Meaning of Cost in Family Court

[LakeErie]

I’m preparing to self represent and I wonder in Family Law, what does Cost imply when going to court?

I know normally the Judge will rule ‘The whole without cost’, but also I see lots of posts here talking about “award cost”, what are those situations?

I know usually each party takes care of her/his own lawyer fees, and it seems that if one side is really underprivileged without much money, the judge can order the husband to cover the wife’s cost to hire a lawyer.

How about the cost of the trial itself (the legal system that pays the Judges and Court clerks)? I hear that if someone is found to be in repeated contempt of court orders, he might be ordered 1) to pay the other party, and also 2) to cover the cost of the court? Is this true or common? For item 2), I wonder how much could it be?

Thanks.

[Berner_Faith]

Costs are usually only awarded to an unreasonable party... for instance if you and ex are in disagreement about say the buy out of the matrimonial home, and ex makes several good offered to you and you refuse those offers (or vice versa) and go to court, if the judge finds you were being unreasonable to the offers that were presented to you, meaning the judge is ruling the same as one of the offers, you may be on the hook for costs...

I have not heard of a husband (or wife) having to pay for the other spouses lawyer because they don't have much money...

[hadenough]

*this is from my trial's Final Ruling on Costs*
Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, governs the determination of costs in family law proceedings and the sections relevant to the circumstances of this case are as follows:

24. (1) There is a presumption that a successful party is entitled to the costs of a motion, enforcement, case or appeal.

(4) Despite Subrule (1), a successful party who has behaved unreasonably during a case may be deprived of all or part of the party's own costs or ordered to pay all or part of the unsuccessful party's cost.

(5). In deciding whether a party has behaved reasonably or unreasonably, the court shall examine a) the party's behaviour in relation to the issues from the time they arose, including whether the party made an offer to settle;
b) the reasonableness of any offer the party made; and c) any offer the party withdrew or failed to accept.

(6). If success in a step in a case is divided, the court may apportion costs as appropriate.
(7). If a party does not appear at a step in the case, or appears but is not properly prepared to deal w/the issues at the step, the court shall award costs against the party unless the court orders otherwise in the interests of justice.
(8). If a party acted in bad faith, the court shall decide costs on a full recovery basis and shall order the party to pay them immediately.
(10). Promptly after each step in the case, the judge or other person who dealt with that step shall decide in a summary manner who, if anyone, is entitled to costs, and to set the amount of costs.

Rule 24 (11) provides a further list of factors that a court should consider in dealing w/costs.
A person setting the amount of costs shall consider,
A) the importance, complexity or difficulty of the issues;
B) the reasonableness or unreasonableness of each party's behaviour in the case;
C). The lawyer's rates
D). The time properly spent on the case including conversations between the lawyer and party or witnesses, drafting documents and correspondence, attempts to settle, preparation, hearing, argument and preparation and signature of the order;
E). Expenses properly paid or payable; and
F). Any other relevant matter. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 24 (11).

In Serra vs Serra, 2009 ONCA 395, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 40, (2009) O.J. No. 1905, 2009 CarswellOnt 2475 at paragraph 8, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the costs rulesa are designed to foster 3 important principles;
1) To partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation;
2). to encourage settlement; and
3). to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants.

Also see: Boucher et al v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 2004 CanLII 14579.

****** the judge goes on to provide a detailed "analysis" and in my matter, I was awarded Costs. (Just under 20g). Those monies are to go to my Lawyer and ex was given 6 months to the day of Final Ruling on Costs made, to pay it. Fat chance of that, but I guess we shall see ****

[hadenough]

B-Faith Quote: "Costs are usually only awarded to an unreasonable party.."

Costs are awarded to the successful litigant. The unsuccessful party is responsible for paying those costs. It's not an award for the person who was unsuccessful and/or behaved unreasonably. I suspect just an oversight on your part - as clearly you do grasp the meaning of costs, as it pertains to the Family Courts.

[Berner_Faith]

Sorry hadenough...I missed typed that...what I meant to say was... were only awarded to a party if the other was being unreasonable

Thanks for catching that

[hadenough]

Lol, that's what I figured BF.. "Unreasonable" is a polite way to put it. My EX lied his ass off - he totally humiliated himself. Even the Court Clerk looked at me twice w/eyes widened. Too bad there's not more of a hefty (monetary) penalty attached to Lying one's Ass off, 10-15 times, and getting caught - For that "performance" alone I should have been awarded costs on a full recovery basis.

[LakeErie]

Originally Posted by Berner_Faith

..., if the judge finds you were being unreasonable to the offers that were presented to you, meaning the judge is ruling the same as one of the offers, you may be on the hook for costs...

I have not heard of a husband (or wife) having to pay for the other spouses lawyer because they don't have much money...

Thanks for your reply.

So that costs that you referred to is the cost of the unnecessary use of the court systems by any unreasonable party, right? What are the usual amount for such costs, in thousands?

Is this the Cost to deter the abuse by any unreasonable people of our legal system?

[hadenough]

Minimum 10-15g for 1-2 days of Trial. And that is just one lawyer's fees. Hourly rate, multiplied by the # of hours spent in court for trial, travel time to and from the Court each day, prep time etc. It adds up FAST. Our cost submissions for a 2.5 day trial were well above 25g. I don't know what ex's lawyer charged him.

[LakeErie]

Originally Posted by hadenough

..

Costs are awarded to the successful litigant. The unsuccessful party is responsible for paying those costs. .

This is the part that got me confused.

Say each party has his/her own lawyer and pays for the lawyers. If say the husband is found to be unreasonable and loses the case, and the wife wins. The judges rules 'With Costs" What does this mean? The husband will have to pay something for the wife (and how much)? Is this her lawyer fee? Or a fee of using the court system?

[Rioe]

Originally Posted by LakeErie

This is the part that got me confused.

Say each party has his/her own lawyer and pays for the lawyers. If say the husband is found to be unreasonable and loses the case, and the wife wins. The judges rules 'With Costs" What does this mean? The husband will have to pay something for the wife (and how much)? Is this her lawyer fee? Or a fee of using the court system?

It's the legal fees charged by the lawyer. Basically, if one party was unreasonable and lost, they pay for the winner's lawyer. More or less. The amount itself can vary hugely, depending on the individual lawyer's fees, the length of the trial, that sort of thing. Even a self-represented person has costs, such as court filing fees, photocopying, and time spent on legal research and in the courtroom (they might not be allotted the hourly rate of a lawyer, but it's usually higher than at their own job).

There's a vicious circle thing going on here, when you think about it. The unreasonable party can drive up both parties costs because they have so much invested that they are afraid to lose, so they get more aggressive, and it becomes more expensive, etc etc. Both sides become so afraid to lose they lose sight of what's going on and just drag out the process in the hopes of ultimately winning. Only lawyers benefit, and they know it, and many encourage the circle.