousal support to Mr. O’Reilly on an interim basis in the amount of $500

[10] This motion was very costly to both parties: the fees and disbursements charged to Ms. O’Reilly were $32,009.73, while Mr. O’Reilly’s fees and disbursements were $33,416.61

Taylor v. Taylor, 2002 CanLII 44981 (ON C.A.)

[2] Gary L. Petker represented Ms. Taylor in an acrimonious and protracted divorce proceeding from 1996 to 2001. During that time, he billed a total of $145,404.25 in legal fees. Recognizing that the breakdown of her marriage had left Ms. Taylor in a precarious financial situation, Mr. Petker agreed to continue to act as her lawyer, as long as she made some effort to pay his fees and disbursements as the litigation progressed. He informed Ms. Taylor that all legal fees would eventually have to be paid, regardless of the outcome of the litigation. As of August 21, 2001, when Mr. Petker ceased to act for Ms. Taylor, she still owed him $112,619.21

Toms v. Toms, 2008 CanLII 4792 (ON S.C.)

[7] I asked the Respondent to provide details of the 256 hours in this matter, and I was provided with the bills sent and dockets which represented that time. I do not dispute that this time was spent, but I am still astounded that, in effect, six weeks of a year’s work time would be spent on a matter of this nature.

Vernon v. Vernon, 2006 CanLII 23266 (ON S.C.)

It would be too facile for the court to look at the Bill of Costs provided by the Respondent and simply say, “Look, the Respondent’s partial indemnity Bill of Costs amounts to $42,530, so the Applicant’s bill of $34,558 must therefore be reasonable”.

[14] It seems to me that neither of the Bills of Costs submitted in respect of this one-day motion is reasonable, as that concept is defined in Boucher and the cases that follow it

Grossi v. Grossi, 2008 CanLII 14940 (ON S.C.)

[2] The wife seeks costs on a substantial indemnity basis and supports this claim by asserting bad faith on the part of the husband. Her lawyer’s bill of costs totals $233,082.14, of which $128,318.97 is attributed to experts’ fees: $104,884.37 was paid to financial experts at Marmer Penner, and the balance of the experts’ fees was owed to Dr. Sarah Paikin, who treated the wife and gave evidence about her inability to work.

[3] The husband seeks costs or, in the alternative, seeks to have no costs awarded. His lawyer’s bill of costs totals $238,810.52, of which $71,216.71 is attributed to experts’ fees

Kloosterman v. Kloosterman, 2006 CanLII 35629 (ON S.C.)

[29] Under Rule 24 (9) of the Family Law Rules, the court may on its own initiative order that a lawyer not charge a client for certain work that may be specified in an order. In reviewing this matter, I have serious concerns that the complexity of the issues warranted a legal bill being rendered to Mrs. Kloosterman in the sum of $45,000.00. In a case where the parties do not have a lot of money, the family home is valued at no more than $100,000.00 and they have two children to support, the costs have to bear some relationship to the issues and the assets in dispute.

Biant v. Sagoo, 2001 CanLII 28137 (ON S.C.)

12 I do not know the wife’s costs, but I think it safe to estimate the costs of all three parties at a total of at least $270,000 and possibly much more

K.C. v. S.B., 2008 CanLII 5109 (ON S.C.)

[1] On January 24, 2008, I released reasons dismissing the motion brought by S.B. (hereinafter “S.B.” or “applicant”) for leave to appeal from the order of Greer J. dated May 14, 2007

My one concern is that the order was an interim one and the question arises as to the spending of substantial sums to maintain an interim order which will be replaced in due course by a permanent order.

[22] The costs of the respondent are fixed at $53,311.58, all-inclusive.

MacRae v. Simpson, 2003 CanLII 2307 (ON S.C.)

[2] I agree with Mr. Mamo's submission that the motion was fact driven, not particularly difficult, nor complex, especially in light of the case-law. See: Bogue v. Bogue; Bawitko v. Kernels Popcorn; Scherer v. Paletta; and Bailey v. Plaxton.

[3] I also agree with Mr. Mamo's view that Mr. Simpson's counsel's claim for a costs award of $27,162.49, for what was essentially a half-day motion is both "extravagant and excessive in the extreme". I adopt the observations of Marshman J. in her costs endorsement in Hamacher v. Hamacher, unreported, released March 30, 2002, London file 183/96:

"We frequently hear and read of complaints from family law litigants about the cost of litigation. Solicitors should be attuned to the cost consequences to their clients of continuing litigation. It is totally unreasonable to expend vast amounts of time of relatively minor issues…"

"…The times expended on the file were outrageous, given the issues involved and the means of the parties. For example, the solicitor suggests that 19.6 hours of solicitor's time and 4.7 hours of law clerk's time were spent on the preparation of cost submission alone. Her claim in that regard was for $3,586.50. This

represents three months of net income to her client…"

Budnarain v. Budnarain, 2003 CanLII 11959 (ON S.C.)

[4] The defendant seeks costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount of $16,000. This case involves the dismissal of a claim for $20,000.

Perry v. Perry, 2008 CanLII 19238 (ON S.C.)

