“As stated in Jackson, at para. 91: “quantification of costs still requires an overall sense of reasonableness and fairness. Goryn v. Neisner 2015 ONCJ 318 (CanLII), 2015 ONCJ 318 (OCJ). The Rules do not require the Court to allow the successful party to demand a blank cheque for their costs. Slongo v. Slongo 2015 ONSC 3327 (CanLII), 2015 ONSC 3327 (SCJ).”
The approach to be used in assessing the quantum of costs when a party has been successful was aptly stated by Justice Perkins in Biant v. Sagoo (2001), 2001 CanLII 28137 (ON SC), 20 R.F.L. (5th) 284 (Ont. S.C.):
[T]he preferable approach in family law cases is to have costs recovery generally approach full recovery, so long as the successful party has behaved reasonably and the costs claimed are proportional to the issues and the result.
The Court must consider whether the costs incurred are proportional to the issues argued. As stated in Pagnotta v. Brown, [2002] O.J. No. 3033 (S.C.), and Gale v. Gale, 2006 CarswellOnt 6328 (Div. Ct.): there should be a correlation between legal fees incurred and the importance or monetary value of the issues at stake.
In Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918 (CanLII), 128 O.R. (3d) 730, the Court of Appeal sets out the principles in assessing costs in a family law matter. At para. 94:
[94] Thus, a successful party in a family law case is presumptively entitled to costs. An award of costs, however, is subject to the factors listed in r. 24(11), the directions set out under r. 24(4) (unreasonable conduct), r. 24(8) (bad faith) and r. 18(14) (offers to settle), and the reasonableness of the costs sought by the successful party: M.(A.C.), at paras. 40–43.”