Sayer v. Sayer, 2012 NSSC 193

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Sayer v. Sayer, 2012 NSSC 193 Date: 20120515 Docket: 1201-065741 Registry: Halifax Between: Roger Joseph Sayer Petitioner v. Elizabeth Ann Eileen Sayer Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Moira C. Legere Sers Heard: February 27, 2012 in Halifax, Nova Scotia Subject: Respondent seeking costs. Result: Total costs awarded of $4,000: $1,000 for motion and $3,000 for the divorce hearing. THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET .

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Sayer v. Sayer, 2012 NSSC 193 Date: 20120515 Docket: 1201-065741 Registry: Halifax Between: Roger Joseph Sayer Petitioner v. Elizabeth Ann Eileen Sayer Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Moira C. Legere Sers Heard: February 27, 2012 in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Anthony Brunt for Roger Sayer on April 17, 2012 Submissions :Beth Newton for Elizabeth Sayer on April 17, 2012 Counsel: Anthony Brunt for Roger Sayer Beth Newton for Elizabeth Sayer

By the Court: [ 1 ] The respondent seeks cost resulting from the divorce hearing. [ 2 ] The principle issues before the Court were: - Joint versus shared custody; - The sale of the matrimonial home; and - The quantum of child support. [ 3 ] All other matters were settled by the parties in advance of the hearing. [ 4 ] The parties were fortunate in that they only appeared twice before the Court: first on a Hearing of Motion for sale of the home lasting just over ½ hour and the second and final appearance was the divorce hearing lasting just shy of three (3) hours. [ 5 ] The parties had separated on March 9, 2010 when the petitioner moved out of the home.

The respondent and the two children continued to live in the home. [ 6 ] However, by Notice of Motion filed in December 2011, the respondent sought permission to sell the matrimonial home due to her inability to maintain the home. The father contested this motion. [ 7 ] The petitioner sought to delay the sale pending completion of the hearing. He sought to have a shared parenting arrangement which would, he felt, considerably reduce his obligations to pay child support and allow him to finance the purchase of the home. [ 8 ] Both parties prepared for the motion and both were represented by counsel.

The Court was able to arrange an early trial date to address the mother's concerns about final resolution and the father's wish to provide evidence as to his shared parenting proposal. [ 9 ] The divorce hearing resulted in an order that maintained the status quo in that the parents were granted joint custody of the children and a parenting

schedule was ordered that recognized both parties' significant contribution to their children. [ 10 ] The children were to remain in the mother's primary care and a

schedule was designed to attempt to balance the children's need to be in contact with both parents and their difficult work schedules. [ 11 ] Child support in accordance with the Guidelines did not significantly reduce the father's support award as he had hoped. [ 12 ] Due to the ability of the parties to resolve most of their issues, hearing costs were reduced.

[ 13 ] There is no doubt, however, that the mother was the successful party regarding the parenting strategy and child support. [ 14 ] While both agreed ultimately to sell the home, the father insisted the home be maintained in spite of the mother's precarious finances in order to put himself in a better financial situation should he successfully argue for a shared parenting arrangement. [ 15 ] His work

schedule simply did not make that realistically possible. [ 16 ] This was not a reasonable position to adopt in these circumstances. [ 17 ] I have reviewed the submissions of counsel relating to costs and am aware of the recent and historic case law on this subject. [ 18 ] This was not a complicated case. Neither party acted in an oppressive manner. [ 19 ] Using the equity from the sale of the house as a starting point for an award of costs in this instance would not be a reasonable figure.

Neither argued for an unequal division. [ 20 ] The respondent's success related to the child support award and the issue of parenting. [ 21 ] I award costs for the Motion at $1,000 and $3,000 for the Divorce Hearing for a total of $4,000. [ 22 ] Counsel of the respondent shall draft the order. Legere Sers, Moira C.