Martin v. Sansome
The respondent was largely successful on appeal because the appellant did not obtain the principal relief sought (a new trial) and the trial judge’s pivotal order setting aside the domestic contract was not disturbed; accordingly the respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $25,000 inclusive, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 192
- Parties
- Appellant: Delmer Bearinger Martin; Respondent: Linda Lorraine Sansome
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Family / Appeal (costs Endorsement)
- Outcome
- Respondent awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $25,000 inclusive; trial judge’s costs award remitted for reconsideration.
- Legal Topics
- Costs on Appeal, Substantial Indemnity Vs Partial Indemnity, Settlement Offers, Domestic Contract, New Trial
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Delmer Bearinger Martin
Appellant
Linda Lorraine Sansome
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal (costs Endorsement)
Legal Issues
- 1 Which party was successful on appeal for purposes of costs
- 2 Whether the trial judge’s substantial indemnity costs award should be reduced on appeal
- 3 Whether a new trial should be ordered
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent was largely successful on appeal because the appellant did not obtain the principal relief sought (a new trial) and the trial judge’s pivotal order setting aside the domestic contract was not disturbed; accordingly the respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $25,000 inclusive, and the trial judge’s substantial indemnity costs award was remitted for reconsideration in light of the appellate decision.
Court Disposition
Respondent awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $25,000 inclusive; trial judge’s costs award remitted for reconsideration.
Orders
- Award respondent costs of the appeal fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST
- Remit the issue of trial costs to the trial judge for reconsideration in light of this decision
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Martin v. Sansome Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-03-12 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 192 Docket numbers C55798 Judges Hoy, Alexandra; Laskin, John Ivan; Tulloch, Michael H. Subject Family Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 192 DATE: 20140312 DOCKET: C55798 Hoy A.C.J.O., Laskin and Tulloch JJ.A. BETWEEN Delmer Bearinger Martin Applicant (Appellant in Appeal) and Linda Lorraine Sansome Respondent (Respondent in Appeal) Aaron Franks and Michael Zalev, for the applicant (appellant) Pamela L. Hebner and Patrick Jocsak, for the respondent Heard: October 8, 2013 On appeal from the judgment of Justice G.A. Campbell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 26, 2012. COSTS ENDORSEMENT [1] We have received and reviewed the parties’ submissions on costs. [2] The appellant argues that he was the successful party on this appeal, and seeks costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $25,000, inclusive of disbursements in the amount of $2,021 and HST. The respondent submits that she was successful on the appeal, and seeks costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $40,931.17, inclusive of disbursements in the amount of $4,984 and HST. It appears that the respondent, and not the appellant, paid for the transcripts required for the appeal. [3] In our view, the respondent was largely successful on the appeal. While the amount that the appellant is required to pay the respondent was reduced on appeal, the appellant did not obtain the principal relief he sought, namely a new trial. As the respondent submits, such a result would have been disastrous for the respondent. And the court did not interfere with the trial judge’s pivotal order setting aside the domestic contract between the parties. [4] We accordingly award the respondent costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST. [5] The appellant also submits that the costs awarded at trial – $73,000 on a substantial indemnity scale – should be reduced to $43,800 on a partial indemnity scale. The appellant suggests that the only reason that the trial judge fixed costs on a substantial indemnity scale was because the amount that he awarded to the respondent at trial exceeded her pre-trial settlement offer. The appellant notes that the amount to which the respondent is entitled following appeal is less than the amount of her pre-trial settlement offer. [6] It is not clear to us that the only reason that the trial judge ordered costs on a substantial indemnity scale was because of the settlement offer. The issue of the costs of trial is accordingly remitted to the trial judge in case he wishes to reconsider his costs award in the light of this court’s decision. “Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.” “John I. Laskin J.A.” “M. Tulloch J.A.”