A father applied for costs after he successfully opposed an Application for relocation by his child’s mother. The father sought indemnity of 50% of his actual legal fees in the amount of $10,987.50 or, alternatively, $8,500, in accordance with Schedule C of the Rules. The mother argued that each party should bear their own costs, or alternatively, that costs should be limited to $5,400, pursuant to Schedule C.

The Court awarded the father $8,500 in Costs, which was to be offset against the father’s retroactive child support owed to the mother. Justice Jugnauth considered the Court’s discretion in Costs Applications pursuant to Rule 10.31, as well as the factors set out in Rule 10.33. Specifically, Jugnauth J. held that the Application was of high importance to both parties but was not overly complex. The Court further found that both parties cooperated procedurally in setting and attending a streamlined trial and that neither party acted frivolously or engaged in misconduct. Justice Jugnauth mentioned that having information regarding the father’s counsel’s hourly rates, seniority, and experience, would have assisted the Court in making its costs determination. 

Ultimately, Jugnauth J. held that the Court “retained the discretion to provide a higher or lower level of indemnification having regard to rules 10.2(1) and 10.33, the conduct of the litigation, and relevant factors outside the conduct of the litigation”. The father was the successful party on the central issue of relocation and was therefore presumptively entitled to costs pursuant to Rule 10.29(1). Jugnauth J. largely accepted the father’s draft Bill of Costs, which the Court determined represented a reasonable and proportional level of the father’s actual costs.