Recent case: Cost award based on conduct
D.C.A. v. A.E.C., 2022 ONSC 1002: This recent case demonstrates an effective use of Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, where one party is ordered to pay costs for sending harassing emails to the other even though there was an order limiting communications between them.
D.C.A., the applicant father and A.E.C., the respondent mother are the parents of E.A.C., a child under the age of 3. This is a case involving parenting and other issues.
The mother brought a motion for costs against the father for breaching a previous court order. On December 13, 2021, the parties appeared before Justice Chappel who granted an order directing the father’s parenting time to be supervised by the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton or Thrive Counselling. Communication between the parties was to be in writing and go through their lawyers or an agreed-upon third party. In particular, the father’s communications were subject to the following terms and conditions:
a) “His comments shall be strictly limited to issued pertaining to the child;
b) His messages shall be brief, informative, and courteous; and
c) He shall refrain absolutely from making derogatory comments about counsel, any agreed upon third party or the respondent mother, and shall refrain from setting out personal opinions regarding their character.”
Within hours of receiving Justice Chappel’s endorsement, the father sent emails that breached the terms of the order. By the time the mother brought the motion on January 18, 2022, there were 25 improper emails and messages sent by the applicant father.
In awarding costs, Justice Gordon reviewed the extensive communication between the parties and indicates that “all participants in the litigation process are expected to conduct themselves in a dignified and respectful manner. There can be no excuse for threats, harassment and derogatory comments about others involved in the case.”
Based on the circumstances and the a father’s conduct, Justice Gordon felt it was necessary to impose a cost award to get the father’s attention. The cost award was meant to be a penalty and to compensate the mother for the time wasted by the father’s conduct. The mother was awarded $5,000.00 in costs.