Adrian Edward Tonello

The court considered costs following a trial in which the plaintiff, Domenic Gesualdi, succeeded in proving breach of contract and negligence against the defendants regarding the rebuilding of two vintage Ferrari engines.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants to the plaintiff at $300,000 and to the third parties at $279,950.91, rejecting the defendants’ arguments for costs in their favour and their attempt to shift third party costs to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the principles for fixing costs, including proportionality, reasonableness, and the impact of settlement offers.

The court found that the defendants breached their contract and were negligent in the restoration of the plaintiff's vintage Ferrari engines, resulting in significant damages.

The court dismissed the third party claim and awarded damages to the plaintiff for the cost of repairs, but denied claims for loss of capital value and other consequential damages.

Four actions arising from a commercial construction project were tried together.

The owner, acting as its own general contractor, alleged that the site supervisor, excavator, and other contractors colluded to defraud it by overbilling for excavation, trucking, and materials, and claimed the site supervisor breached a fiduciary duty.

The excavator and site supervisor registered construction liens for unpaid invoices and compensation.

The court dismissed the owner's fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding no evidence of false representations or vulnerability.

The court upheld the construction liens, awarding the excavator $399,990.12 for unpaid work and lost profit, and awarding the site supervisor $150,000 for his services, while ordering the return of a Ferrari given as partial payment.

The applicant mother and respondent paternal grandparents both sought sole custody of a 13-year-old child on a motion to change a 2009 final order for joint custody.

The child's father was deceased.

The court found that the relentless conflict between the mother and grandparents constituted a material change in circumstances that was actively harming the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the paternal grandparents, finding they could provide stability, shield the child from conflict, and support her education and extracurricular activities.

A transition period was ordered during which the mother's parenting time was temporarily suspended.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim against the individual defendant, the sole director and officer of the corporate defendant, for breach of trust under s. 13(1) of the Construction Lien Act.

The appellant argued that where there is a sole director, the onus shifts to that individual to disprove acquiescence in the corporation's breach of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 13(1) does not shift the onus and that actual acquiescence must be proven.

As there was no evidence of the individual defendant's active participation, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding Jasper liable to pay the respondent and assessing costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no error in the liability determination.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and reduced the trial costs to $45,000, noting the trial judge erred by including hours spent on unsuccessful motions.

The issue of entitlement to trust funds paid into court was remitted to the trial judge.

The respondent was awarded $7,500 in costs for the appeal.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for adverse possession or a prescriptive easement over a strip of commercial land.

The trial judge found that the appellant's use of the land on his side of a fence built by the respondent's predecessor was with permission or based on mutual mistake, and lacked the intent to exclude the true owner.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding consent and mutual mistake.

The appellant appealed the Board's decision refusing to issue a liquor licence for its U-Brew business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable.

The Board properly interpreted the regulations in a broad, purposive manner in the interest of public safety and health, and was justified in refusing the licence under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act given the appellant's history of non-compliance.

The Crown appealed an order requiring the Attorney General to pay $25,000 in costs to the respondents, who had successfully argued on appeal that the prosecution against them was abusive due to a loss of Crown independence.

The respondents cross-appealed, seeking a stay of proceedings.

The respondents alleged that the outside counsel retained to prosecute them under the Liquor Licence Act was compromised because his fees were paid by the Liquor Control Board and he was supervised by a Board employee.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal, finding no evidentiary foundation that the retained counsel failed to comply with his obligations as Crown counsel.