2013 ONSC 1790, 2013 ONSC 1790

CITATION : Rouleau v. Rouleau, 2013 ONSC 1790 COURT FILE NO.: 41771-08 DATE: 2013-04-04 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO RE: Terianne Rouleau, Applicant and Dominique Rouleau, Respondent BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice R.D. Reilly COUNSEL: J. Mark Coffey, for the Applicant Barry T. Paquette, for the Respondent ruling on COSTS by the honourable mr. justice r.d. reilly [ 1 ] I have now received and considered the costs submissions (in writing) delivered by both counsel. It is to be regretted that this application was necessary.

It is clear that both mother and father love their children, Jackie and Joseph, and want to play a continuing and meaningful role in their lives. The dynamics of their relationships are complicated by the fact that mother lives in Kitchener and father lives in Quebec City.

Thus it is necessary that both parties be prepared to accommodate this geographic reality to ensure the best interests of the children; to ensure that Jackie and Joseph continue to have both a mother and a father playing a meaningful role in their lives. [ 2 ] I would note that both parents delivered constructive offers to settle prior to the hearing of the application (The applicant/mother’s offer was dated September 10, 2012. The respondent/father’s offer was dated February 8, 2013 and was served less than seven days prior to the hearing of the application.

The applicant’s offer complied with Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules . The respondent’s offer did not.) [ 3 ] Putting aside the offers to settle, it was clear at the hearing of the application that a great many of the significant issues were no longer in dispute. The task of the court was principally to assist the parties and their experienced counsel, in resolving the practical issues arising from the fact that mother and father live some considerable distance from each other.

These practical issues will continue to present a challenge to the parties with the passage of time, as the children grow and mature, as their needs and schedules change, and as the schedules of the parents may change as well. It is to be hoped that when new challenges arise, the parties may be able to resolve them without the need for formal legal intervention. [ 4 ] Having carefully considered the submissions of counsel, I conclude that success on the application was somewhat divided, though the applicant/mother was more successful than the respondent/father.

There is no question that it was necessary for the mother to bring this application, to clarify existing court orders and to ensure an appropriate level of parental authority and child support. (I note again that the father in effect consented to some of the relief sought by mother at the hearing of the application.) [ 5 ] The applicant/mother had her sole custody and final decision making authority confirmed by the court, together with an appropriate level of child support.

I note that by their submissions on costs, both counsel are agreed that my final order with respect to child support should read $2,047.00 per month, instead of $2,084.12 per month, which quantum was agreed upon (in error) on the hearing of the application. I therefore direct that my ruling on the application be endorsed accordingly. This quantum is consistent with father’s admitted income of $160,000.00 per year and the Quebec Child Support Guidelines .

[ 6 ] The applicant/mother’s position was also successful with respect to the children’s schooling, though the court has some considerable sympathy for father’s position in this regard. Other issues that were decided arguably in mother’s favour, father in effect consented to on the hearing of the application. [ 7 ] Having thus considered counsel’s submissions and the factors set out in Rule 24 (11) of the Family Law Rules , I direct that the respondent/father shall pay costs of the application to the applicant/mother set at $6,200.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes. Costs are payable forthwith. R.D. Reilly J. Released: April 4, 2013