Simpkin v. Chalmers, 2011 NSSC 372

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Simpkin v. Chalmers, 2011 NSSC 372 Date: 20111019 Docket: SFHMCA71808 Registry: Halifax Between: Pamela Simpkin Applicant v. Travis Chalmers Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Moira C. Legere Sers Written Submissions: Tanya Nicholson on June 29, 2011 Subject: Costs

Summary: Applicant seeking costs of $3,960 plus HST and disbursements. Result: Applicant awarded costs in the amount of $5000.

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT 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: Simpkin v. Chalmers, 2011 NSSC 372 Date: 20111019 Docket: SFHMCA71808 Registry: Halifax Between: Pamela Simpkin Applicant v. Travis Chalmers Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Moira C. Legere Sers Written Submissions: Tanya Nicholson on June 29, 2011 Decision: October 19, 2011 ( Costs ) Counsel: Tanya Nicholson for the applicant Travis Chalmers, Self-Represented

By the Court: [ 1 ] This is a decision on costs. This matter came on for hearing on April 13, 2011. Although the hearing was originally scheduled for two days, the matter was concluded in one. [ 2 ] The decision reveals that despite numerous directions and orders to file documentation, the respondent failed to file in accordance with instructions.

Such disclosure, as was provided, was provided late and was incomplete. (Paragraphs of the decision 8, 17, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, and 39.) [ 3 ] The applicant provided an offer of settlement more favorable to the respondent on the issues of parenting time, child support and the pro rata sharing of child care expenses and arrears of child care. [ 4 ] The applicant's offer of settlement in March 2011 regarding the division of property and payment for an equitable claim for property division was more favorable than ordered by the court. [ 5 ] The monetary issues and possibility for settlement was complicated by the respondent's failure to provide complete and timely disclosure. [ 6 ] The applicant's submission on costs dated June 29, 2011 contains references to the law on this subject. [ 7 ] On September 13, 2011 the Court sent a reminder to provide submissions on costs to the respondent's counsel. [ 8 ] The Court was advised by counsel that a copy of the applicant's submissions was forwarded to the respondent. [ 9 ] There has been no response by way of submissions on costs from either the respondent or his counsel. [ 10 ] According to her timed billing information following March 2011, legal fees to the applicant would result in $3,960 plus HST and disbursements.

The request for costs is reasonable. [ 11 ] I grant the applicant her request for $5,000 costs. The applicant's counsel shall draft the order. Legere Sers, J.