Christopher M. Giggey

The Applicant sought costs of $5,866.71 following a successful motion and cross-motion.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, considering the parties' overall success, behaviour, and offers to settle.

The Applicant was deemed the more successful party, and the Respondent's failure to accept a severable offer to settle and make his own offer was a significant factor.

Despite the Respondent being self-represented and paying for reunification counselling, the court found the requested costs reasonable and proportionate, ordering the Respondent to pay the full amount sought.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary sole custody of the child, Lana.

The applicant father opposed, arguing to maintain the existing parental arrangement where he was the child's primary caregiver.

The court considered the effect of a prior reconciliation on a Nunavut interim custody order, the concept of material change in circumstances, and the child's best interests, emphasizing stability and the status quo.

The court found compelling reasons to re-examine the child's best interests as a temporary measure, noting significant changes in the child's life since moving to Ontario and the mother's guilty pleas to assault charges against the father.

The motion for sole custody was dismissed, and the child remained in the father's primary care, with an increase in the mother's access time.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from Toronto to Cornwall.

The plaintiff, a US-based corporation, had commenced the action for the cost of goods sold in Toronto, where its counsel practiced.

The defendant, based in Cornwall, argued that the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Cornwall and Tennessee, and that Toronto had no connection to the dispute other than the location of the plaintiff's counsel.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) and found that while the plaintiff's initial choice of venue was reasonable given its expectation of a default judgment, the defendant's proposed venue of Cornwall was significantly better.

The motion to transfer the proceeding to Cornwall was granted.