[2] Also, her solicitor has now submitted a Bill of Costs totalling $34,970.95. In this Bill of Costs, she bills her own services at $250.00 per hour and claims to have spent 123.15 hours on the file. She further bills an assistant at $90.00 per hour for 24.6 hours and a senior assistant for .3 hours at $125.00 per hour. I am reasonably certain that it is mere coincidence that the Bill of Costs totals $34,970.95, when compared with the equalization payment awarded of $36,874.88.

[3] I am sure that the solicitor for the wife is aware of s.46 of The Legal Aid Services Act which indicates that any costs awarded to a legally aided client, even in excess of the costs of the services rendered, belong to Legal Aid Ontario. While it is laudable on the part of the wife’s solicitor to try and assist Legal Aid Ontario with its funding problems, I do not believe that she is entitled to the hourly rate claimed under the Legal Aid Services Act regulations. I have not researched the regulations to ascertain her hourly rate, but I do not believe that the hourly rate claimed is authorized under the Act. Nor do I believe there is provision in the Act to pay for “legal assistants” who are not lawyers or students.

[4] In any event, I do not believe that 123.5 hours were warranted on this file

Cupolo v. Anzovino, 2003 CanLII 2091 (ON S.C.)

[3] So I reserved on the issue of costs and invited Ms. Guarasci’s written submissions. I have now received and reviewed those submissions. And lo and behold! She has now gone from requesting $5,000 in open court to seeking $11,258.37

Fleming v. Lamb, 2004 CanLII 5001 (ON S.C.)

[10] After a two hour motion, the $1,000 becomes $10,959, a figure which I find is out of all proportion to the issue dealt with.

Mercieca v. Merciera, 2003 CanLII 2184 (ON S.C.)

[10] In passing, I am still rather puzzled by the position taken by counsel for the applicant regarding Rothgeisser, supra. She knew of a direct authority from our Court of Appeal which said that her client could not proceed under the Divorce Act. She deliberately withheld that from both the court and the respondent. After I discovered the case, she said that she could distinguish it and that it had been distinguished before. She later failed to distinguish it and she failed to produce any authority doing so. I can see no other conclusion but that her conduct is a contravention of various aspects of Rule 4 of the Code of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Whether that conduct gets reported, I will leave up to others

Bridgewater v. James, 2006 CanLII 38231 (ON S.C.)

[2] The defendant submitted a bill of costs on a partial indemnity basis totalling $63,540.71, comprised of a claim for fees totalling $50,531, before GST, disbursements of $6,972.54, inclusive of GST, and an amount of $2,500 on account of the cost submissions. However, total legal fees actually billed to the defendant totalled only $47,611.73. Accordingly, the defendant seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis that exceed the amount that represents total indemnification. This result is achieved by increasing the rates used in the calculation of the bill of costs to the maximum permissible rates under the grid.

Debora v. Debora, 2005 CanLII 7671 (ON S.C.)

[2] The wife seeks costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $2,680,626 (which credits the husband with costs orders paid during the course of the action, including $150,000 ordered during the trial.)

Conclusion on costs

[48] I have also considered the factors in both Subrule 24 (11) of the Family Law Rules and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg.194. Taking into consideration the factors which should reduce the costs as claimed, a fair and reasonable fee in all of the circumstances on a full recovery or substantial indemnity basis, inclusive of disbursements and a premium of $150,000, is $2.25 million plus GST.

Baker v. Wynter, 2006 CanLII 29657 (ON S.C.)

[4] Given that the amount in issue in this proceeding was $20,000.00, the costs sought, even adjusted to a partial indemnity scale, are beyond what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the proceeding.

Gill v. Knack, 2007 CanLII 1332 (ON S.C.)

[1] Both the applicant and the respondent claim entitlement to costs in this matter. The only issue actually argued before the court, other than costs, was the issue of where the child would spend Christmas Eve. This was determined by the court by having the child spend alternating Christmas Eves with each parent, beginning in 2006 with Mr. Knack.

Notwithstanding the confusion over the overpayment of child support and the attitude taken by the parties, the court can only point out that the $10,000.00 approximately in costs sought by both parties in total could have been used much more properly to the benefit of their child.

Hart v. Hart, 2003 CanLII 2130 (ON S.C.)

[19] I have been asked, by each party, to make a costs award against the other, in the magnitude of thousands and thousands of dollars (wife seeking $43,080.00 – husband seeking award based on expenditure of 214.4 hours, and $1,183.24 in disbursements). The trial hearing, and my reasons, demonstrate convincingly that both litigants are of extremely modest means and have no ability to pay, or to gather together, anything approaching the amount requested to satisfy a costs award.

[20] Any such award, in the amount requested, would be a paper award only – or would lead the parties to a second bankruptcy. More importantly, a costs award of such a magnitude would seriously affect both parent’s ability to provide an appropriate upbringing for Benjamin, having regard to his present needs, and to his future educational costs.

L.J.J.C. v. V.S.C., 2006 CanLII 21777 (ON S.C.)

[2] On February 14 the parties appeared before me and made submissions as to costs. Mr. L.J.J.C. has provided me with a cost outline claiming the total amount of $50,501.54.

[3] At various stages throughout this long and bitter proceeding, both parties, or at times one of them, was represented by counsel. At the time of trial Mr. L.J.J.C. appeared unrepresented as did Mrs. V.S.C..

