Tweet
So, even though the Judge claims both parties had mixed success, she goes on to award my ex her entire court costs.
Both of us agreed to cap our court fees to $70k, but the Judge goes on to state:
Entitlement to Costs
The Applicant sought an order for the Respondent to have supervised parenting time on Saturdays only, without any overnights. The Respondent sought an order for equally- shared parenting time and no supervision. (dear reader: please note that my offer to settle had every other weekend with overnights). Although neither party achieved exactly what they requested, I consider the result to be closer to the Applicant’s position. That is, although more than the Applicant requested, the Respondent’s parenting time is limited and largely supervised. I made an exception for parenting time exercised out of the house, but this did not include overnights. Further, my conclusions on the parenting schedule were largely driven by my findings regarding family violence, which were in the Applicant’s favour.
The Applicant was also successful with respect to decision-making. While the Respondent sought shared decision-making )Please note in my offer to settle I had sole custody to her without any consultation. So I'm not sure why she's not mentioning that, the Applicant succeeded in obtaining the ability to make decisions affecting the children after consultation with the Respondent.
The financial issues were less important in this case. Still, the Applicant was successful in her claim that income should be imputed to the Respondent. She was unsuccessful on many but not all of the s. 7 expenses she claimed. With respect to the equalization payment, she claimed a payment of $77,327 and was awarded a payment of $19,434.
Taking all my conclusions at trial into account, but particularly my conclusions with respect to the parenting order, I consider the Applicant to have been overall the successful party and entitled to her costs.
"Overall, I consider the parties to have been approximately equally reasonable in their offers to settle. The Applicant’s position on parenting time was overly restrictive compared to the final order but the Respondent’s position on parenting time was overly lenient in that he did not include any supervision. The Applicant was comparatively more successful in her offer on the financial issues, but it is difficult to consider this in isolation given that her offer was non-severable. The result of this is that success was somewhat mixed when considering the parties’ offers to settle."
"Taking all the above factors into account, I find that the Applicant is entitled to her costs in the amount of $60,000, which is reduced from the cap agreed-to by the parties. The reduction reflects her somewhat mixed success compared to the offers to settle. On the other hand, the reduction is not significant because of the importance of the issues and the fact that the capped costs were already reasonable. Therefore, the Respondent shall pay costs of $60,000 to the Applicant."
My question is there a case to appeal this cost decision?
Both of us agreed to cap our court fees to $70k, but the Judge goes on to state:
Entitlement to Costs
The Applicant sought an order for the Respondent to have supervised parenting time on Saturdays only, without any overnights. The Respondent sought an order for equally- shared parenting time and no supervision. (dear reader: please note that my offer to settle had every other weekend with overnights). Although neither party achieved exactly what they requested, I consider the result to be closer to the Applicant’s position. That is, although more than the Applicant requested, the Respondent’s parenting time is limited and largely supervised. I made an exception for parenting time exercised out of the house, but this did not include overnights. Further, my conclusions on the parenting schedule were largely driven by my findings regarding family violence, which were in the Applicant’s favour.
The Applicant was also successful with respect to decision-making. While the Respondent sought shared decision-making )Please note in my offer to settle I had sole custody to her without any consultation. So I'm not sure why she's not mentioning that, the Applicant succeeded in obtaining the ability to make decisions affecting the children after consultation with the Respondent.
The financial issues were less important in this case. Still, the Applicant was successful in her claim that income should be imputed to the Respondent. She was unsuccessful on many but not all of the s. 7 expenses she claimed. With respect to the equalization payment, she claimed a payment of $77,327 and was awarded a payment of $19,434.
Taking all my conclusions at trial into account, but particularly my conclusions with respect to the parenting order, I consider the Applicant to have been overall the successful party and entitled to her costs.
"Overall, I consider the parties to have been approximately equally reasonable in their offers to settle. The Applicant’s position on parenting time was overly restrictive compared to the final order but the Respondent’s position on parenting time was overly lenient in that he did not include any supervision. The Applicant was comparatively more successful in her offer on the financial issues, but it is difficult to consider this in isolation given that her offer was non-severable. The result of this is that success was somewhat mixed when considering the parties’ offers to settle."
"Taking all the above factors into account, I find that the Applicant is entitled to her costs in the amount of $60,000, which is reduced from the cap agreed-to by the parties. The reduction reflects her somewhat mixed success compared to the offers to settle. On the other hand, the reduction is not significant because of the importance of the issues and the fact that the capped costs were already reasonable. Therefore, the Respondent shall pay costs of $60,000 to the Applicant."
My question is there a case to appeal this cost decision?
Comment