Price v. Reid, 2013 ONCJ 442

Background

Price v. Reid is a cost decision arising from a one-day child support trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. Justice S.B. Sherr released the trial decision on July 10, 2013, followed by written reasons on costs on August 13, 2013. Although the legal issues at trial were relatively straightforward, the Court’s cost endorsement provides important guidance on how Ontario courts approach costs in family law, particularly where disclosure failures and rejected settlement offers drive unnecessary litigation.

The parties are the parents of a child. The mother sought child support from the father. The dispute centered on determining the father’s income, adjusting child support retroactively, and fixing arrears. At trial, the Court fixed the father’s income at $43,935 annually, ordered retroactive adjustment of child support back to January 1, 2010, and calculated child support arrears of $18,989. These findings framed the subsequent costs analysis, as they established the mother as clearly successful party.

Following the release of the trial decision, both parties delivered written submissions addressing costs. The mother sought full recovery costs in the amount of $4,542.60. The father conceded that some costs were appropriate but argued for a significantly reduced award of $1,800, payable at $50 per month, relying on his financial circumstances. The Court was therefore required to determine not only whether costs should be awarded, but also the appropriate quantum, scale, and payment structure.

When will an Ontario court order cost because of unreasonable conduct in a family law case?

Ontario courts will order costs where a party’s conduct unnecessarily increases the length, complexity, or expense of the litigation. Unreasonable conduct does not require bad faith or dishonesty. It is enough that a party fails to comply with their procedural obligations, resists disclosure, advances positions unsupported by evidence, or refuses to engage meaningfully in settlement.

In Price v. Reid, the Court found that the father’s conduct crossed this threshold. Although the legal issues were not complex, the case was made significantly more difficult by the father’s failure to provide timely and accurate financial disclosure. This failure forced the mother to pursue litigation steps that would otherwise have been unnecessary. The Court was clear that disclosure failures strike at the heart of the family justice process and weigh heavily in favor of a costs award.

Does a party’s limited financial means protect them from a cost award?

No. While ability to pay is a relevant consideration, it does not immunize a party from costs, particularly where that party’s own conduct contributed to the litigation. Justice Sherr acknowledged the father’s modest financial circumstances but held that this factor could not override the presumption in favor of costs where the father acted unreasonably.

The Court relied on appellate authority confirming that financial hardship does not excuse disclosure failures or obstructive litigation behavior. Instead, the appropriate response is to structure the payment of costs in a manageable way, rather than to deny costs altogether.

What role does disclosure play in the cost analysis?

Disclosure was central. The Court emphasized that financial disclosure is the cornerstone of family law proceedings, particularly in child support cases. Without proper disclosure, courts cannot assess income, evaluate settlement offers, or encourage early resolution. In Price v. Reid, the father’s disclosure failures were a primary driver of the litigation and a key reason why costs were awarded against him.

The Court rejected any suggestion that late or partial disclosure cured earlier non-compliance. Costs focus on the litigation steps that were made necessary by unreasonable conduct, not on whether disclosure was eventually produced after damage had already been done.