[4] Notwithstanding the overall result, Mrs. V.S.C. has also filed a cost outline seeking costs of $91,331.13.

S.(C.) v. S.(M.), 2007 CanLII 20279 (ON S.C.)

Ban on all access to child order is most extreme remedy available in private family law — Accordingly, extreme efforts to get or to oppose such banning order are reasonable, so long as they are made in good faith

Under guise of forging closer ties with children, his campaign against mother, both through and with children, to alienate them from her constituted form of emotional harm to children and to her and caused her emotional distress, because his intent was to cause harm to existing bond between children and mother — Many and repeated instances of his bad faith resulted in vastly prolonged and more expensive court case and vastly increased emotional damage — Mother was therefore entitled to full recovery of her costs throughout

[40] Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, my order is that the mother have her costs on a full recovery basis as asked, including the specification of support related costs to be enforced by FRO, in the total amount (including disbursements and GST) of $320,198.85, payable immediately.

Davis v. Davis, 2004 CanLII 32470 (ON S.C.)

There is no doubt that the respondent contributed greatly to the increased costs in this matter. His conduct is referred to in my judgment. Nevertheless, the amount of $61,718.30 appears somewhat excessive even on substantial indemnity scale

F.(J.) v. C.(V.) (No. 7), 2002 CanLII 46717 (ON S.C.)

Matters came to a boil in Christmas 1999 when the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton advised the respondent not to allow unsupervised access to the applicant.

31 The applicant shall pay to the respondent child support in the sum of “Guideline” per month commencing April 20, 2000 based upon his annual income of $20,500 per year

[53] Having regard to all of the above and given the limited assets and income of the applicant as set out in his financial statement, net costs against the applicant in favour of the respondent should be awarded in the sum of $90,000 plus G.S.T.

N.(D.) v. E.(T.), 2000 CanLII 21156 (ON S.C.)

[7] As for financial impact, it is clear that neither parent can readily afford the costs of this trial, even taking Mr. Neill’s income into account.

Platonova v. Platonov, 2005 CanLII 2951 (ON S.C.)

[9] It is equally clear that the Respondent is intransigent.

[14] Accordingly, there shall be an Order that the Respondent pay to the Petitioner, within 30 days, the sum of $2,050.80 for costs

Sait v. Thorne, 2006 CanLII 44280 (ON S.C.)

[2] Mr. Thorne has filed for bankruptcy and is seeking an early discharge.

[6] Ms. Sait has been awarded more than $200,000 in costs. The bulk of these costs arise from the arbitral award of Malcolm Kronby, which award was incorporated into an order by Justice Kitely. Subsequent cost awards stem from the arbitral award. Ms. Sait submits that since at least one-half of the time spent at arbitration dealt with support, one-half of the costs, or $118,405.54, is attributable to support and therefore survives the bankruptcy.

Pasichnyk v. Pasichnyk, 2005 CanLII 46745 (ON S.C.)

[3] The matter was set for October 14, 2005. At that time, the Court was advised that the Respondent had filed an Assignment in Bankruptcy.

[41] The purpose of offers to settle are to encourage settlement. The applicant was successful on the spousal support issue and should be entitled to substantial indemnity costs with respect that component of these proceedings. I award $30,000 costs and the applicable Goods and Services tax with respect to that part of the claim

Martin (Shore) v. Shore, 2004 CanLII 5060 (ON S.C.)

5. By order of Rogers J. dated December 30, 2002, those costs surviving the bankruptcy which arose from child support, without interest, were calculated in the amount of $63,590.30. None of these costs have been paid

8. When each of the three court orders were obtained by RF, AW was self-represented. She stated that she no longer was able to pay legal fees having previously spent in excess of $200,000. on legal fees as of the date of her husband’s bankruptcy.

Sloan v. Sloan, 2003 CanLII 2245 (ON S.C.)

It is also the case that from this draw amount, he pays approximately $9,000 per month total for spousal support, child support, and arrears.

[13] Another reality is that Mr. Sloan made a voluntary assignment into bankruptcy in May 2001. He was not discharged until March 2002. Thus, at this juncture the record shows that Mrs. Sloan has more – perhaps even significantly more - assets than does Mr. Sloan.

Conclusion:

[17] In the end, I order that Mr. Sloan is to pay Mrs. Sloan's costs of the motion fixed in the all-inclusive amount of $10,000.

Sloan v. Sloan, 2006 CanLII 38366 (ON S.C.)

[2] I did not base my decision on bad faith, though that was a conclusion closer than the father’s submissions indicate. I reiterate that Mr. Sloan is under-employed in my view and should be attempting to find employment that would allow him to more fully meet his paternal financial obligations to his children.

The respondent is ordered to pay $12,492.10 to the applicant in costs. His failure to agree to the offer in December 2004 and his reaction to simply litigate these issues is most unfortunate and it has this consequence.

Bursey v. Base, 2007 CanLII 20772 (ON S.C.)

[1] Both parties have now provided me with their written costs submissions. Each party claims success in the litigation. Ms. Bursey suggests she is entitled to costs of $79,247.55, while Mr. Base takes the position it is he who should receive costs of either $51,379.45 or $44,541.13.

