Ontario Superior Court of Justice has issued a ruling for the reimbursement of expenses against a party that exhibited unreasonable conduct and acted in bad faith during a child support dispute.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has issued a ruling for the reimbursement of expenses against a party that exhibited unreasonable conduct and acted in bad faith during a child support dispute.
In the case of Beaudoin v. Stevens, reported as 2023 ONSC 5265, Patricia Beaudoin initiated a claim for expenses against her former partner, Paul Stevens, with the aim of a full recovery. Patricia and Paul began cohabitating in 2006 and separated in 2012, with two minor children from their union.
In a prior judgment from July, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that Stevens was deliberately suppressing his income to evade child support obligations. The court attributed an income to Stevens after finding him to be untruthful and lacking credibility. Despite court orders mandating financial disclosure, Stevens failed to provide the requisite information, leading the court to draw an unfavorable inference.
Beaudoin sought to recuperate expenses totaling $66,220.84, contending that she had succeeded in her case and that Paul had acted unreasonably and in bad faith. Beaudoin stressed that Stevens had attempted to evade his financial responsibilities towards their children, depleted his assets in Ontario, and withheld pertinent information from the court.
Stevens acknowledged that he should bear "some of the costs" on a "partial indemnity basis." However, he argued that certain expenses were unjust due to two agreements that the parties had signed in 2012 and 2014, which the court had not invalidated. He maintained that these agreements did not require him to disclose his financial information and that he had not comprehended that he was obliged to provide comprehensive disclosure over the years.
Nevertheless, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ultimately ordered Stevens to remit $50,000 to Beaudoin in expenses, a decision that the Family Responsibility Officer will enforce.
The court clarified that cost orders are at the court's discretion as per the Courts of Justice Act. The court emphasized that modern family law regulations serve three primary objectives: to partially indemnify victorious litigants, to encourage settlements, and to discourage and penalize inappropriate conduct by litigants. The court also noted a fourth fundamental purpose, which is to ensure that cases are handled fairly. Therefore, the factors considered in determining the amount of expenses stress "reasonableness and proportionality."
Furthermore, the court expounded that there is a presumption of expenses in favor of the successful party in a motion, case, or appeal. The court maintained that success forms the initial basis for determining expenses. Nevertheless, a successful party does not always automatically receive expenses because the grant of expenses hinges on the unreasonable behavior, bad faith, and the reasonableness of the expenses requested by the victorious party.
The court underscored that "proportionality and reasonableness are the guiding principles when determining the amount of expenses." The Family Law Rules explicitly entertain the possibility of full recovery expenses in specific situations, particularly when a party has acted unreasonably, in bad faith, or rejected a settlement offer.
The court determined that Stevens had acted in bad faith. His failure to provide complete and honest financial disclosure could not be justified, particularly since he was self-represented at the trial. The court observed that he had legal representation at the outset of the litigation, court orders were issued for disclosure, and it was his responsibility to be aware of and comply with the requirements.
The court pointed out that the trial addressed six issues, with Beaudoin prevailing on all but one. The court maintained that even if Stevens had not acted in bad faith, his unreasonable behavior and the failure to produce financial disclosure had reached a point where substantial indemnity expenses were warranted.
The court found that Stevens was well aware of his obligation to provide financial disclosure and had ample opportunities to do so but intentionally evaded his responsibilities, causing Beaudoin unnecessary financial and emotional burdens.
Consequently, the court deemed it just, reasonable, and proportionate for Stevens to pay Beaudoin $50,000 in expenses.
Case text is here.
Comments