Worried about your spouse acting in bad faith or being unreasonable about child support?
- Julia Fogarty
- Mar 19
- 3 min read
In Beaudoin v. Stevens, 2023 ONSC 4401, the respondent father was found to have intentionally underemployed himself to avoid paying child support following the dissolution of a six-year relationship with two minor children. In July, the court imputed income to the respondent at a higher level after finding his conduct to be dishonest and lacking credibility. This adverse inference stemmed from the respondent's non-disclosure of court-ordered financial documents, a frequent problem in many family law cases.
Following this decision, the parties made written submissions to the court on the issue of costs. These costs were considered in Beaudoin v. Stevens, 2023 ONSC 5265.
Beaudoin v. Stevens, 2023 ONSC 5265
Costs
Following the July merits decision, the parties made submissions on costs. The applicant mother asked for costs against the respondent father on a full recovery basis, requesting $66,220.84.
The applicant mother argued that she was successful in the July decision and that the respondent father acted unreasonably and in bad faith. She emphasized the respondent father's evasion of financial obligations to their dependents, depletion of Ontario-based assets, and concealment of other relevant information from the courts.
The respondent father argued that he should only pay costs on a partial indemnity basis. He claimed that some of the costs were not appropriate because of two agreements signed in 2012 and 2014 that were not set aside by the court, where he claimed that disclosure was not requested or that he did not understand that he needed to provide ongoing financial disclosure.
Court's Decision
After reviewing the parties' submissions, the court ordered the respondent father to pay the applicant mother $50,000 in costs, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office. The court found that this was aligned with three fundamental purposes of modern family law:
To partially indemnify successful litigants;
To encourage settlement; and
To discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants.
This amount was determined to be reasonable and proportionate.
Analysis
The court explained that the baseline in determining costs is success in your motion, case, or appeal. This success creates a presumption of costs favoring the successful party. However, this presumption can be tempered by whether or not a party has engaged in unreasonable conduct, bad faith, and whether the quantum of costs itself is reasonable.
The Family Law Rules expressly contemplate total recovery costs under specified circumstances, such as when a party has engaged in bad faith, unreasonable conduct, or exceeded a settlement offer in their recovery. To see if this is appropriate, "proportionality" and "reasonableness" are the touchstone considerations to be applied in fixing the amount of costs.
In this case, the court found that the respondent father acted in bad faith by failing to provide full financial disclosure. The court also found that the respondent father intentionally tried to avoid his obligations and cause the applicant mother unnecessary costs. Therefore, the court found that it was fair, reasonable, and proportionate for the respondent father to pay the applicant mother $50,000 in costs.
Conclusion
The court's decision in Beaudoin v. Stevens is a reminder that litigants who engage in bad faith or unreasonable conduct can be ordered to pay costs on a full recovery basis. This is especially true in family law cases, where the court has a responsibility to protect the interests of children and other dependents.
Comments