[2] Ms. Bursey’s actual legal fees for the action come to just under $129,000, while Mr. Base’s legal fees from September 5, 2005 onward total $58,217.76. I do not know what he paid his other counsel for the period before September 5, 2005. Considering only the period from September 5, 2005 forward, Ms. Bursey’s legal fees came to $100,000.

Martin v. Martin, 2007 CanLII 8638 (ON S.C.)

[5] Mr. Martin was unrepresented at the trial. That was his choice. The transcript of the trial will show that he was given much flexibility throughout the trial because of his lack of legal representation and lack of legal knowledge. Nonetheless, there was no question that this matter took as long as it did because of Mr. Martin’s lack of preparedness for the trial.

Concessions were made by Mr. Martin in mid-trial which by their tardiness did little to reduce the cost of Ms. Martin’s preparation for trial.

[7] Mr. Martin’s overall financial circumstances are dire. However, that is not determinative of the costs issue. A self-represented litigant cannot be treated any differently, with respect to costs, than one that is legally represented. That would be unfair to the party who seeks legal representation. It would also encourage self-represented litigants to litigate with impunity regardless of the merits or the lack of merits of their case. Mr. Martin could no more afford this litigation than could Ms. Martin who continues to have the major financial responsibility for the children of the marriage.

[9] For all of the above reasons, I order Mr. Martin to pay Ms. Martin’s costs of this litigation which I fix at $40,000.00.

[10] Counsel for Ms. Martin, by letter dated March 9, 2007, has asked for some clarification of my order regarding Mr. Martin’s ongoing child support obligations. I ordered that based on his declared income of $36,000.00 Mr. Martin pay $518.00 per month child support for two children, …

Lowry v. Kushnir, 2007 CanLII 18146 (ON S.C.)

[10] Prior to the hearing of the appeal, Snowie J. released her endorsement with respect to costs on April 28, 2005, wherein Ms. Kushnir was awarded costs and disbursements of $997,695.33.

[12] On May 25^th, 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Lowry’s Appeal in its entirety and awarded Ms. Kushnir costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis fixed in the sum of $20,000.00. Mr. Lowry has not paid those costs to Ms. Kushnir to date.

[15] The respondent sought costs of the motion before Milanetti J. in the range of $75,000.00. Her Honour ultimately ordered that approximately $25,000.00 of costs be paid by the applicant to the respondent

Hockey-Sweeney v. Sweeney, 2002 CanLII 2721 (ON S.C.)

[39] Any litigant who attempts to use the court for a purpose other than the resolution of honest differences between the parties on the facts or the law or both must suffer the consequences in costs. The Court cannot permit itself to be used by a litigant for that litigant’s own agenda.

[40] Louise shall pay costs to Lawrence set in the amount of $200,000

A.F. v. I.V., 2006 CanLII 32619 (ON S.C.)

[1] Mr. A.F. was the successful party at trial and as such there is a presumption that he should therefore be awarded costs in this matter.

[2] I concur with counsel for the applicant that the respondent acted in bad faith throughout the course of this entire matter. She made false allegations repeatedly, concerning Mr. A.F. to his employer, Family and Children’s Services and the police. Her behaviours have caused the applicant serious hardship – financially, emotionally and psychologically. Her false allegations, outright lies, distortions, half-truths and complete falsifications left her with no credibility before this court and caused the applicant to be humiliated and financially devastated. As such, the applicant shall be awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules

[4] As such, Mr. A.F. shall have his requested costs from the respondent on a full recovery basis to be paid forthwith, in the amount of $252,973.44 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

Feng v. Philips, 2006 CanLII 13769 (ON S.C.)

[3] For the written Reasons released May 16, 2005, the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and the Defendant was awarded $47,417 plus prejudgment interest as his share of the condominium rents.

[4] The case took more than 5 years to reach trial.

[58] I acknowledge that this is a great deal of money. However, given the factors considered. I conclude it is fair. It is also fair to the Plaintiff, who brought much of it on herself by her conduct and failure to co-operate

[59] For all these reasons, the Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs to the Defendant in the sum of $211,455.56 inclusive of G.S.T

Harrington v. Harrington, 2007 CanLII 27754 (ON S.C.)

[7] The applicant, in her submissions, rejects the submissions of the respondent and submits her own claim for costs of the trial in the amount of $36,490.50.

[8] The respondent claims costs, which I understand to be a total of $129,930.45 on a full recovery basis.

[18] The respondent shall recover costs in the amount of $82,822.00 inclusive of disbursements and inclusive of G.S.T. There will be prejudgment interest on the judgment of $67,920.38 in the amount of $6,587.95 for a total of $74,508.33

Waywell v. Waywell, 2004 CanLII 7577 (ON S.C.)

[1] This special appointment motion for a temporary order for spousal support was argued July 30, 2004. The actual argument took no more than 1.5 hours. Most of that time was taken by the applicant’s counsel while she took the court through extensive and fairly intricate financial and SupportMate calculations.

[3] I have received and considered both written submissions. The applicant’s submission astonishes me.

