Partridge v. Bain, 2022 NSSC 155

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Partridge v. Bain , 2022 NSSC 155 Date: 20220602 Docket: SFH1201-069513/SFHD-100737 Registry: Halifax Between: Steven Andrew Partridge Applicant v. Deanne Madeline Bain Respondent Library Heading Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore Submissions: G. Michael Owen for Steven Partridge on April 7, 2022 Deanne Bain on My 17, 2022 Decision: June 2, 2022

Summary: Claim for costs of $89,750 following unsuccessful application for unequal division of assets that would exclude pre-marriage pension and RRSP contributions. Substantial contribution, based on the tariff, of $34,750 awarded. Key words: Costs Legislation: Civil Procedure Rule 77.03(3), 77.04 THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Partridge v. Bain , 2022 NSSC 155 ENDORSEMENT June 2, 2022 Steven Andrew Partridge v.

Deanne Madeline Bain 1201-69513; SFH-D 100737 Submissions: G. Michael Owen for Steven Partridge on April 7, 2022 Deanne Bain on May 17, 2022 Decision: D eanne Bain will pay Steven Partridge costs, inclusive of disbursements, of $ 34,750 by December 31, 2022 . 1 . In March 2022, I dismissed Deanne Bain’s claim for a division of property under

section 13 of the Matrimonial Property Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 275 . I also characterized and valued assets owned (and debts owed) at the end of the parties’ marriage. My decision is reported at 2022 NSSC 125 . 2 . Mr. Partridge now seeks costs of $89,750.

3. Ms. Bain provided me with copies of the offers exchanged between the parties, a letter from her previous counsel advising that Ms.Bain’s legal expenses were $96,792.39 (with additional amounts of approximately $1,000 for an appraisal and service of a subpoena). 4. In her submission, Ms. Bain said, “I respectfully submit self-representing has been an unwise and failed attempt to minimize thecosts accrued resulting from this prolonged matter. I am not qualified in knowledge of law or manner to make an argument in regard tocosts or otherwise as evidenced.” 5. Mr.

Partridge’s first lawyer made an offer in November 2017. It allowed Ms. Bain to keep her pre-marriage pension and RRSPcontributions and Mr. Partridge to keep his business. These were the significant issues at the hearing in 2019 and in 2021. Mr. Partridgemade 2 more offers: on February 8, 2018 and February 26, 2018. 6. Ms. Bain made one offer, through her counsel. 7. Mr. Partridge’s offers were better than the result Ms. Bain received at trial. Ms. Bain’s offer was worse than the result Mr.Partridge achieved at trial. Mr. Partridge is entitled to costs. 8.

Applying the Tariff is the norm and I must have a reason to depart from it. 9. The Tariff is based on the amount of money at stake in the litigation. Here, the nature and amount of Ms. Bain’s claim has changedover time. 10. When litigation began, Ms. Bain was making a claim under sections 13 and 18 of the Act against Mr. Partridge’s business, which shesaid was worth $900,000.00. 11. By July 2019, Ms. Bain was seeking $50,000.00 for the contribution she claimed she made to Mr. Partridge’s business. 12. The 2021 trial focused on Ms.

Bain’s claim that her pre-marriage pension and RRSP contributions should be excluded. There wereother, lesser issues relating to the characterization of assets and debts, the value of specific assets and the amount owed on certain debts. 13. The value of many assets was agreed upon by the parties through a series of conferences. Ultimately, the issues related to propertyand debts were worth almost $500,000, depending on how one discounts the taxes on Ms. Bain’s RRSP and pension. 14. Following an earlier decision resolving Ms. Bain’s claim against Mr. Partridge’s business, I awarded costs to Mr.

Partridge whichconsidered the legal expenses reflected in invoices of May 9, 2019, June 21, 2019, July 9, 2019, and July 17, 2019. 15. Since the first trial, Mr. Partridge has incurred additional costs of $52,644.92. 16. The basic principle is that costs should be a substantial contribution to a party’s reasonable costs and fees: Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 136at paragraph 16. 17. A substantial contribution is “more than half” and less than 100%: Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 136 at paragraph 16, quoting Landymorev. Hardy, (NSSC). 18.

The basic amount on Tariff A for a trial involving an amount between $300,000 and $500,000 is $34,750. This is a substantialcontribution to Mr. Partridge’s legal costs of $52,644.92. 19. I order Ms. Bain to pay Mr. Partridge costs, inclusive of disbursements, of $34,750 by December 31, 2022. Directions:

I have prepared the costs order which I enclose. Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)