Ontario family court generally follows a "costs follow the event" principle — the more successful party can ask the less successful party to contribute toward their legal costs. Under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, courts have broad discretion, with stronger consequences for bad faith, unprepared or unproductive conduct, and rejecting reasonable settlement offers. Costs awards are usually a partial contribution, not full reimbursement, and are decided separately after the actual issue is resolved.
- Ontario family court generally applies a "costs follow the event" starting point — the more successful party can seek a contribution toward their legal costs from the other side.
- A costs award is usually a partial contribution, not full reimbursement of what you actually spent — except where bad faith is found.
- Bad faith conduct triggers a stricter rule: the court must order costs on a full-recovery basis, payable immediately, not just a partial contribution.
- Failing to attend a step, showing up unprepared, or making a step unproductive can result in costs being awarded against you, regardless of who ultimately wins the underlying issue.
- Settlement offers matter directly — rejecting a reasonable offer and doing no better (or worse) at the hearing can increase what you owe in costs.
- Courts can order costs against a lawyer personally, not just the client, where the lawyer's own conduct wasted costs without reasonable cause.
- A self-represented litigant can still be ordered to pay costs, and recovering costs for their own time is a genuinely unsettled area compared to costs for lawyer fees.
The General Rule: Costs Follow the Event
Ontario family court proceedings generally operate on a "costs follow the event" principle: the party who was more successful on a given step — a motion, a conference, a trial — can ask the court to order the less successful party to contribute toward their legal costs for that step. This is the starting tendency under the Family Law Rules, not a guarantee. The judge retains broad discretion, and the actual amount awarded is usually a reasonable contribution toward costs, not full reimbursement of whatever was actually billed.
This is a different question from what your own lawyer's fees will come to over the life of a case — for that budgeting question, see our separate guide to how much a divorce actually costs in Ontario. Cost awards are about something narrower: who ultimately bears some or all of the other side's legal costs because of how a specific step in the case was decided and conducted.
Cost awards in Ontario family court are governed by Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules (O. Reg. 10/25, which replaced the earlier O. Reg. 114/99 in January 2025). The substance of the rules — the general tendency toward costs following the event, and the specific exceptions below — is what matters in practice; the detailed numbering within Rule 24 has changed with recent amendments and may change again.
How and When Costs Are Decided
Costs are typically treated as a separate issue, decided at or shortly after the substantive matter is resolved rather than folded into the main ruling. After a motion is argued or a trial decision is released, the parties are commonly asked to make brief, focused submissions specifically on costs — addressing what was spent, how the parties conducted themselves, and what settlement offers were on the table. This separation matters strategically: winning the underlying issue and winning on costs are not the same question, and conduct during the case can swing a costs decision even for the party who otherwise came out ahead. The further a case stretches out — see our guide to the typical Ontario divorce timeline — the more steps there are where costs can be awarded along the way.
Whether a case reaches this stage through a straightforward or a contested divorce process, the costs analysis applies the same way once a step is actually argued and decided — costs are not usually in play for a step both sides agree to resolve by consent.
Bad Faith: The Strictest Rule
The one area where the court's discretion narrows sharply is bad faith. Where a party is found to have acted in bad faith during the proceeding, the court is required to decide costs on a full-recovery basis and to order that payment be made immediately — not treated as simply one factor weighed against others in an ordinary partial-contribution award. This is a meaningfully stronger consequence than an ordinary unsuccessful outcome.
Bad faith is not the same as simply losing, or even litigating aggressively. It involves conduct the court views as dishonest or improper in how the case was pursued — for example, concealing information relevant to the case. Our guide to hiding assets in an Ontario divorce covers one common scenario where bad-faith cost consequences can follow a failure to disclose honestly.
Unproductive Conduct & Unpreparedness
Short of bad faith, the rules also penalize conduct that wastes the court's and the other party's time. A party who fails to attend a required step, shows up unprepared, or does something that makes a step unproductive presumptively faces a costs award against them for that step — regardless of how the underlying issue is ultimately decided — unless the interests of justice point the other way. This is why showing up organized and on time to something as routine as a case conference is not just good practice; it has a direct costs consequence if you do not.
If an issue genuinely needs urgent court intervention, make sure it is actually urgent before bringing it — see our guide to urgent family motions in Toronto. Bringing a motion that is not truly urgent, or that is poorly prepared, is a common way parties end up with a costs award against them even when their underlying position had some merit.
Settlement Offers and Costs
Settlement offers are woven directly into the costs analysis, not treated as a side issue. The making, rejection, or withdrawal of a reasonable offer can shift the costs outcome significantly. If a party turns down an offer that was genuinely reasonable and then does no better — or worse — at the hearing or trial than what had been offered, the court can impose increased cost consequences against that party. There is also a specific mechanism for enhanced costs tied to offers made a meaningful time before trial that are never withdrawn or accepted, which is intended to reward parties who put a fair offer on the table early and stuck with it.
This is one of the strongest practical reasons a separation agreement or an early, well-considered settlement offer is worth taking seriously, rather than treating settlement as a purely optional step to skip on the way to a hearing.
