An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a father to pay his former partner $3,500 in legal costs following a series of contentious court motions, a figure significantly less than what was sought1. In a detailed decision, the court scrutinized the conduct of both parents, criticizing the use of multiple interim motions when the overall litigation had been dormant for a year and should have been moving towards a final resolution. The ruling provides a clear narrative of the legal steps and missteps that led to the costs award.
The decision, released by Madam Justice R.A. Lepere on September 3, 2025, addresses the costs stemming from four court appearances between Vanessa Danielle Theriault and Clinton Gray in the spring and summer of 2025. The dispute involved ongoing issues of parenting time and child support. The background of the case revealed that despite a case conference judge recommending in February 2024 that the parties proceed to trial as soon as possible, the litigation stalled for an entire year before a flurry of legal activity was initiated by the applicant, Ms. Theriault.
The first matter addressed by Justice Lepere was a motion brought by Ms. Theriault on March 6, 2025, concerning parenting time and decision making authority. She sought $1,800 in costs for this appearance, arguing that the motion was necessary because Mr. Gray was attempting to disrupt the established parenting arrangement that had been in place for the previous year. She claimed he was providing confusing and inconsistent information to their children’s school and daycare. In response, Mr. Gray argued the motion was entirely unnecessary. He noted that he had just retained a new lawyer and that while he was seeking more parenting time, he was permitted to make such requests. He also pointed to Ms. Theriault’s own delay in advancing the case toward trial. Justice Lepere sided with Mr. Gray on the issue of costs for this attendance. She found that the order made on March 6 simply confirmed the existing status quo and that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Mr. Gray’s actions necessitated court intervention. The judge also pointedly noted that Ms. Theriault should have been taking steps to move the matter toward trial instead of focusing on motions for interim orders. Consequently, no costs were awarded for the March 6 attendance.
The legal conflict continued with another court date on March 27, 2025. On this day, the court was scheduled to address the parenting motion again, as well as a new motion filed by Ms. Theriault seeking financial disclosure from Mr. Gray and a temporary order for child support. Ms. Theriault argued she was forced to bring the motion after her requests for financial documents, made in January and February, went unanswered. Even after Mr. Gray retained new counsel, a final request with a deadline of March 14 was not fully met, prompting her to proceed with court action. However, the March 27 attendance proved to be largely procedural. The financial disclosure issues were resolved between the parties’ lawyers before the hearing, and the remaining issues were adjourned to future dates. Ms. Theriault sought costs for this appearance as part of a larger claim of $3,600 covering this date and a subsequent one in April. Mr. Gray argued no costs should be awarded, as the primary issue of disclosure was resolved without court intervention and that his new lawyer should have been granted more time to comply before a motion was filed. Justice Lepere again declined to award costs, reasoning that the attendance was procedural, the substantive disclosure issue was resolved, and that leniency was warranted given Mr. Gray had just changed counsel. The judge also highlighted the lack of urgency, given the year long dormancy in the file, and noted that Mr. Gray had partially complied with the disclosure requests before the motion was heard.
The matter of child support returned to court on April 17, 2025. An initial hearing date of April 10 was missed because Ms. Theriault’s lawyer failed to file the required Confirmation Form. At the April 17 hearing, the court made a temporary order increasing Mr. Gray’s child support payments pending the more substantive hearing scheduled for June. For this successful step, Ms. Theriault claimed she was entitled to costs. She had successfully argued that based on Mr. Gray’s updated income information, his child support obligation should be immediately increased. Mr. Gray had opposed the increase, arguing unsuccessfully that the parties had a shared parenting schedule and that his recent income information was not reflective of his true earnings. In her costs decision, Justice Lepere agreed that Ms. Theriault was the successful party on this motion. The judge found Mr. Gray’s positions at the hearing were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. However, she also determined there was no urgent need for the motion, as the issue could have waited just over two months to be decided at the comprehensive June 30 hearing, which would have saved both parties time and money. Balancing these factors, Justice Lepere awarded Ms. Theriault costs for the April 17 attendance but in the reduced amount of $1,000.
The most significant hearing took place on June 30, 2025, where the court heard arguments on the parenting time motion, the child support motion, and a separate motion brought by Mr. Gray. Following that hearing, Ms. Theriault was deemed the primarily successful party. She subsequently sought costs of $6,300 on a substantial indemnity basis, a higher scale awarded for poor conduct. She argued that Mr. Gray had acted unreasonably by filing limited evidence, failing to provide case law to support his position, and not filing a required affidavit. She further alleged that a financial statement he served only one business day before the hearing, which stated his income was $79,576.80, was false and misleading. Mr. Gray acknowledged Ms. Theriault’s success but argued for a much lower global cost award of $2,500. He maintained that he had achieved some success and that the motions were only necessary because Ms. Theriault failed to move the case forward to trial. He also pointed to a new report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, which was not available to the judge on June 30, that he claimed supported his request for equal parenting time.
In her final analysis, Justice Lepere awarded Ms. Theriault costs for the June 30 hearing but fixed the amount at $2,500, the sum proposed by Mr. Gray. The judge affirmed that Ms. Theriault was the successful party and that Mr. Gray’s limited success on discrete issues was not enough to warrant a divided success or a denial of costs. However, she firmly rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no evidence of bad faith on Mr. Gray’s part. The judge explained that at the hearing itself, Mr. Gray had conceded on the key child support issues once the parenting time was confirmed, and both parties ultimately agreed on his annual income for the purposes of the calculation. The judge also noted she had already addressed the issue of the missing affidavit in her main decision and did not find it amounted to bad faith. The amount claimed by Ms. Theriault was further reduced because some of the legal work, such as time spent on questioning the parties, was deemed beneficial to the entire case and not just the specific motions. Finally, the judge noted the importance of a more tempered approach to costs in cases involving parenting issues, so as not to discourage parties from adjudicating matters affecting the best interests of their children.
Ultimately, the total costs awarded to Ms. Theriault across all motions was fixed at $3,500, a combination of the $1,000 for the April 17 motion and the $2,500 for the June 30 hearing.
Read about other family law cases here.
