2010 ONSC 2519, 2010 ONSC 2519

CITATION : Merritt v. Merritt, 2010 ONSC 2519 COURT FILE NO.: 43643-10 DATE: 2010-05-03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO RE: Chistene Ann Merritt, Applicant and Sean Merritt, Respondent BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice M.D. Parayeski COUNSEL: G. McLeod, for the Applicant S. Binning, for the Respondent ruling on costs [ 1 ] The applicant commenced this action in Kitchener in anticipation of her and the children of the marriage moving to Cambridge. At the moment of issuance, however, she and they did not live there, and so the choice of Kitchener was in technical breach of Rule 5 (1) (

b) of the Family Law Rules . The respondent moved to have the action transferred to Brantford. This Court granted the applicant an indulgence in allowing the action to remain in Kitchener. That indulgence is in and of itself a valid reason why the otherwise successful applicant should not be entitled to her costs. There shall be no order as to costs of the motion heard on February 24th, 2010. M.D. Parayeski J. Released: May 3, 2010