[4] The submission by applicant’s counsel that her client’s “costs”, on a partial indemnity basis (for this motion), exceed $30,000, inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements, and that she seeks “an award of costs of $20,000”, exceeds my highest expectations for such a motion. This request must surely set a new record in this County for a costs award for a motion for temporary relief

Guy v. Tulloch (August 8, 2002), Ottawa 02-FL-1272 (Ont. S.C.J

[8] I am satisfied that the previous lawyer’s treatment of and communication with Ms. Guy ran up costs without reasonable cause by inevitably leading to the emergency motion for custody and access and that some costs should be awarded against him personally.

Al-Mutter v. Al-Ekabi, 2003 CanLII 1945 (ON S.C.)

[13] Simply put, Ms. Al-Mutter and her counsel were parties to a shameful and deliberate attempt to mislead me in the hopes of obtaining a lump sum amount of $400,000 when it was clear that, in fact, the wife owed the husband an equalization payment of approximately $40,000.

[19] While the facts in this case are different, there can be no question that Mr. Orme is at least partially responsible for the trial taking 15 days. He is also responsible for filing materials on behalf of the wife which he knew or ought to have known were spurious. Long after he should have realized that the wife’s position was untenable, he continued to advance it. He was warned during the trial by Mr. Burns that Mr. Burns intended to seek costs against him personally. There is no reason why he should not bear responsibility for at least a portion of the costs for which his client is responsible.

Knight v. Letros, 2002 CanLII 20018 (ON S.C.)

[6] I find that the cost claims submitted by both parties are unreasonable in all of the circumstances. Both counsel must share some responsibility for the excessive time and energy spent.

Weening v. Weening, 2004 CanLII 45888 (ON S.C.)

[11] I find that the counsel must surely pay the cost of exploring the impact of her foolish conduct on this litigation. It is not for her to protest that the Applicant overreacted. It cannot be contemplated that either of the parties should pay for the consequences of her deceit.

Debruyn v. Debruyn, 2005 CanLII 11206 (ON S.C.)

[14] I agree with Mr. Hafemann when he submits that these actions on Ms. Gratl’s part are no mere errors in judgment. They were a gross abuse of the Court’s process and time. In her conduct of this case, Ms. Gratl did not serve her client well.

[15] Accordingly, I make an order forbidding Ms. Gratl from charging or billing her client for any of the trial time. If she has done so, she must forthwith send a credit to her client for any amount representing her time at trial. If Ms. Debruyn has paid Ms. Gratl any amount in respect of the trial, Ms. Gratl must forthwith repay her client those amounts.

[16] Further, of the $14,500 in costs awarded to the Respondent, Brigitte Gratl shall be personally liable to pay the amount of $5,000. She shall do that within 30 days and she shall not ask her client for any assistance or contribution towards that amount. The Petitioner shall be responsible only for the sum of $9,500 in costs, which she must also pay within 30 days.

Lake v. Hinke, 2007 CanLII 8632 (ON S.C.)

[5] For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the Director of the Family Responsibility Office is entitled to its costs, which I fix in the amount of $30,000.00 payable by Mr. Hinke and Ms. Shulkov jointly and severely.

Kitching v. Kitching, 2007 CanLII 18145 (ON S.C.)

[6] In July of 2002, Mr. Kitching appealed from the order of Justice Langdon, and on September 13, 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and awarded costs to the FRO in the amount of $5,000

A week later, in order to continue the enforcement of those costs and administrative fees, Justice Wolder fixed a date for a default hearing to February 21, 2006 and he ordered that Mr. Kitching pay $11,200 of costs and administrative fees to the Family Responsibility Office

[21] The Director of the Family Responsibility Office shall have its costs for these appeal proceedings, which the Court fixes in the amount of $5,000

Fantin v. Gillingham

I have not made the costs payable “forthwith” but I intend that no application for a variation in access, as contemplated by my judgment, be heard by the court unless the costs are paid up to date

Wentzell v. Schumacher, 2004 CanLII 4032 (ON S.C.)

[7] With respect to the costs of the aborted trial, it appears from correspondence from the father's counsel at the time of the conversion of the trial into a case conference that there was an agreement that the matter proceed in that way on a without costs basis

[10] Taking these factors into account, but without doing a line by line assessment of costs, it is my view that the father should pay costs to the mother in the amount of $19,500, inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.

Ramcharitar v. Ramcharitar, 2003 CanLII 1997 (ON S.C.)

[2] At that hearing, a preliminary issue arose concerning the fact that the Plaintiff, who was asking for costs, had been funded in part by Legal Aid. In reasons on this point released October 18th, 2002, I ruled that the bill of costs submitted should not be restricted to the amounts billed to Legal Aid, but should reflect the cost grid otherwise applicable.

L.K. v. T.G., 2007 CanLII 10411 (ON S.C.)

[31] Although I hate to see EK go without the benefit of the child support, I see no other option than to order Ms. T.G. to retire the cost award by minimal monthly payments.

Hobbs v. Hobbs, 2007 CanLII 26282 (ON S.C.)

[1] Success on the motions heard February 13 and April 16, 2007 has been divided.

[5] Neither party achieved a result that was superior to an Offer to Settle they delivered, although I have also considered the reasonableness of their positions.

