Luigi De Lisio

A craftsman sued the estate of a former business partner following a break‑in at his workshop, theft and destruction of moulds used to manufacture replica automobile bodies, and defamatory internet postings that redirected potential customers to the defendant’s website.

The court found the defendant liable for conversion, breach of contract, defamation, and bailment losses relating to vehicles and products stored on the defendant’s property.

The defamatory online statements falsely described the plaintiff as a scammer and remained publicly accessible for several years, significantly damaging his reputation and business.

The court awarded damages for the destroyed moulds, lost business opportunity, defamation, bailment losses, and punitive damages due to the malicious and high‑handed nature of the misconduct.

Total damages of $126,218 were awarded after mitigation.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding they had trespassed on the respondent's property by erecting fence posts and a gate.

The trial judge awarded damages for the cost of a survey, a culvert, and legal fees.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his findings of fact regarding the property line and the status of the road, and that some damages were statute-barred.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's preference for the respondent's surveyor's evidence, and noting the limitations argument was not properly raised or founded.

Following the dismissal of her appeal regarding municipal election compliance audits, the appellant argued she should not be liable for costs because she was a public-interest litigant.

The respondents sought costs, alleging the appellant targeted them for private reasons related to a local development dispute.

The court found that the appellant was a public-interest litigant who brought the applications in good faith to address matters of public importance regarding campaign finances.

The court dismissed the respondents' claim for costs and ordered all parties to bear their own costs.

An insurer sought declarations that coverage was unavailable under a professional liability claims-made-and-reported insurance policy issued to a home inspector.

The insured had answered “no” on policy renewal applications when asked whether he was aware of any situation or circumstance that might result in a claim, despite knowing that a worker had died after contacting an exposed energized wire in a property he had inspected and that the Ministry of Labour had investigated and conducted an inquest.

The court held that the reporting obligation is assessed using an objective test and that the investigation and inquest constituted circumstances that reasonably called for disclosure.

Because the policy application contained an exclusion for claims arising from undisclosed circumstances, coverage never attached.

Relief from forfeiture was unavailable because the exclusion meant the claim fell outside the policy’s coverage entirely.

Following a family law trial where the main issue was the valuation and equalization of a physiotherapy business, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had made an offer to settle that was very close to the final trial judgment of $145,448.57.

The court found the applicant was the substantially successful party.

After deducting an amount to reflect issues settled by minutes of settlement at the start of trial, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $43,880.86.

Following a successful Hague Convention application ordering the return of four children to Norway after wrongful retention in Ontario, the court determined costs.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs including Canadian counsel fees, travel expenses to attend an earlier adjourned hearing, and legal fees incurred with Norwegian counsel.

Applying Article 26 of the Hague Convention, the Family Law Rules, and the discretion under the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that abducting parents should generally bear the reasonable expenses of securing a child’s return.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded for Canadian legal work and travel expenses, with additional costs later awarded for Norwegian counsel after supplementary documentation was provided.

Following a motion to change a child support order, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party was partially successful in obtaining an adjustment to child support based on increased income and a three‑year retroactive period, but failed to obtain the full relief sought and several claimed s. 7 expenses were disallowed due to lack of documentation or improper characterization.

The responding party argued the moving party had largely failed and sought costs or, alternatively, no order as to costs.

The court held the moving party was the successful party overall but reduced costs due to disclosure deficiencies and excessive claims.

Costs of $2,500 inclusive of HST were awarded to the moving party.

The applicant father sought the return of four children to Norway under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after the respondent mother retained them in Ontario following a purported vacation.

The court found that the father had not consented to a permanent relocation and that the mother altered the travel consent document to facilitate departure from Norway.

The children’s habitual residence was determined to be Trondheim, Norway, and their retention in Ontario constituted wrongful retention under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.

The court rejected the respondent’s reliance on the grave risk exception under Article 13(b), finding insufficient objective evidence that returning the children would expose them to physical or psychological harm.

Ontario lacked jurisdiction to determine custody under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Norway.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1998 child support order seeking retroactive adjustment of table child support and contribution toward post-secondary and other section 7 expenses.

Applying the principles in D.B.S. regarding retroactive support, the court held that effective notice occurred in March 2011 and, absent blameworthy conduct, retroactive support could only extend three years back to March 2008.

