2017 ONSC 3363

November 24, 2016

BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M. E. VALLEE COUNSEL: Dani Frodis, Counsel, for the ApplicantPeter Callahan, Counsel, for the RespondentHEARD: November 24, 2016 COSTS ENDORSEMENT The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadingsbecause he had failed to comply with various court orders and had failed to make fulldisclosure. Among them, the respondent was required to sign authorizations directing variousfinancial institutions to provide information to the applicant, and directing a real estateagent and lawyer to provide information regarding the respondent's offer to purchase ahouse at a time when he stated he had no money and could barely make ends meet. In paragraph 11 of my endorsement dated November 24, 2016,I found that the respondent's motion was a last minute attempt to delay the applicant'smotion.


CITATION: 2017 ONSC 3363 NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-047204 DATE: 20170530 RE: SNEZANA MILUTINOVIC, ApplicantAND: RADMILO MILUTINOVIC, Respondent BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M. E. VALLEE COUNSEL: Dani Frodis, Counsel, for the ApplicantPeter Callahan, Counsel, for the RespondentHEARD: November 24, 2016 COSTS ENDORSEMENT [1] The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband’s pleadingsbecause he had failed to comply with various court orders and had failed to make fulldisclosure. Although the respondent’s pleadings were not struck, various orders weremade. Among them, the respondent was required to sign authorizations directing variousfinancial institutions to provide information to the applicant, and directing a real estateagent and lawyer to provide information regarding the respondent’s offer to purchase ahouse at a time when he stated he had no money and could barely make ends meet. [2] The applicant was successful on her motion. She is presumptively entitled to costs. Therespondent was unsuccessful on his motion to adjourn the applicant’s motion for thepurposes of questioning. In paragraph 11 of my endorsement dated November 24, 2016,I found that the respondent’s motion was a last minute attempt to delay the applicant’s motion. [3] I have considered the factors set out in Rule 24(11). Failure to make financial disclosureis a serious issue. The applicant’s motion was important. The respondent’s behaviourwas unreasonable. He was in breach of four court orders. His excuses were disingenuous. Mr. Frodis’ rate of $520 per hour is high; however, Mr. Bernstein, who was called in2011 and whose rate is $310, did most of the work. I am satisfied that the time shown inthe applicant’s bill of costs was properly spent on the case. The disbursements forcouriers and process servers were appropriately incurred. [4] The applicant requests fees of $16,748 and disbursements of $373.55. I find these to bereasonable amounts considering the work done. When HST is added, the total is SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO VALLEE J. Date: May 30, 2017 $19,298.79. The respondent shall pay to the applicant $19,298.79 for costs forthwith. The respondent is prohibited from bringing any further proceedings until this amount ispaid.