An Ontario Superior Court Justice has ordered a self-represented husband to pay $33,900 in legal costs to his wife after she successfully proved her position in a trial over their separation date, even though the amount awarded was significantly less than what she had requested1. The decision, released on October 28, 2025, highlights the legal principles of fairness and proportionality in family law costs, especially when only a single, preliminary issue has been decided.
The ruling on costs, delivered by Madam Justice A.P. Ramsay, followed an earlier decision in the same case. In that main decision, reported in April 2025, the court was asked to determine the official date of separation for the applicant, Mei Yang, and the respondent, Weidong Xie. The applicant argued the date was June 20, 2022. After a trial on the matter, Justice Ramsay agreed with the applicant and legally established the separation date as June 20, 2022.
In family law proceedings, the determination of a separation date is a critical threshold issue. It fundamentally impacts the division of property, as it establishes the valuation date for calculating a couple’s Net Family Property and determining any equalization payment owed by one spouse to the other.
Following Ms. Yang’s success on that central issue, the court then had to address the matter of legal costs, which is the process of deciding whether the losing party must pay some or all of the winning party’s legal fees.
Before the judge could rule on costs, the respondent, Mr. Xie, who also goes by the name Moses Su, attempted to delay the process. He brought several motions, including one asking the court to defer any decision on the trial costs until after his appeal of the separation date ruling was heard. On June 11, 2025, Justice Ramsay dismissed Mr. Xie’s motion to defer and ordered him to comply with the established timelines for filing his submissions, which are the written arguments and evidence regarding costs.
Despite this direct order, Mr. Xie failed to provide any costs submissions by the deadline. He also did not request an extension of time from the court. This failure meant that when Justice Ramsay sat down to determine the costs, she only had the materials filed by the applicant, Ms. Yang, to review. Those documents, which included a Costs Outline and Costs Submissions, had been properly served on Mr. Xie on May 12, 2025.
In her submissions, Ms. Yang sought a substantial amount. She requested a total of $49,449.36 in legal fees plus an additional $3,409.77 for disbursements, which are the out-of-pocket expenses paid by a law firm during a case, such as court filing fees or process server fees.
Ms. Yang’s legal team broke down their fee request based on an offer to settle she had made more than a year earlier. She asked for $15,377.04 on a partial indemnity basis for the work done up to the date of her offer, November 21, 2023. She then sought $30,662.55, a higher amount, for the work done after that date. She also requested that the full amount be payable within 30 days.
The court began its analysis by confirming the legal framework for costs in Ontario. Under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, cost awards are at the discretion of the court. However, this discretion is guided by the Family Law Rules. Specifically, Rule 24(3) creates a presumption that a successful party is entitled to their costs.
Ms. Yang was clearly the successful party in the trial over the separation date. Therefore, she was presumptively entitled to her costs, subject to other factors set out in the rules, such as the conduct of the parties and any offers to settle.
The most significant factor in this case was an offer to settle Ms. Yang had delivered to Mr. Xie on November 21, 2023. The primary term of that offer was that the parties agree “the Applicant wife and the Respondent husband separated on June 20, 2022.” This was the exact outcome Ms. Yang later achieved at trial.
Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules governs offers to settle, which are strongly encouraged by the legal system to promote resolution and avoid costly trials. The rules create significant consequences for rejecting a reasonable offer. If a party makes a written offer at least seven days before a hearing, the offer is not withdrawn, and that party achieves an order at trial that is as good as or better than their offer, they are entitled to costs up to the date the offer was served, and “full recovery costs” from that date forward.
Justice Ramsay confirmed that Ms. Yang’s offer complied with all the rules. It was made in writing well over a year before the hearing, it was not accepted by Mr. Xie, and she obtained a judgment that exactly matched her offer.
Ms. Yang’s lawyer also argued that Mr. Xie’s conduct had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, which should be a factor in increasing the costs award. She argued that the respondent refused to accept the offer despite evidence that he himself had agreed to the June 20, 2022 separation date in a letter dated August 1, 2022. She also characterized Mr. Xie’s questions during cross-examination as “erratic and self-serving.”
However, Justice Ramsay disagreed with this characterization of the respondent’s behaviour. The judge noted that Mr. Xie was self-represented and stated, “I do not agree that the respondent’s conduct was unreasonable or that his conduct lengthened the trial of the issue in any significant way.” The judge also observed that the four-day hearing was lengthened in part because of the necessary attendance of interpreters.
The central issue for the judge became one of proportionality. Ms. Yang was claiming her total costs for the entire proceeding, which had spanned over two years. The trial itself, however, had lasted only four days and was focused on the only issue of the separation date.
Justice Ramsay found that it would not be fair to award costs for the entire proceeding at this stage. The judge considered what the “reasonable expectations” of the respondent would be. She surmised that Mr. Xie, representing himself, would reasonably expect that if he lost the trial on the separation date, he might be liable for the costs related to that specific step, not all costs incurred in the case to date.
The judge cited the “overriding principle” that costs must be “fair to the parties and reasonable in the circumstances.” She also noted that Ms. Yang’s lawyer had not clearly delineated the legal fees related specifically to the determination of the separation date from the fees related to the entire proceeding.
Taking all factors into account, Justice Ramsay set about fixing a fair and reasonable amount. She considered the four days of hearing, the time spent preparing affidavits for witnesses, the moderate complexity of the issue, the importance of the issue to the parties, and the fact that Ms. Yang had successfully beaten her own offer to settle.
The judge also found that the hourly rate of Ms. Yang’s counsel, Haiyun Wang, at $450 was reasonable for a lawyer called to the bar in 2003.
Ultimately, Justice Ramsay decided that an amount of $30,000 plus HST of $3,900 was a fair, reasonable, and proportionate award for the trial of the separation date issue.
Regarding the $3,409.77 in disbursements, the judge did not allow them at this time. She noted that these expenses appeared to relate to the entire proceeding, and the applicant had not identified which specific disbursements related to the four-day trial. The judge dismissed this portion of the claim “without prejudice,” meaning Ms. Yang retains the right to seek recovery for those disbursements in the future if she can properly itemize them.
The court’s final order stated that the respondent, Weidong Xie, shall pay the applicant, Mei Yang, costs fixed in the amount of $33,900. The judge also ordered that Mr. Xie shall pay post-judgment interest on those costs at a rate of 3 percent per year, calculated from the date of the order.
Read about other family law cases here.