Because one child was no longer a child of the marriage at the time of notice and the motion, retroactive support was limited to the remaining child.

The court calculated retroactive table support arrears and determined reasonable post-secondary education expenses, requiring the child to contribute and allocating the balance proportionally between the parents.

The respondent was ordered to pay arrears of table support and section 7 expenses in instalments.

Following a family law trial involving custody and a proposed relocation of a child, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although both parties achieved partial success regarding custody, the respondent was unsuccessful in her request to relocate the child to Kingston.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined that the applicant achieved greater success on the central issue and was entitled to costs.

The court also emphasized that costs must be awarded for specific stages of proceedings, referencing appellate authority.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought sole custody of their two-year-old son.

The mother also sought permission to relocate with the child from St. Catharines to Kingston to live with her new husband.

The court found that the child had thrived under a shared parenting arrangement in St. Catharines, where he had extensive extended family support.

Applying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and Berry v. Berry, the court determined that relocating to Kingston would significantly disrupt the child's relationship with his father and extended family, and was not in his best interests.

The court ordered joint custody and a shared parenting schedule, and prohibited the relocation.

An elector appealed decisions refusing to order compliance audits of municipal election campaign finances under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The applications alleged that candidates received excessive contributions from associated corporations and filed incomplete financial disclosure forms (Form 4).

The court held that receiving excessive contributions is not itself a contravention of the Act provided the candidate returns the funds as soon as possible after becoming aware of the violation.

Although several candidates technically contravened the Act by improperly completing Form 4, the compliance audit committee retained discretion whether to order an audit.

Given that the excessive contributions had already been returned and no further information was likely to emerge, it was reasonable to refuse an audit.

The appellant insurance broker appealed a Small Claims Court judgment holding it liable for failing to properly advise the respondents regarding a vacancy exclusion in an insurance policy for a boarding house property.

The insurer had denied coverage for vandalism-related water damage that occurred while the property was vacant.

The trial judge found the broker breached its duty by failing to explain the vacancy exclusion despite the respondents relying on the broker’s expertise to obtain appropriate coverage.

Applying the appellate standards of review for factual and legal errors, the court held there was no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and no error of law in the application of governing principles on insurance broker duties.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a contested mobility and custody dispute, the applicant father opposed the respondent mother relocating the parties’ child from Ontario to British Columbia.

The court considered the child’s best interests under s. 24 of the Family Law Act and the principles from Gordon v Goertz.

Evidence addressed the child’s primary caregiving history, educational needs, family support networks, and the practical consequences of relocation.

Although the Office of the Children’s Lawyer recommended that the child remain in Ontario, the court found the mother had been the primary caregiver and was best positioned to support the child’s developmental and educational needs.

Custody was granted to the mother with permission for the child to reside with her in Victoria, British Columbia, along with provisions for child support and future arrangements for access.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of an appeal from a Compliance Audit Committee decision.

The appellant sought a compliance audit of campaign finances for four municipal candidates under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Committee dismissed the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The added parties (the four candidates) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the usual practice of awarding costs to successful parties should apply.

The court rejected arguments that the appellant was a public interest litigant and found the added parties' participation in the appeal was necessary to defend their reputations against public allegations.

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought recovery of legal aid and privately retained legal fees after obtaining a more favourable result than her pre‑trial offer to settle.

The court considered the presumption of costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the cost consequences of an unaccepted offer to settle under Rule 18(14).

The court also found elements of bad faith conduct by the responding party, including non‑compliance with a prior consent order and attempts to minimize income through a closely related corporation.

Costs were fixed at $20,500 inclusive, enforceable as support through the Family Responsibility Office and also enforceable against the respondent’s corporation.

An elector applied to the Compliance Audit Committee for a compliance audit of four municipal election candidates' campaign finances, alleging various contraventions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The Committee dismissed the application.

On appeal, the court considered the appropriate standard of review, the meaning of "reasonable grounds," and whether the candidates had contravened the Act.

The court found that the Committee was entitled to deference as an expert body and applied a reasonableness standard.

The court upheld the Committee's decision, finding no reasonable grounds to believe the candidates had contravened the Act, as they had promptly returned improper contributions upon becoming aware of them and any filing errors were unintentional and did not materially affect the public's ability to review campaign finances.