2001 No. 1201-55584 SFHD-10179 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA FAMILY DIVISION BETWEEN: TERENCE MICHAEL HANAKOWSKI - APPLICANT -AND- MARTHA EVELYN HANAKOWSKI - RESPONDENT DECISION (WITH RESPECT TO COSTS) HEARD: BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LESLIE J. DELLAPINNA ON APRIL 29, 2002 DECISION: AUGUST 8, 2002 COUNSEL: YVONNE LAHAYE - PETITIONER MICHELLE CLEARY - RESPONDENT
DELLAPINNA, J. This decision is supplemental to my decision dated May 29, 2002. My previous decision addressed the outstanding corollary issues and at the same time, I granted Mr. Hanakowski's Petition for Divorce. I indicated that I was prepared to hear the parties on the issue of costs. I have now reviewed written submissions from counsel and have concluded that this is an appropriate case for the Respondent, Ms. Hanakowski, to pay costs to the Petitioner, Mr. Hanakowski. Costs are within the discretion of the Court; however generally, the successful party is entitled to costs and should only be deprived of the same for a very good reason. I have concluded that Mr. Hanakowski is entitled to costs for the following reasons: 1. He was successful in securing the relief that he sought although perhaps not to the extent that he had hoped;
2. it was necessary for Mr. Hanakowski to advance a claim for retroactive child support. I am satisfied that without a trial it is unlikely that Mr. Hanakowski would have recovered support for the children from Ms. Hanakowski during the retroactive periods referred to in my previous decision; 3. although Ms. Hanakowski made significant concessions during the trial and in post-trial submissions, those concessions could just as easily have been made prior to trial (for example, a Settlement Conference began in July, 2001 and a second Settlement Conference had been scheduled for September, 2001) and had those concessions been made earlier, a trial possibly could have been avoided or at the very least legal fees incurred by both parties could have been significantly reduced; 4. the Settlement Conference to which I referred above was initially requested by Ms. Hanakowski's lawyer. The parties attended the first session in July, 2001 and were expected to continue the settlement conference on a date in September, 2001. Not surprisingly, Mr. Hanakowski incurred legal fees preparing for the second date. However due to Ms. Hanakowski not being prepared for the second date, the continuation of the Conference did not proceed in September; 5. Ms. Hanakowski failed to fully comply with the directions given by the Court during the Pre-trial Conferences in July and September, 2001; and 6. full financial disclosure should have been provided by Ms. Hanakowski within a reasonable period of time after these divorce proceedings were initiated. Numerous requests for financial disclosure were made by Mr. Hanakowski's lawyers. Ms. Hanakowski had more than ample time to provide such disclosure (much
3 more time than is specified by the Rules) yet she did not provide all of the financial information expected of her when asked to do so, some was not provided until the day of trial and it would appear, some has yet to be provided. Her failure to provide such disclosure added to Mr. Hanakowski's legal costs, hampered the settlement process, impeded Mr. Hanakowski's lawyer's ability to prepare for trial and, no doubt, added to Mr. Hanakowski's frustration level. Even allowing subsequent to the parties' separation, she had more than sufficient opportunity to provide full disclosure but failed to do so adequately. As to the amount of costs, I have considered the proceedings, the Civil Procedure Rules that relate to costs including Tariff A which forms part of Civil Procedure Rule 63, the amount of money involved in this proceeding and the conduct Hanakowski will pay to Mr. Hanakowski costs in the sum of $2,500.00 payable immediately. I decline to order Ms. Hanakowski to reimburse Mr. Hanakowski the sum of $316.25 being the portion of the Actuary's bill previously paid by Mr. Hanakowski to secure a valuation of Ms. Hanakowski's employment pension. _____________________________ Leslie J. Dellapinna, J. for Ms. Hanakowski's personal circumstances extent by which Mr. Hanakowski was successful in these of the parties. I have concluded as a result that Ms.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.