Gale v. Hines, 2017 NSSC 356

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Gale v. Hines , 2017 NSSC 356 Date: 2017-06-25 Docket: SFH-MCA 101224 Registry: Halifax Between: Lloyd Gale Petitioner v. Leanne Hines Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore

Summary: Father ordered to pay costs of $6,000.00 awarded following an unsuccessful application for shared parenting. Key words: Family, Costs Legislation: Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, Rules 77.02(1), 77.02(2), 77.03(3), Tariff A THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOESN’T 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: Gale v. Hines , 2017 NSSC 356 ENDORSEMENT Lloyd Gale v.

Leanne Hines SFH-MCA 101224 June 25, 2017 • Philip Whitehead for Lloyd Gale • Pavel Boubnow for Leanne Hines Leanne Hines requests costs of $6,000.00 following a one-day trial, based on Tariff A, scale 2, based on a hearing of one day’s, with an additional amount of $2,000.00 for trial time, following a parenting application. Total costs requested: $6,000.00. Mr. Gale asks that no costs be awarded. Decision:

Mr. Gale shall pay Ms. Hines costs of $6,000.00 on or before November 30, 2017. Reasons: 1. Mr. Gale sought a shared parenting order. His claim was dismissed and a specified

schedule for access ordered. His claimfor joint custody (shared decision-making) was not contested. The primary issue was the girls’ parenting time with their father. 2. The hearing required one day. 3. Civil Procedure Rule 77.03(3) provides that “Costs of a proceeding follow the result”. Costs are in my discretion. Adecision not to award costs must be principled. 4. Mr. Gale offers no principled reason not to award costs. He says that he cannot be faulted for wanting the children to havehim equally within their lives. This desire is not faulted by an award of costs.

Costs promote the rational conduct of litigation. WhileMs. Hines did not make a settlement offer, I have no evidence that Mr. Gale made an offer which was superior to the result he achievedat trial. 5. To apply Tariff A, I must know the amount involved in the case. According to Tariff A, where there’s a substantial non-monetary issue involved, the amount involved is determined having regard to the complexity of the proceeding and the importance of theissues. 6. In both Collins v. Speight, (NS SC), and in Wyatt v.

Franklin, (NS SC), JusticeGoodfellow concluded that the amount involved in two and one-half day trials was $45,000.00. Collins v. Speight, (NS SC), was a case involving a dispute over an entitlement to a right of way and Wyatt v. Franklin, (NS SC), was aland dispute. Justice Goodfellow described both as not complex. Later, in Toronto Dominion Bank v. Lienaux, (NSSC), Justice Goodfellow suggested a general rule for cases where a substantial non-monetary issue was involved. He said that he treatedeach day or part day of the trial as equivalent to $15,000.00 for determining the “amount involved”. 7.

In 2007, Justice Lynch reviewed this general rule in Jachimowicz, 2007 NSSC 303 , at paragraph 26. There, theparenting trial took approximately thirteen days: six days of evidence from the initial trial, five days of review evidence and numerousother appearances which added approximately two more days. She adjusted the daily equivalent amount from $15,000.00 to $20,000.00“to reflect the increased costs of litigation.” 8. There were no complicating or simplifying factors in the case. 9.

Civil Procedure Rule 77.02(1) states that I “may, at any time, make any order about costs as [I am] satisfied will do justicebetween the parties.” 10. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 77.02(2) I have a general discretion to award costs so as to do justice between the parties,regardless of whether costs have been specifically claimed. 11. Having regard to the result achieved, the amount deemed to be involved, and the duration of the hearing, I order Mr. Gale topay Ms. Hines costs of $6,000.00 on or before November 30, 2017. This amount is inclusive of all disbursements. 12. Mr.

Whitehead was directed to prepare the order arising from the hearing. It shall include reference to this costs decision. _____________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)