Garnier v Garnier

Garnier v Garnier Court Supreme Court Date 2023-09-18 Citation 2023 NSSC 298 Docket SFH No. 1201-071154, SFH No. 1201-071154 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Forgeron, Theresa M. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Garnier v Garnier, 2023 NSSC 298 Date: 2023-09-18 Docket: SFH No. 1201-071154 Registry: Halifax Between: Jennifer Garnier Applicant v Jason Garnier Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Theresa M Forgeron Costs Submissions: April 27, 2023 and May 12, 2023 Decision: September 18, 2023 Counsel: Jennifer Garnier, Applicant, Self-Represented Kelsey Hudson, for the Respondent, Jason Garnier Costs Endorsement Introduction [1] This is a decision about costs. [2] Jennifer Garnier states that as the successful litigant, I should award her costs of about $13,000 from her former spouse, Jason Garnier. Ms. Garnier states that such an award would recognizes her favourable settlement offers, the time she expended preparing for the hearing, her concerns surrounding family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour, and Mr. Garnier’s disclosure failures. [3] In contrast, Mr. Garnier states that he was the successful litigant. He therefore seeks costs of $8,000, noting that costs should include an amount to sanction Ms. Garnier’s oppressive, litigious, and vexatious conduct. Further, Mr. Garnier denies Ms. Garnier’s IPV claim. He also states that her settlement offers did not mirror my decision. Finally, he notes that Ms. Garnier inappropriately seeks costs for matters which formed the basis of my prior costs decision. Issues [4] The following issues will be addressed: • Who was the successful litigant? • What is the appropriate costs award? Background Information [5] In June 2017, after a 25-year relationship, the parties separated. In January 2019, a consent corollary relief order, divorce order, and pension division order issued. At the time of divorce, Mr. Garnier’s pension was in pay. Unfortunately, the consent orders did not resolve the issues. [6] In November and December 2020, I resolved interpretation issues surrounding the pension and spousal support provisions of the CRO as reported in Garnier v Garnier, 2021 NSSC 116. As part of my decision, I ordered a review of spousal support once Mr. Garnier’s pension was divided. I also ordered Mr. Garnier to pay costs of $2,000 as reported in Garnier v Garnier, 2021 NSSC 173. [7] In 2022, Mr. Garnier’s federal pension was finally divided. Ms. Garnier received a lump sum which was transferred into a locked-in vehicle. Despite the equal division of his pension, Mr. Garnier’s pension income did not reduce. In fact, his pension income will not reduce until he turns 60 years of age. This turn of events was neither known, nor anticipated. [8] After the review hearing, I released my decision, reported as Garnier v Garnier, 2023 NSSC 115. In my decision, I imputed an additional $1,500 in annual income to Ms. Garnier. In addition, I ordered Mr. Garnier to pay $900 per month in spousal support effective February 2022, and payable until June 2028, after which Mr. Garnier’s obligation to pay spousal support will terminate. Because my award produced a retroactive overpayment, Mr. Garnier received a $75 per month credit towards his support obligation. Finally, I ordered Mr. Garnier to provide Ms. Garnier security for the support payment. [9] Following my decision, both parties sought costs. Analysis [10] Who was the successful party? [11] Ms. Garnier’s trial position more closely aligned with my decision. Ultimately, although I imputed a minimal amount of income to Ms. Garnier, and calculated a retroactive overpayment, I awarded monthly spousal support of $825 ($900 less $75 credit) and payable until Ms. Garnier turned 55 years old. Success favours Ms. Garnier. [12] What amount of costs will do justice as between the parties? [13] I find that costs of $1,000, plus disbursements of $429.29 and $579.60 for unbundled legal services, for a total award of $2,008.89 will do justice as between the parties taking into consideration Rule 77, costs principles, and the parties’ submissions. I make this ruling for the following reasons: • Although Ms. Garnier offered to accept $800 per month in spousal support, her settlement offer included a prohibition against variation. I did not include such a prohibition in my decision. • Ms. Garnier did not disclose self-employed business income and expenses as is required, even if only $1,200 additional, annual income was ultimately imputed to her. • While Ms. Garnier spent considerable personal time preparing for the hearing, such time was not reasonable in the circumstances. The review hearing was not complicated. As noted in my previous costs decision, Ms. Garnier’s efforts were disproportionate to the issues being litigated. • Ms. Garnier’s litigation conduct was not always appropriate. At times, she was defensive and difficult when interacting with Mr. Garnier’s counsel. She made inflammatory and untrue accusations against Mr. Garnier’s counsel. Ms. Garnier’s litigation conduct increased the amount of time required to process, hear, and resolve the issues. • A costs order is not meant to compensate for damages. • This costs decision relates only to litigation conduct involving this review hearing – not past hearings. • Ms. Garnier is self-represented. Costs for self-represented litigants are not calculated on the same basis as costs for litigants who are represented. The expense associated with unbundled legal services is, however, an appropriate costs consideration. Conclusion [14] Mr. Garnier must pay Ms. Garnier costs of $2,008.89 no later than October 20, 2023. Forgeron, J