CITATION : Henry v. Henry, 2010 ONSC 6620 COURT FILE NO.: 149-03 DATE: 20101130 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Susan Henry, Applicant AND: Scott David Henry, Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Madam Justice S.E. Healey COUNSEL: A. Chapman, Counsel for the Applicant J.R.

Armstrong, Counsel for the Respondent HEARD: By written submissions ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS [ 1 ] The court has reviewed the parties’ cost submissions arising from the motion and cross-motion heard on July 22, 2010 and following the release of the court’s decision on September 24, 2010. [ 2 ] Both parties exchanged offers to settle in respect of the motion in July 2010.

Any offers that predated the 2007 settlement to which this court was referred were not taken into consideration. [ 3 ] The offers to settle do not alter my view that success was mixed on these motions. [ 4 ] In respect of the equalization payment, neither party’s offer was a concession compared to the amount determined by this court to be owed. The terms of payment offered by the respondent were certainly not better than those ordered by the court.

On the other hand the applicant’s offer sought interest at 5% on the full amount outstanding, which was not ordered. [ 5 ] On the issue of spousal support the respondent sought the complete cessation of payments, and his offer to settle took the same position. The award of spousal support by the court was less than that sought by the applicant, who was seeking to increase the amount payable by the respondent.

Her offer requests that support be paid in the amount of $1,500 in the event of default in payment of the equalization payment, which is more than that ordered by the court. [ 6 ] On the issue of imputation of income, the court was satisfied to impute an amount higher than that asserted by the applicant, and less than that sought by the respondent. [ 7 ] Both offers suggested a mechanism of addressing post-secondary costs; neither is more reasonable than the other and both address the costs being paid in proportion to income as ordered by this court. [ 8 ] The submissions made by the respondent containing unsworn evidence regarding the applicant’s post-motion conduct is disregarded as being fresh evidence not appropriate to cost submissions. [ 9 ] The parties shall each bear his or her own costs of this proceeding.

HEALEY J. Date: November 30, 2010