Luigi De Lisio

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 father brought a motion to change a final order that had granted custody to the mother.

Following the original order, the mother repeatedly made unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, resulting in the child being placed in the father's interim custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's inability to foster a positive relationship between the child and the father, and the emotional harm caused by her persistent false allegations.

The father was granted sole custody, the mother's access was ordered to remain supervised, and the father's child and spousal support obligations were terminated.

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 an appeal where the appellant wife was successful, the parties agreed on consent to set aside the trial costs disposition.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the trial judge determine the costs of the proceedings below, as well as the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, bearing in mind the appellant's success.

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.

The parties separated and the central issue was the equalization of their jointly-owned physiotherapy clinic.

The application judge valued the business by averaging two competing expert figures and ordered the appellant to buy out the respondent's share.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Family Law Act, a judge cannot order a buyout of jointly-owned property without consent; the property must be sold.

The court also found the valuation method flawed and ordered the business listed for sale at the respondent's expert's valuation figure, with an accounting to follow.

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.

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.

The parties separated and sought equalization of net family property, primarily disputing the valuation of their jointly owned physiotherapy clinic partnership.

The applicant presented an expert business valuation, while the respondent disputed the valuation but did not provide her own expert report.

The court averaged the expert's valuation and the respondent's proposed valuation to determine the partnership's value.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant for his half of the partnership rather than ordering its sale, and resolved several minor financial adjustments between the parties.

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.