Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 18-227 DATE: August 28, 2018

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Robinson v Delorme BETWEEN: Trina Robinson, Applicant and Matthew Delorme, Respondent

BEFORE: Honourable Mr Justice Martin James

COUNSEL: Duncan Crosby for the Applicant John Allan for the Respondent

DATE HEARD: Written Submissions

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

James, J.

[1] This is the costs endorsement in relation to a motion brought by the respondent to stay enforcement of a temporary order issued by the Ontario Court of Justice pending the appeal of that order to this court.

[2] The temporary order altered the parenting arrangements for the parties’ daughter pending trial. It was granted by March J. on April 10, 2018. There was a pre-existing trial date set for July 3, 2018 for the trial of the issues.

[3] The respondent had been unrepresented but retained counsel shortly before the temporary motion was heard. The respondent’s counsel did not attend court on the day of the hearing. The respondent attended in person and requested an adjournment. The presiding justice refused to grant the adjournment, pointing to a pattern of delay by the respondent, and proceeded to hear the motion on the merits. He found that it was in the child’s best interests to grant the request to change the primary parenting responsibility from the respondent to the applicant.

[4] The request for a stay of enforcement of the decision of Justice March was heard on May 25, 2018. The child had been residing with the applicant for more than a month at that point and the trial was about 5 weeks away.

[5] The request to stay enforcement pending the appeal was not granted.

[6] The applicant presented a bill of costs for $1,060.51 on a partial indemnity basis and $1,594.43 on a substantial indemnity basis. The time spent and the hourly rate are reasonable. Costs are usually awarded on a partial indemnity basis except for unusual or exceptional circumstances which are not present here.

[7] The respondent says the applicant was not properly prepared or otherwise contributed to the motion to stay enforcement not being productive and did not have clean hands. The respondent submits that each side should bear their own costs.

[8] The usual rule is that costs follow the event and are to be assessed at each step in a proceeding. The successful party usually is entitled to recover costs from the unsuccessful party.

[9] There are no compelling reasons present here to warrant departing from the standard practice.

[10] Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to payment of her costs of the motion set in the amount of $1,060.51 inclusive of disbursements and HST payable by the respondent forthwith.

James, J. DATE: August 28, 2018