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.

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 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.

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.

The applicant wife sought a divorce, sole custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent husband sought joint custody, shared residence, and partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding the respondent lacked the maturity to prioritize the children's needs.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $200,000 due to undisclosed cash income and personal expenses paid by his business, ordering table child support and $3,500 monthly in indefinite compensatory spousal support.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $228,217 to the applicant and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

Following a nine‑day family law trial on a motion to change, the respondent father was successful in obtaining sole custody, continued supervised access for the mother, and termination of child and spousal support obligations.

The court invited written submissions on costs, but the self‑represented mother did not file submissions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court considered the success of the father, the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the issues, and the significant disparity in income.

While the father sought substantial or partial indemnity costs exceeding $47,000, the court determined that a reduced award was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to recover debts owing under two business lines of credit issued to corporate defendants operating tanning businesses.

The individual defendants, who were officers and directors of the corporations, had signed personal guarantees but argued they were not personally liable because they did not read the documents, were not advised to obtain independent legal advice, and believed the debt related to a successor corporation was discharged.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from the Supreme Court of Canada and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The documentary evidence confirmed the existence of continuing guarantees covering present and future debts, including after corporate name changes.

The court rejected the defendants’ credibility and legal arguments and held them personally liable under the guarantees.

Following a four‑day defamation trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment of $126,218, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiff had delivered a Rule 49 offer to settle for $25,000 inclusive of costs, which was not accepted.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter pursuant to Rule 49.10.

After reviewing the bill of costs and considering proportionality and delays in prosecution, the court fixed costs at $50,000 plus HST and awarded disbursements of $4,941.15 inclusive of HST.

Following the dismissal of an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the successful respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The unsuccessful appellants conceded entitlement to partial indemnity costs but argued that counsel’s time was excessive and that disbursements should be reduced.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and found no basis to conclude that the time spent was excessive.

Applying the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.