[8] I, therefore, award Ms Hobbs costs in the amount of $7,500 in fees, plus disbursements as claimed rounded to $450 plus applicable G.S.T

D. H. v. A. G. P., 2005 CanLII 4942 (ON S.C.)

[5] This decision to award no costs is made bearing in mind the children’s best interests. Mr. Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal in M. (A.C.) v. M. (D) (2003), 67 O.R. (3d) 181 at pp.190-193 (Div. Ct.), reviewed the Family Law Rules and concluded that the trial judge’s discretion in awarding or not awarding costs is not completely removed. Rosenberg J. made it clear that in awarding costs, the courts cannot ignore the best interests of the child and cannot ignore the impact of a costs award against a custodial parent that would seriously affect the interests of the child. I have reproduced that part of the head note that deals with costs as a summary only of Rosenberg J’s decision which part reads as follows:

While the Family Law Rules have circumscribed the broad costs discretion granted by s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, they have not completely removed the trial judge’s discretion. Rule 24(1) enacts a “presumption” that the successful party is entitled to costs of the case but does not require that the successful party is always entitled to costs. The financial situation of the parties can be taken into account in setting the amount of the costs award either under Rule 24 or Rule 18. In fixing costs, the courts cannot ignore the best interests of the child and thus cannot ignore the impact of a costs award against a custodial parent that would seriously affect the interests of the child.

[6] In this case, Ms. D.H. has sole custody of the children. She will not be able to work for some time, as she has to care for two sets of twins born one year apart. To impose costs on her would not make sense.

Ladisa v. Ladisa, 2004 CanLII 15138 (ON S.C.)

Ms. Ladisa, at this point in time, is the substantial earner and will be primarily responsible for the financial support of this family unit. To burden her with a substantial portion of Mr. Ladisa’s costs would clearly impact on her ability to meet her ongoing support obligations and to provide for the children as a joint custodial parent.

Damer-Basso v. Basso, 2003 CanLII 2055 (ON S.C.)

[5] Kathleen and Matthew have accumulated roughly $250,000.00 in debts, including two lines of credit and credit card debts.

It seems clear that both remain quite capable of exhausting further resources inappropriately. I exhort them to consider whether they would prefer to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees rather than on amenities for their children, or indeed, for themselves

Hagedorn v. Habel, 2007 CanLII 21600 (ON S.C.)

The appellant does not dispute the award of costs, nor the quantum; he claims that the amount is simply unreasonable as he does not have the ability to pay.

[8] The appeal with respect to the issue of costs is dismissed as I find no merit in the appellant’s submissions

Mgrdichian v. Mgrdichian, 2006 CanLII 13773 (ON S.C.)

[50] It is further ordered and declared that the arrears of support owing by the husband as at the date of bankruptcy (January 13, 2005) are fixed at $46,187.00. Since the date of his bankruptcy, further arrears of $45,000.00 have accrued, for a total outstanding of $91,187.00 plus interest of $3,351.45 to date, for a total of $94,538.95.

[51] It is also ordered and declared that the unpaid cost order to date total $84,660.11 owing by the husband, and $15,936.23 owing by Berg, both inclusive of interest, and the total unpaid penalties for contempt ordered to date against the husband is $26,060.27 inclusive of interest.

[52] It is ordered that Berg repay to Haig II the sum of $80,000.00, being the amounts drawn by him immediately prior to the appointment of the Receiver.

[53] It is ordered that the husband and Berg are jointly and severally liable to the wife for damages for fraud and conspiracy to defraud, fixed at $40,000.00, together with punitive damages fixed at $25,000.00

[55] I order and declare that Berg and Haig II be and are jointly and severally liable for fees, costs and disbursements of the wife, on a complete indemnity basis, fixed to date at $370,830.00, together with any further costs on a full indemnity basis associated with realizing upon the wife’s interest in 637263 Ontario Limited carrying on business as Esquire Grill and Haig II and concluding Receivership.

[56] I order and declare that as against the husband, the following shall survive his discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act: all support monies owing, the damages for fraud and conspiracy, the costs of this action, the amount owing for penalty for contempt, the costs of the Receiver, and interest on all such amounts. Should Berg become bankrupt, such items (save for support and penalty) shall also survive his discharge.

Wildman v. Wildman, 2006 CanLII 33540 (ON C.A.)

[11] The trial judge ordered that the appellant pay the respondent an equalization payment of $98,190.12 less $59,133.39 already paid. The mutual non depletion and preservation order made by Belleghem J. on May 5, 2004 was continued with respect to the appellant.

[12] The trial judge awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $239,260.32 and prejudgment interest relating to the equalization payment fixed at $6,578.28.

[65] The respondent is entitled to her costs of the appeal which I would fix at $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

Islam v. Rahman, 2006 CanLII 22137 (ON S.C.)

[1] The relief of custody and child support are inextricably linked in this litigation process. This was a trial that primarily dealt with custody and as such, child support follows. The mother was awarded a sole custody order and child support was awarded to the mother to be paid by the father.

[2] I find the mother’s solicitor’s estimate of 20% of the costs ordered (being $183, 819.56 less $2,000.00 ordered as per the order of Van Melle J. dated August 6, 2004, and adjusted for interest at 4% in accordance with the calculations submitted and attached to the written argument of the mother) as fair, reasonable and modest.

