Luigi De Lisio

The plaintiffs moved to set aside an administrative dismissal order, later shifting to argue the dismissal was a nullity as to one plaintiff whose action had been automatically stayed under Rule 11.01 following an undisclosed transfer of interest.

The court found the dismissal order was a nullity with respect to the stayed action, but nevertheless dismissed that action for delay under Rule 11.03, applying the rule within the currency of the existing motion.

As to the second plaintiff's action, the court applied the Reid factors and found the plaintiffs had not satisfactorily explained significant delay, had not been transparent with the court regarding the transfer of interest, and that the defendant had suffered evidentiary prejudice.

Both actions were dismissed and costs of $7,500 were awarded to the defendant.

This is a costs decision following a contempt motion brought by the applicant to enforce paternal grandparent visits.

The court found that the applicant had proven contempt beyond a reasonable doubt but exercised judicial discretion not to make a formal finding of contempt, citing the applicant's failure to pursue other enforcement steps and the potential negative impact on the children.

The respondent was found in breach of the order, and child-centred relief was granted.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, while the respondent argued for costs in her favour on a partial indemnity basis, claiming success in defending the contempt.

The court determined that the applicant was largely successful in reestablishing visits and proving contempt, and neither party acted unreasonably to be deprived of costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $18,459.84, reduced slightly due to the respondent's minor success in obtaining updated information about the applicant's therapy.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for allegedly breaching a consent order concerning paternal grandparent visits with the children.

The court found that the respondent was in breach of the order, having failed to actively promote and facilitate the visits.

However, the court exercised its discretion not to make a formal finding of contempt, emphasizing that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law, other remedies were available, and a contempt finding would not serve the children's best interests by escalating conflict.

Instead, the court issued new orders to facilitate grandparent visits, mandated mediation, and required the applicant to provide proof of completed therapy.

The respondent father sought to vary a 2019 final order regarding parenting issues, including decision-making authority (especially education), parenting schedule, and incidents of parenting.

The applicant mother opposed significant changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's declining academic performance under the mother's sole educational decision-making and the unabated high conflict between the parents.

The court reallocated decision-making authority, granting the father sole authority over educational issues and the mother retaining medical, dental, and therapeutic issues.

The parenting schedule was changed to an equal time regime, and detailed terms were ordered for holidays, travel, exchanges, and information sharing to reduce conflict and promote the child's best interests.

The plaintiffs, Renee and Peter Wilson, sued the defendant, Ryan David Hill (d.b.a.

Crown Hill Builders), for the return of a $50,000 cash deposit paid for home renovations that were never performed.

The defendant denied receiving the money.

The case hinged on credibility.

The court found the plaintiffs' evidence, corroborated by text messages, bank records, a police report, and their son's testimony, to be credible.

The defendant's evidence was deemed not credible, and an adverse inference was drawn from his failure to produce documents.

The court concluded that the defendant engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation, taking the deposit with no intention of performing the work, and then disappearing.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for the principal amount of $50,000 plus pre-judgment interest, with costs to be determined.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of contract, claiming a management fee for supervising a construction project at the defendants' home.

The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, seeking timesheets, invoices, and communications related to the project and other properties.

The court granted the motion, finding the requested documents relevant to determining the actual project cost, the adequacy of the plaintiff's management, and the quantum meruit claim.

The court also held that ordering disclosure was proportionate to the issues and amount involved.

Following a 16-day family law trial regarding decision-making responsibility and parenting time, the respondent sought costs of $176,000 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued success was divided and no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

However, applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and noting the trial was needlessly protracted, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The parties separated after a high-conflict breakdown of their marriage and could not agree on decision-making responsibility or a parenting time schedule for their two young children.

The applicant father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time structured around his firefighter shift schedule.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making and a continuation of the interim parenting schedule, which included daycare.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility to the mother, finding the parties could not communicate effectively enough for joint decision-making, but required her to consult the father on major decisions.

