Ostafichuk v. Iaboni, 2013 ONCJ 193

Court File No. D42331/07 DATE: 2013-04-15 Citation: Ostafichuk v. Iaboni , 2013 ONCJ 193 BETWEEN: MICHAEL JAMES JUNIOR OSTAFICHUK Applicant - and – CYNTHIA ANNA IABONI Respondent Roman Botiuk for the Applicant Father Daniel Simard for the Respondent Mother Justice Robert J. Spence Endorsement: [ 1 ] I am in receipt today of the 14B motion form from the solicitor for the father, which requests a reconsideration of my costs decision.

In my view there is no merit to that request. [ 2 ] Father’s solicitor references the original request for costs by the mother in the amount of $21,893, and the subsequent request for costs amended downward to $15,966. In my reasons for judgment, I rejected the first request for costs by the mother and, it is clear from my reasons that I would reject the second, amended request for lower costs, by finding that a more appropriate full recovery costs award would be $9,525, which I then further reduced to $8,000, payable by the father to the mother.

To be clear, there is nothing in the present request for a reconsideration of my judgment which would impact in any way on the substantive decision in those reasons for judgment. [ 3 ] As for the father’s solicitor’s claim that his more “nuanced” costs submissions were less offensive to mother’s counsel, than his original submissions, I make two comments: First, the original submissions formed part of the court record, and I cannot simply wish them away or pretend they do not exist. Mr. Botiuk served that document on Mr. Simard and Mr. Simard was forced to read those inappropriate allegations by Mr.

Botiuk. [ 4 ] Second, I note that in the latter submissions which Mr. Botiuk characterizes as more “nuanced”, Mr. Botiuk still accuses Mr. Simard of: 1. Having to “scramble to find a way to try to pick up some kind of money somewhere” and 2. Mr.

Simard “is bringing this motion for costs simply as a way to try to recover some money for all of his efforts well before the matter has been settled and not by asking for costs every step of the way, which would be bad faith on the respondent solicitor’s part” [ 5 ] Both of these comments are offensive and inappropriate and do not in any way detract from my observations concerning Mr. Botiuk in my original reasons for judgment. [ 6 ] In addition to the foregoing, I also made it clear in my reasons for judgment that I was not penalizing Mr. Botiuk’s client for the inappropriate behaviour of his lawyer.

Simply put, Mr. Botiuk’s misadventure is not something which was a factor in my costs decision. [ 7 ] In conclusion, therefore, I would make no changes to either the substantive conclusion in my reasons for judgment, nor in my observations about Mr. Botiuk’s behaviour. Justice Robert J. Spence April 15, 2013