Langmead v. Langmead, 2018 NSSC 263

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Langmead v. Langmead, 2018 NSSC 263 Date: 2018-10-22 Docket: 1201-067737 Registry: Halifax Between: Amber Langmead Petitioner v. Aran Langmead Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore

Summary: Costs of $1,000.00 inclusive of disbursements awarded where variation application was dismissed. Application decision reported at 2018 NSSC 244 . Key words: Family, Costs Legislation: Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOESN’T FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Langmead v. Langmead , 2018 NSSC 263 ENDORSEMENT October 22, 2018 Amber Langmead v. Aran Langmead 1201-067737 • Damian J. Penny for Aran Langmead • Tanya G.

Nicholson for Amber Bell Request for costs of $3,159.38 (fees of $3,000.00 and disbursements of $159.38) following a focused hearing scheduled for 90 minutes. Decision: Mr. Langmead shall pay Ms. Bell costs of $1,000.00 (inclusive of disbursements) by December 31, 2018.

Reasons: 1. Mr. Langmead applied to vary the parenting terms of the parties’ 2015 Corollary Relief Order. 2. At the pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed to sever the threshold issue of whether there was a material change incircumstances (such that the variation application could proceed) from the merits of the variation application. They agreed the partieswould file affidavits and there would be no cross-examination. They agreed the parties would file briefs and there would be oralargument. 3. The hearing was scheduled for 90 minutes and required less time. 4.

Counsel conducted the application very efficiently. 5. Mr. Langmead failed to prove there was a material change so his application was dismissed. The decision is reported at2018 NSSC 244. 6. Ms. Bell seeks costs on Tariff C – multiplied by 3, noting the complexity of the matter, its importance to the parties, and theamount of effort required to prepare. 7. Ms. Bell claims $3,159.38, inclusive of disbursements, as a contribution to her costs and a “sufficient deterrent to Mr.Langmead in relation to future applications that he may be considering.” 8.

In Halifax, the Family Division hears applications involving the Minister of Community Services, the Minister of Healthand Wellness, and applications between individuals. Approximately one-half of the applications between individuals that are filed inHalifax’s Family Division are variation applications. Applications to vary child support are the most common variation applications,followed by applications to vary parenting arrangements. 9. The threshold requirement for varying a parenting order is well established and has been for more than 20 years: Gordon v.Goertz, (SCC).

This hearing was not complex and should not have required considerable preparation. 10. All cases involving children are important to parents. This hearing was important, given its impact on Mr. Langmead’svariation application. 11. Counsel approached the application in the most efficient manner. Mr. Langmead asks that costs be fixed based solely on thehearing’s duration. To do so would ignore its impact on the application. 12. Mr. Langmead is ordered to pay Ms. Bell costs of $1,000.00 (inclusive of disbursements) by December 31, 2018. Thisamount reflects the importance of the result and the efficiency of counsel.

The costs order is provided with this endorsement. _____________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)