Hoopey v. MacDougall, 2011 NSSC 362

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Hoopey v. MacDougall, 2011 NSSC 362 Date: 20111013 Docket: SFHF-031164 Registry: Halifax Between: John Edward Hoopey Applicant v. Lauriann MacDougall Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Deborah Gass Heard: June 2 & 3, 2011, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Counsel: Deborah I.

Conrad, for the applicant Paul Thomas, for the respondent By the Court: [ 1 ] This is an application for costs brought by the Applicant, John Edward Hoopey. [ 2 ] The Applicant incurred legal fees of $24,473.50 and disbursements of $1,379.40 in pursuing his application to vary maintenance. [ 3 ] The application was heard on June 2 and 3, 2011. The Applicant was seeking an order providing that no s. 7 expenses be paid, or if they be paid they be reasonable expenses agreed upon and the receipts be provided to substantiate the expense before they are paid.

The Applicant was not seeking a change in the Table amount of child support.

[ 4 ] In response, the Respondent claimed the Table amount of child support of $2,752.10, arrears of $6,213.37, substantial retroactive support of $43,333 to $75,337 and 80% of the children ’ s s. 7 expenses totalling approximately $31,000.00.

In doing so, she too incurred costs and disbursements. [ 5 ] Following the hearing, the court ordered the Table amount of child support of $2,152.00 plus $100/month towards extraordinary expenses, 80% of uninsured medical/dental expenses and all arrears owing under the previous order. [ 6 ] The Applicant maintains that he was the successful party and seeks costs of approximately $9,000.00. [ 7 ] The Respondent, Ms. MacDougall ’ s position was that as a result of the late filing of Mr.

Hoopey ’ s required materials, she incurred extra legal expenses in preparation for trial, and it had the effect of lengthening the trial time also.

It was further argued that considerable trial time was taken up with matters irrelevant to the question of the Applicant ’ s financial obligations to his children. [ 8 ] The result was a significant increase in the Table amount, although not to the extent sought by the Respondent. [ 9 ] Considerable preparation and trial time was spent dealing with the practice of Maintenance Enforcement to collect unspecified s. 7 expenses as submitted to them by the Respondent in accordance with what she understood the practice to be and which was enforced by the Agency. [ 10 ] The Respondent argues that she was substantially successful at trial.

She sought costs of approximately $5,000.00. [ 11 ] Two of the principles which emerge from the case law on costs are that costs are in the discretion of the court and a successful party is generally entitled to an award of costs. [ 12 ] Considering all the evidence and submissions, I conclude that success was mixed and the parties should bear their own costs. J.