Luigi De Lisio

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.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a municipal election compliance audit, the added parties (the candidates) sought costs against the appellant.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that she was a public interest litigant immune from costs, finding she continued to pursue abandoned and technical allegations on appeal.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $12,600 for the three represented candidates and $1,000 for the self-represented candidate.

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.

The appellants appealed an order finding that their commercial lease was not renewed and had not become a yearly tenancy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the tenancy did not become a yearly tenancy requiring six months' notice because the lease contained a no-overholding clause.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellant appealed an order treating a previous order regarding child support and rescission of arrears as final.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting that the previous endorsement and notice of motion did not suggest the relief was sought only on an interim basis.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police and the Crown.

The trial judge found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges related to an illegal firearms transaction, despite minor discrepancies in descriptions and a late-disclosed alibi.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting that the discrepancies were matters for a trier of fact and did not undermine the existence of reasonable and probable grounds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing to permit him to call his wife as a witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error given the lengthy delays, the failure to list the wife in the affidavit of documents, the failure to notify opposing counsel until the date of trial, and the wife's unavailability on the first day of trial.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision to remove and replace one executor, Dorino Susin, with Amita Rahman, while declining to remove Fermino Susin.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasoning or conclusion, nor in the costs award to the trustee.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim and dismissing their action, which was obtained via an ex parte motion by the respondent Centrecorp.

The Court of Appeal found it inappropriate for Centrecorp to proceed ex parte when the appellants had requested a 7-day extension to answer undertakings and asked to be advised if the extension was refused.

The appeal was allowed and the order set aside, conditional upon the appellants paying outstanding costs orders by a specified date.

The appellants, Ferri and Mammoliti, were charged with extortion and theft after removing and demanding payment for the return of approximately 2,000 boxes of bank records from a building Ferri had purchased from the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

After the criminal charges were withdrawn or quashed, the appellants sued the police and Crown attorneys for malicious prosecution, false arrest, negligence, and Charter breaches.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing all claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the police and Crown had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute and whether they acted with malice.

The dismissal of the false arrest and imprisonment claims was upheld as statute-barred.