IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: Langmead v. Langmead, 2018 NSSC 263
ENDORSEMENT
October 22, 2018
Amber Langmead v. Aran Langmead
1201-067737
• Damian J. Penny for Aran Langmead
• Tanya G. Nicholson for Amber Bell
Request for costs of $3,159.38 (fees of $3,000.00 and disbursements of $159.38) following a focused hearing scheduled for 90 minutes.
Decision:
Mr. Langmead shall pay Ms. Bell costs of $1,000.00 (inclusive of disbursements) by December 31, 2018.
Reasons:
1.
Mr.
Langmead applied to vary the parenting terms of the parties’ 2015 Corollary
Relief Order.
2.
At
the pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed to sever the threshold issue of
whether there was a material change in circumstances (such that the variation
application could proceed) from the merits of the variation application. They
agreed the parties would file affidavits and there would be no
cross-examination. They agreed the parties would file briefs and there would
be oral argument.
3.
The
hearing was scheduled for 90 minutes and required less time.
4. Counsel conducted the application very efficiently.
5. Mr. Langmead failed to prove there was a material change so his application was dismissed. The decision is reported at 2018 NSSC 244.
6. Ms. Bell seeks costs on Tariff C – multiplied by 3, noting the complexity of the matter, its importance to the parties, and the amount of effort required to prepare.
7.
Ms.
Bell claims $3,159.38, inclusive of disbursements, as a contribution to her
costs and a “sufficient deterrent to Mr. Langmead in relation to future
applications that he may be considering.”
8.
In
Halifax, the Family Division hears applications involving the Minister of
Community Services, the Minister of Health and Wellness, and applications
between individuals. Approximately one-half of the applications between
individuals that are filed in Halifax’s Family Division are variation
applications. Applications to vary child support are the most common variation
applications, followed by applications to vary parenting arrangements.
9.
The
threshold requirement for varying a parenting order is well established and has
been for more than 20 years: Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC). This
hearing was not complex and should not have required considerable preparation.
10. All cases involving children are important to parents. This hearing was important, given its impact on Mr. Langmead’s variation application.
11. Counsel approached the application in the most efficient manner. Mr. Langmead asks that costs be fixed based solely on the hearing’s duration. To do so would ignore its impact on the application.
12. Mr. Langmead is ordered to pay Ms. Bell costs of $1,000.00 (inclusive of disbursements) by December 31, 2018. This amount reflects the importance of the result and the efficiency of counsel. The costs order is provided with this endorsement.
_____________________________
Elizabeth
Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)