The court also ordered a parenting schedule similar to the interim order, providing the father with significant but not equal parenting time, finding that the consistency of the schedule and daycare was in the children's best interests.

In a divorce action, the applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a prior disclosure order.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for additional disclosure from the applicant.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the respondent's delayed and partially incomplete disclosure was not a wilful omission.

The court also dismissed the respondent's disclosure motion, noting that most requests were either answered or unnecessary, and left the remaining items for a future settlement conference.

The applicant mother brought a motion for retroactive child support for the parties' two adult sons.

The respondent father had ceased paying child support in August 2016, arguing the children were no longer residing with the mother or attending school.

The court analyzed the residency and educational status of both children between 2010 and 2020.

The court found the father was obligated to pay support for one son until August 2016 and for the other son until April 2020, as the latter was unable to become self-supporting due to a disability and lack of education before returning to college.

The court ordered the father to pay $47,610 in child support arrears.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting sole custody of the child to the respondent mother, ordering him to pay child and spousal support, and awarding trial costs to the respondent.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in failing to determine an exact separation date, in awarding spousal support given his high student debt, and in not ordering parallel custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the best interests of the child framework or the spousal support guidelines, and noting the trial judge appropriately considered the appellant's debt and the history of intimate partner violence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was impounded because she was driving without an ignition interlock device as required by a condition on her licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine her licence status, relying on an Ontario driver's abstract that indicated her licence was not suspended and had no outstanding reinstatement conditions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a family court order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the relief appealed from was granted under the Divorce Act, meaning jurisdiction properly lay with the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal under s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty regarding mortgage investments was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff, who lost his pension funds in the investments, was admittedly impecunious.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to establish at the first stage that the action was plainly devoid of merit or pursued for vexatious reasons.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of driving with excess alcohol.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent, finding a Certificate of Analysis unreliable due to a clerical error where it was dated a year prior to the breath samples being taken.

The appellate court, relying on R. v. Moratto, determined that such an immaterial date discrepancy did not render the Certificate inadmissible or constitute "evidence to the contrary." Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a conviction entered.

The court rejected the respondent's request for a new trial, applying the Cassidy criteria and noting that the defense had pursued other avenues at trial, making a new trial speculative.

The appellant car dealership appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting the respondent rescission of a motor vehicle purchase agreement and return of her $7,964 payment.

The trial judge found the transaction was a consumer purchase under the Consumer Protection Act and that the dealership engaged in an unfair practice by failing to provide a bill of sale and complete financing details.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the dealership's unfulfilled promise to provide a legally compliant bill of sale constituted a false, misleading, or deceptive representation under section 14 of the Act, entitling the buyer to rescission.

Following a successful application regarding the interpretation of a cohabitation agreement, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had made a time-limited settlement offer that was more advantageous than the final decision, though it did not attract automatic cost consequences under Rule 49.

Considering the factors in Rule 57.01 and the parties' bills of costs, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $21,000.

The applicant and respondent entered into a cohabitation agreement wherein the applicant invested $181,000 into the respondent's property.

Following the breakdown of their relationship, the property was sold at a shortfall.

The applicant sought her entitlement off the top of the proceeds, while the respondent claimed reimbursement for household expenses and funds taken from a joint account.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to her funds off the top as per the agreement.

The respondent's claims for older expenses and the joint account were largely barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, resulting in a minor set-off for recent household expenses.

Following a trial regarding a home renovation dispute, the plaintiff recovered $17,142.91 on a $38,000 claim, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $35,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $7,200 in costs, noting that the recovery was within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction, the plaintiff had breached the contract despite the counterclaim's dismissal, and the costs claimed were disproportionate to the recovery.

Following a family law trial in which the applicant was entirely successful, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $70,000 in costs relating to the trial and a prior settlement conference.

The court found that the respondent’s reluctant disclosure and shifting positions on equalization increased the costs of the proceeding.

The court determined that $45,000 represented a reasonable costs amount and ordered the respondent to pay that sum forthwith, with half enforceable as child or spousal support and subject to deduction from the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home proceeds.