A parent rejects a reasonable parenting-time offer made well before trial, proceeds to trial, and the judge's final order ends up close to what had already been offered. Because the offer was reasonable and was not beaten at trial, the parent who rejected it can face a cost award well beyond what an ordinary "costs follow the event" outcome would otherwise produce.
Costs Ordered Against a Lawyer Personally
Cost consequences are not limited to the client. The court can order costs directly against a lawyer or other representative — separate and apart from their client — where that lawyer's own conduct wasted costs without reasonable cause. Before making such an order, the court must give the lawyer a chance to respond. This exists to discourage conduct by counsel (rather than the client themselves) that needlessly drives up the cost of the proceeding.
Self-Represented Litigants and Costs
A self-represented litigant is not exempt from these rules. They can be ordered to pay a contribution toward the other party's costs on the same general principles — particularly where bad faith or unproductive conduct is found — whether or not they had a lawyer. For more on navigating a case without one, see our guide to representing yourself in family court.
The reverse question — whether a self-represented litigant can recover costs for their own time, as opposed to amounts actually paid to a lawyer — is genuinely unsettled. Costs rules are more clearly built around compensating for legal fees paid out, and any recovery for a self-represented party's own time tends to be available only in limited circumstances. Do not assume it works the same way a represented party's lawyer-fee costs do.
Why This Matters for Your Strategy
Costs are easy to treat as an afterthought while a case is focused on the substantive issues — parenting, property, support. In practice, they are a live strategic consideration from the start. Reasonable settlement offers, showing up prepared, and avoiding conduct that drags out a proceeding are not just good practice for their own sake; they directly affect who ends up paying for the process itself, and a costs award can be a meaningful amount of money on top of whatever the underlying issue decided. This is especially true in a high-conflict divorce, where repeated motions and non-compliance with orders are exactly the kind of conduct that tends to generate costs consequences on top of the underlying dispute.
A costs award is also never automatically equal to what a party actually spent — it is a separate determination the judge makes based on the specific conduct and offers in that case, decided after the substantive step rather than as part of it.
Facing a costs motion, weighing whether to accept a settlement offer, or wondering how your own conduct in a case could affect costs? Call our Toronto family lawyers at 416-274-2222, or visit our family law page to learn how we can help.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Ontario family court generally follows a "costs follow the event" tendency, meaning the more successful party can ask for a contribution toward their costs, but it is not automatic or absolute. The court has discretion, and the amount awarded is usually a partial contribution rather than full reimbursement of what was actually spent, except in cases involving bad faith.
It means the general starting point is that the party who was more successful on a motion, conference, or trial can expect some contribution toward their legal costs from the less successful party. "The event" refers to the specific step decided — a motion, a conference, a trial — not necessarily the whole case, since different steps can have different cost outcomes along the way.
Bad faith conduct triggers a stricter cost consequence than ordinary unsuccess. Where the court finds a party acted in bad faith, it must decide costs on a full-recovery basis and order that payment be made immediately, rather than treating it as just one more factor in a discretionary partial award.
Yes, in specific circumstances. If you failed to attend a required step, arrived unprepared, or did something that made a step unproductive, the rules presumptively point toward costs being awarded against you for that conduct — regardless of how the underlying issue is ultimately decided — unless the interests of justice require a different result.
It can, significantly. The Family Law Rules tie the making, rejection, or withdrawal of a settlement offer into the costs analysis. If a party turns down a reasonable offer and then does no better — or worse — at the hearing or trial than what was offered, the court can increase the costs consequences against that party, including enhanced costs tied to offers made a meaningful time before trial.
Typically only a portion. Outside of bad-faith findings, costs awards are usually meant as a reasonable contribution toward the successful party's costs, not a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement of the full bill. The exact amount is decided by the judge based on factors like the complexity of the issues, the conduct of the parties, and the offers exchanged.
Yes, in limited circumstances. The court can order costs directly against a lawyer or representative — separate from their client — where that lawyer's own conduct wasted costs without reasonable cause. The lawyer is given a chance to respond before such an order is made.
Yes. Self-represented litigants are not exempt from cost awards and can be ordered to pay a contribution toward the other party's costs on the same general principles that apply to represented parties, particularly for bad faith or unproductive conduct.
This is a genuinely unsettled area. Costs awards are more clearly designed to compensate for amounts paid to a lawyer, and recovering a contribution for a self-represented litigant's own time is possible only in limited circumstances — it should not be assumed or relied on the way a represented party's lawyer-fee costs can be.
Costs are typically decided as a separate issue at or shortly after the substantive step is resolved — for example, right after a motion is argued or after a trial decision is released — rather than being baked into the main decision itself. Parties are often asked to make separate, brief submissions specifically on costs.
No. A costs award addresses who pays for the legal process itself — lawyer fees and related expenses for a specific step or the case overall. Support is a completely separate issue addressing ongoing financial provision for a spouse or child, decided on its own legal test regardless of how costs are allocated.