Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Family Division)
Citation: Bourgeois v. Bourgeois, 2020 NSSC 181
ENDORSEMENT
Marnie Leigh Bourgeois v. Daniel Vernon Bourgeois
June 9, 2020
Court File No. 1206-7503
• Alan Stanwick on behalf of Marnie Bourgeois
• Courtney Somerton on behalf of Daniel Bourgeois
Decision:
Costs awarded under Tariff A
1. A divorce hearing was held on March 9, 2020. A written decision was issued on May 6, 2020, dealing with the issues of support, retroactive support and asset decision. This Endorsement deals with costs arising from that trial.
Reasons:
2. The Court invited written submissions on costs if the parties could not agree on same. Ms. Bourgeois filed her written submissions on June 3, 2020. Mr. Bourgeois filed his on June 4, 2020.
3. Ms. Bourgeois relies on Tariff A, under Civil Procedure Rule 77. She requests costs of $8,250.00, on the basis of the basic scale, for the amount involved of $25,000.00 - $40,000.00. This results in costs of $6,250.00 plus $2,000.00 for a 1-day Trial.
4. Mr. Bourgeois asks that each party bear responsibility for their own costs. He says that disclosure from Ms. Bourgeois was filed late, leaving him with an inability to file a formal offer to settle, and making the matter more costly for him to litigate.
5. In my decision, I granted spousal and child support payable by Mr. Bourgeois, as well as retroactive sums to be paid. Ms. Bourgeois was successful in most of her claims.
6. Rule 77 leaves costs in the discretion of the presiding judge. I can take into account the conduct of the parties, any written offers of settlement, failures to admit facts which should have been admitted, and the success achieved by each party.
7. I reject Mr. Bourgeois’ claim that he was unable to file a formal offer because disclosure from Ms. Bourgeois was late. The type of disclosure he was seeking was irrelevant. The sources of income which he identified (and for which he sought to have income imputed) is not considered income under the Child Support Guidelines.
- Ms. Bourgeois is entitled to costs. However, I am concerned about Mr. Bourgeois’ ability to pay costs on top of the other amounts he’s required to pay. A large award would inhibit his ability to pay the amounts due to Ms. Bourgeois. Obviously, his payment of support is a priority.
Decision:
9. Considering all of the circumstances of this case, I exercise my discretion in granting lump sum costs of $2,000.00, payable by Mr. Bourgeois in monthly increments of $25.00 per month until the total is paid in full. This award does justice between the parties, while allowing Mr. Bourgeois to meet his other obligations.
10. Counsel for Ms. Bourgeois will submit the appropriate form of Order.
__________________________________
Lee Anne MacLeod-Archer, J.S.C.(F.D.)