G. M. Mulligan

The applicant was successful on an urgent motion for sole custody and limited supervised access.

As the successful party, the applicant sought costs of $14,086.58 on a full recovery basis or $11,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent opposed the costs, citing his good faith and dire financial situation.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Finding no circumstances to justify an elevated rate, the court awarded the applicant costs in the amount of $7,500.00.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for sole custody following the respondent father's arrest for domestic violence offences.

The father sought temporary access supervised by his family members.

The court dismissed the father's request for family-supervised access, noting concerns about the proposed facilitators taking sides.

The court ordered temporary supervised access for one hour per week at a supervised access centre for the older child only, finding no benefit to ordering access for the one-and-a-half-month-old infant in that environment.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action, the defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis until an offer was served, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The court found no basis in law or fact to award substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

Considering the defendants' delay in bringing the summary judgment motion despite knowing the facts early on, the court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The offender was found guilty of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded, fully automatic machine pistol with an obliterated serial number, while subject to a weapons prohibition order.

The offender discharged his counsel prior to sentencing and proceeded self-represented with amicus assistance.

The court applied recent appellate jurisprudence to grant enhanced pre-sentence custody credit despite the offender's prior record.

A global sentence of 6 years and 2 months was imposed, reduced by 24 months of pre-trial credit, leaving 4 years and 2 months to serve.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of assault causing bodily harm arising from a violent attack involving a bottle that injured two victims.

The offences occurred approximately sixteen years before sentencing, during which time the offender relocated, established employment, maintained a stable relationship, and demonstrated rehabilitation.

The court considered Gladue principles given the offender’s Indigenous background, as well as the long delay between the offence and sentencing and the offender’s significant rehabilitative efforts.

Balancing denunciation and general deterrence against rehabilitation and the restraint principle under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, the court declined to impose custodial or conditional sentence imprisonment.

A suspended sentence with probation and community service was imposed along with ancillary orders.