Deborah Marie Hurrell, Applicant v. Yancy Earl Reckzin, Respondent, 2017 ONSC 4309

CITATION : Hurrell v Reckzin , 2017 ONSC 4309 COURT FILE NO.: 10-655 DATE: July 31, 2017 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Hurrell v Reckzin BETWEEN: Deborah Marie Hurrell, Applicant and Yancy Earl Reckzin, Respondent BEFORE: Honourable Mr Justice Martin James COUNSEL: Self-Represented Applicant, Respondent on the Motion Carolyn Kelly for the Respondent, Moving Party on the Motion COSTS ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] This matter involved a request by Mr.

Reckzin to vary a child support order and to alter the parties’ arrangement for sharing post-secondary education expenses that they agreed to in 2011. [ 2 ] The motion to change was successful in part. Mr. Reckzin was able to obtain a substantial reduction in child support payable but failed to obtain permission to restructure how post-secondary school expenses are to be paid and was unsuccessful in requesting that Ms. Hurrell pay for enhanced extended health benefits from her employer. [ 3 ] The parties have submitted their positions on costs. Mr.

Reckzin says he ought to recover partial indemnity costs to the date of his offer and substantial indemnity thereafter for a total of $10,596.93 or alternatively on a strictly partial indemnity basis, the sum of $8,751.08. He says that Ms. Hurrell did not act reasonably in failing to initially make full, fair and frank financial and documentary disclosure. [ 4 ] Ms. Hurrell was self-represented at the hearing but retained counsel to deal with the costs issues. Mr. Summers on Ms. Hurrell’s behalf submits that each side should bear their own costs because success was divided. [ 5 ] Mr.

Reckzin relies on two offers to settle. The first one, dated January 18, 2016, was made before substantial disclosure was provided regarding Ms. Hurrell’s finances and Brittany’s income and school expenses and the second offer was made on November 10, 2016 after financial disclosure occurred. The offers do not match up exactly with the court order following the hearing but I think it is fair to say that Mr. Reckzin’s settlement proposals deserve consideration in determining a just costs disposition. Ms.

Hurrell did not make any formal settlement proposals. [ 6 ] The decision to bring a motion to vary the existing child support arrangements was appropriate in the circumstances. The general rule is that the successful party is entitled to a reasonable allowance for the costs of the application. [ 7 ] At the same time the determination of the amount that ought to be paid by the losing side is more nuanced than simply performing an arithmetical calculation based on the hourly rate and docketed time of the winning side’s lawyer.

Also, it should reflect the amount the losing side might reasonably have expected to pay if unsuccessful. [ 8 ] In the result, I have determined that Ms. Hurrell should pay costs for fees fixed in the sum of $6,000 plus HST of $780.00 and disbursements as claimed at $267.60 for a total of $7,047.60, payable forthwith and collectible through the Family Responsibility Office.

___________________________ James, J. DATE: July 31, 2017 CITATION : Hurrell v Reckzin , 2017 ONSC 4309 COURT FILE NO.: 10-655 DATE: July 31, 2017 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Hurrell v Reckzin BETWEEN: Deborah Marie Hurrell, Applicant and Yancy Earl Reckzin, Respondent BEFORE: Honourable Mr Justice Martin James COUNSEL: Self-Represented Applicant Self-Represented Respondent COSTS ENDORSEMENT James, J. DATE: July 31, 2017