Jama v. Mohamed, 2015 ONCJ 686

COURT FILE NO. D71078/14 DATE: 2015-12-02 CITATION: Jama v. Mohamed , 2015 ONC J 686 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: ) ) FADUMO JAMA ) ) ) JULIET MOHAMMED, FOR THE APPLICANT ) APPLICANT ) ) - and - ) ABDI MOHAMED ) ACTING IN PERSON RESPONDENT ) ) PAULINA SBROCCHI, AGENT FOR THE CITY OF TORONTO, ASSIGNEE ) ) ) ) HEARD: IN CHAMBERS JUSTICE S.B. SHERR COSTS ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] On November 2, 2015 the court released its decision after a trial that took place over three days. The applicant (the mother) was awarded sole custody of the parties’ children with a defined access

schedule to the respondent (the father). Income was imputed to the father and he was ordered to pay ongoing child support based on that income. The mother was also awarded retroactive child support of $29,727, payable forthwith.

[2] The court invited written costs submissions. Only the mother made submissions. She seeks costs of $4,520.50. [3] The court will award the sum sought by the mother for the following reasons:

a) She was the completely successful party at trial. The father had sought a joint custody order, access when he chose and no order forchild support.

b) The father’s behaviour was unreasonable. He provided incomplete and late financial disclosure. He failed to disclose assets in hisfinancial statement. He took unreasonable positions. Family law litigants are responsible for and accountable for the positions they takein the litigation: See: Heuss v. Surkos, 2004 CarswellOnt 3317, 2004 ONCJ 141.

c) The mother’s behaviour was reasonable.

d) The costs claimed by the mother are extremely reasonable and proportionate for a trial that took place over three days. See: Boucheret al. v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 2634 (Ont. C.A.).

e) The mother restricted her costs claim to the trial step. She did not make any claim for prior court appearances. See: Islam v.Rahman 2007 ONCA 622.

f) The father can afford to pay the costs as he owns land in Somalia and Ontario.

g) The costs order meets the three objectives of costs set out in in Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 395 , [2009] O.J. 1905 (Ont.C.A.), namely: to partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation, to encourage settlement and to discourage andsanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants bearing in mind that the awards should reflect what the court views is a fair and reasonableamount that should be paid by the unsuccessful party. [4] An order shall go that the father pay the mother her costs fixed in the sum of $4,520.50, inclusive of fees, disbursements andH.S.T., payable forthwith. Released: December 2, 2015 __________________ Justice S.B. Sherr