Donner v. Donner, 2016 NSSC 369

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Donner v. Donner , 2016 NSSC 369 Date: 2016-07-03 Docket: 1201-069223 Registry: Halifax Between: Betty Ann Donner Petitioner v. Donald Donner Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore

Summary: Costs awarded where settlement conference cancelled because a party failed to file submissions. 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 . SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Donner v. Donner , 2016 NSSC 369 COSTS ENDORSEMENT Betty Ann Donner v. Donald Donner 1201-069223 July 3, 2016 Jessica D. Chapman for Betty Ann Donner Nicole MacIsaac for Donald Donner Ms.

Donner seeks costs of $1,623.02 upon the cancellation of a settlement conference resulting from Mr. Donner’s failure to meet his filing deadline. Mr. Donner asks that no costs be awarded. Decision: A settlement conference was scheduled. Mr. Donner failed to file his brief by the date ordered. The conference was cancelled. Donald Donner shall pay Betty Ann Donner costs of $400.00 on or before July 29, 2016.

Reasons: 1 . The parties were scheduled for a settlement conference on June 29, 2016. Filing deadlines were fixed ten weeks before the settlement conference, on April 20, 2016. Mr. Donner’s brief was due on June 22, 2016. Ms. Donner’s reply brief was due on June 24, 2016. 2 . On June 15, 2016, Mr. Donner’s counsel became involved in an “emergency motion in the Court of Appeal” which was heard on June 23, 2016. There was no request for an extension of his filing deadline. Mr. Donner filed his brief on June 27, 2016, denying Ms. Donner the opportunity to file a reply brief. 3 . Ms.

Donner argues that her request for costs is “the same” as the situation in Aurini v. Drake , 2016 NSSC 126 . It is not. In Aurini v. Drake , Ms. Drake cancelled a settlement conference after both parties had filed their settlement conference briefs. Ms. Drake and Mr. Aurini incurred costs preparing for a settlement conference which would not be held. Here, I am advised that Mr. Donner remains willing to participate in a settlement conference. Only Ms. Donner’s choice not to participate in a settlement conference means that the entire costs of her preparation are lost. 4 . Mr.

Donner argues that “an order for costs may negatively impact the willingness of the parties to continue negotiations”. Among other things, costs awards discourage litigants from pursuing unmeritorious claims, prolonging or complicating litigation. Costs encourage settlement and the e fficient conduct of litigation. Ordering costs will make both parties aware that the failure to prepare and use the court and its process appropriately will have negative consequences. This will encourage both to pursue settlement more seriously than they have to date: I note Mr.

Donner’s comment that until the settlement conference briefs were filed “no comprehensive proposals had been exchanged by the parties.” I note counsels’ legal duty under subsection 9(2) of the Divorce Act . 5 . Having regard to the Tariffs generally applicable to Chambers applications and Civil Procedure Rule 77.02(1), I order Mr. Donner pay Ms. Donner costs of $400.00 on or before July 29, 2016. _____________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)