[3] As such $36,547.22 of the total costs of $183,819.56 shall be costs that shall be enforceable as an incident of support by the Family Responsibility Office

Patterson v. Patterson, 2007 CanLII 26288 (ON S.C.)

[4] The wife is seeking $342,720.83, being full indemnity of her fees since her last offer to settle (which was dated January 16, 2006) and substantial indemnity of her fees prior to the date of her last offer to settle.

In the six years between separation and trial, there was only one interim motion. The husband was awarded costs of $2,500.00. Although the wife has not included any time spent on that motion in the bill of costs, the husband has indicated that he had over $20,000.00 in legal fees for that motion. The wife had to pay fees of $13,608.00.

[27] The respondent shall pay the applicant, costs in the amount of $144,650.00 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T. payable by September 30^th, 2007, for all matters in this file, including the trial.

Sheikh v. Sheikh, 2005 CanLII 34589 (ON S.C.)

[17] Given that the parties have incurred similar expense, in my view, the proper analysis focuses on the actual cost and determining what is appropriate in this award. Fahreen’s actual cost, after deleting the motions as mentioned, is approximately $190,000. Full recovery, at all stages, is not appropriate. Mobility was a significant issue and had to be litigated. Nevertheless, Fahreen is entitled to a cost award on that issue. The financial issues, given my findings at trial, warrant a considerable award.

[18] Taking all of the circumstances into consideration, the appropriate cost award, in favour of Fahreen, is $150,000, inclusive, and it is so ordered.

Trick v. Trick, 2006 CanLII 22926 (ON C.A.)

[7] After an eight-day trial of the variation application in 2003, the trial judge, Seppi J., awarded the respondent retroactive spousal and child support totaling $225,675 and $117,936.41 in costs. She also ordered ongoing monthly spousal support as well as child support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175.

[10] By March 2005, the appellant owed the respondent $422,192.17, including arrears of support, interest and costs.

Tzeng v. Tzeng, 2007 CanLII 17042 (ON S.C.)

I assess the costs to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as follows:

Partial Indemnity Costs: September 2001 – November 17, 2006

F. Shuh $ 2,500

E. Claxton $ 7,400

T. Simone $15,800

$ 25,700

Substantial Indemnity Costs after November 17, 2006

T. Simone – preparation for trial $11,000

T. Simone – attendance at trial

(February 12 and 15) 2 x $500 $ 1,000

(February 19 – March 9) 15 x $2,000 $30,000

T. Riddell $ 8,900

$ 50,900

Total: $ 76,600

GST on fees at 6%; $ 4,596

Order of Justice Milanetti $ 1,500

Total for Fees: $ 82,696

Disbursements: $ 29,708

Total $112,404

Parnell v. Viger, 2004 CanLII 27183 (ON S.C.)

[13] An individual who brings an ex parte application must ensure that the facts are as accurate as possible and not mislead the court. I find that the applicant misled the court and will award costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the motion to rectify the wrong done on December 7, 2001.

[14] I am aware that the costs asked for are more than the Judgment. That is one of the risks of litigation

[20] Therefore, there will be costs awarded to the respondent of $85,270.00 for fees, $11,407.50 for disbursements and $6,737.29 G.S.T. for a total of $103,414.34.

Paech v. Paech, 2004 CanLII 47780 (ON S.C.)

[1] These Reasons are Supplemental to my Written Reasons delivered on July 15, 2004, in the Interim Motion heard by me.

[36] I find that the Wife is entitled to her Costs at the rates, which I have fixed as noted above. Order to go that the Husband forthwith pay to the Wife the sum of $93,357.25 for her Costs.

Naidoo v. Naidoo, 2004 CanLII 886 (ON S.C.)

[9] The respondent shall pay the costs of the applicant fixed at $89,625.53 ($91,625.53 less $2,000.00).

Beaumont v. Beaumont, 2006 CanLII 20528 (ON S.C.)

[2] The respondent husband, Stephen Ross Melvin Beaumont, resists the applicant’s motion by his affidavit in response on the grounds that little of the time at trial was expended on the issue of support and further that an award of costs would “aggravate the situation” of the respondent’s undischarged bankruptcy.

[22] In summary therefore, I find that the legal costs incurred by the applicant at trial and in the years prior thereto in preparation for it, fixed for recovery from the respondent in the amount of $84,928.47 by me in November 2003, shall now be apportioned as to one-half, being $42,464.23, as to costs attributable to spousal support.

[23] The applicant has been successful on this motion heard before me. Costs to her are fixed for this motion at $3,000.00 payable by the respondent, forthwith, and relevant to the issue of spousal support

Fox v. Fox, 2006 CanLII 21065 (ON S.C.)

[1] The wife seeks costs of between $150,000 and $200,000, all-inclusive, for these proceedings.

Dababneh v. Dababneh, 2004 CanLII 5858 (ON S.C.)

He argues that Ms. Dababneh should effectively absorb his expenses by reducing her costs from $85,000 to only $28,000 because his legal expenses were $56,000. This argument, if successful, would reward, rather than consequence, bad behaviour.

Even though Mr. Dababneh’s circumstances could not ever be characterized as impecunious, there is a line of case law that establishes that even impecunious litigants face the prospect of an order of costs being made against them for reprehensible behaviour. See:

Panny v. Gifford and Gifford (1997), 31 R.F.L. (4^th) 440, [1997] O.J. No. 2241, 1997 CarswellOnt 2028 (Ont. Prov.Div.), per Provincial Judge Louise L. Gauthier;

Smith v. Smith (2000), 12 R.F.L. (5^th) 216, [2001] O.J. No. 5051, 2000 CarswellOnt 5005 (Ont. Fam.Ct.), per Justice V. Jennifer Mackinnon;

Kearney v. Kearney (2001), 107 A.C.W.S. (3d) 198, [2001] O.J. No. 3290, 2001 CarswellOnt 2791 (Ont. C.J.), per Justice Marvin A. Zuker;

Church v. Church (No. 2) (2003), 124 A.C.W.S. (3d) 105, [2003] O.J. No. 2811, 2003 CarswellOnt 2621 (Ont. Fam.Ct.), per Justice Craig Perkins; and

Merkley v. VandenElsen and Finck and VandenElsen v. Merkley, Stratford Docket No. R03-208 and R01-135, December 8, 2003, per G. A. Campbell J

Van Bork v. Van Bork, 1997 CanLII 1015 (ON C.A.)

[11] Before leaving this appeal, we wish to comment on a matter which was not a direct subject of the appeal. In the respondent's factum there is a schedule showing the effect of the judgment upon the respondent. It shows a recovery of $447,930.80 from the appellant for costs fixed by the trial judge, on a party-and-party basis to the date of the offer and on a solicitor-and-client basis thereafter. On the liability side, the schedule shows an obligation of the respondent to pay "legal costs per bill of costs" of $752,000. That was, indeed, the amount of costs in the bill of costs before it was reduced by the trial judge.

[12] The trial judge wrote extensive reasons concerning these costs in an apparent attempt to discourage lawyers from excessive billings in matrimonial matters, and with some very strong words concerning this account

Even if the lawyers worked 8-hour days on trial preparation, it would mean that Ms. Dranoff worked in excess of 40 8-hour days and that Ms. Huddart worked 70 8-hour days. I find the amount sought to be excessive and unreasonable.

[14] In respect of costs for preparation for argument, which was reduced from $107,946 to $34,500, the trial judge said at p.27:

... Mr. Turton has pointed out that it appears that 460 more hours were spent in Ms. Dranoff's office which, he says, is in excess of 57 8-hour days. I find this amount of time so high that it results in a serious concern in the mind of the court as to the accuracy of docketing procedures.

[16] Respondent's counsel defends her imposition of a bill for $752,000 on the client by saying that inter-party bills are never full indemnity, that her client wants to pay her despite what the judge said, and that the early part of the bill was on a party-and-party basis and thus would not represent the whole.

[18] We recognize that this was not a ground of appeal but feel that it is deserving of our comment given the regrettable ever escalating costs of litigation and the trial judge's clear intention in this case that the respondent have to pay no more than the amount recovered from the appellant for that portion of the proceedings covered by her solicitor client order

	All Penalties	Interim Motions	Divorce Trials	Variations

Male ( mean / median )	26.7 / 7.4	5.74 / 3.00	59.9 / 21.3	11.3 / 6.2
Female ( mean / median )	17.4 / 5.5	3.49 / 2.00	42.7 / 20.8	11.9 / 6.0

Total ( mean / median )		5.10 / 3.10	56.5 / 21.1	11.3 / 6.2

	All Penalties	Interim Motions	Divorce Trials	Variations

Male ( mean / median )	38.1 / 10.6	8.20 / 4.29	85.6 / 30.4	16.1 / 8.9
Female ( mean / median )	24.9 / 7.8	4.98 / 2.86	61.0 / 29.7	17.0 / 9.1

Total ( mean / median )		7.31 / 4.29	80.7 / 30.1	16.1 / 8.9

	Interim Motions	Divorce Trials	Variations

Losing Party ( mean / median )	12.43 / 7.29	137.2 / 51.9	27.4 / 15.1
Winning Party ( mean / median )	2.19 / 1.27	24.2 / 9.0	4.8 / 2.7

Both Parties ( mean / median )	14.62 / 8.58	161.4 / 60.2	32.2 / 17.8

	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Married couples only
One earner	59,600	60,400	64,000	66,200	64,500
Two earners	89,500	85,600	85,300	89,000	91,400
Two parent families with children⁴
One earner	69,500	71,300	68,900	65,500	66,300
Two earners	90,600	91,000	94,300	92,700	93,300
Lone-parent families
Male lone-parent families	54,300	58,800	54,900	65,500	67,100
Female lone-parent families	34,300	34,500	34,500	40,900	40,900

Peter Karl Roscoe

Introduction

Cost Penalty Data Summary

Conclusions

Average Total Income by Economic Family Type 2000 - 2006

Married couples only

Appendix C Cost Penalty Case Extracts

Guy v. Tulloch (August 8, 2002), Ottawa 02-FL-1272 (Ont. S.C.J

Fantin v. Gillingham