Luigi Di Pierdomenico

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding increased child support for his two daughters, arguing procedural unfairness and errors in quantum.

He contended that the trial judge should not have awarded Guidelines support without a formal application and that the children should support their own university education through employment and loans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural prejudice as the appellant was aware of the issues and had examined the children at trial.

The Court also upheld the quantum of support, noting the trial judge properly accounted for the children's earnings and the terms of the parties' separation agreement.

The appellant, a police officer, brought an action against the police association, the police board, and various officers for workplace-related complaints.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose from the employment relationship and was governed by the collective agreement and the Police Services Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the legislative scheme provides a comprehensive mechanism for resolving such disputes, including the appointment of a conciliation officer under section 123(1) of the Act.

The appellant, a small contractor, appealed a trial judgment regarding a complex construction dispute over a marina dredging project.

The trial judge had dismissed most of the appellant's claims and awarded punitive costs against a co-defendant, along with a Bullock order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on the merits, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the Court allowed the appeals regarding costs, holding that the test for solicitor-and-client costs was not met and that a Bullock order was inappropriate in the circumstances.

Costs were varied to a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff sued the defendant lawyer, Highley, and his insurer, LPIC, for professional negligence based on discussions Highley had with the plaintiff's lawyer concerning a priorities motion.

Highley had been retained by LPIC to defend another lawyer in a related matter, and the interests of Highley's client and the plaintiff were aligned at the time.

The motion judge refused to grant summary judgment dismissing the action against Highley and LPIC.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment, holding that a lawyer does not owe a duty of care to a non-client represented by their own counsel, even when their interests are aligned, due to a lack of proximity and compelling policy reasons.

The estate of the deceased insured appealed an arbitrator's decision denying ongoing caregiver benefits.

The estate argued that the deceased's death constituted an 'impairment' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, entitling the estate to ongoing caregiver benefits for expenses incurred after her death.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that caregiver benefits, like income replacement and medical benefits, are payable to the insured person and terminate upon the insured person's death.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment following the respondent being noted in default.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The Court directed a reference to determine equalization of net family properties, noting uncontradicted evidence of the respondent's pension.

The Court also ordered the respondent to pay $100 per month for the children's special expenses.

The Court dismissed the appeal regarding spousal support, finding the award within the acceptable range, and dismissed the tort claim for infliction of nervous shock due to a lack of causal link.

The insured person was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident.

Her estate applied for statutory accident benefits, including caregiver benefits, arguing that death constitutes an 'impairment' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing that death is distinct from impairment and that post-mortem benefits are limited to death and funeral benefits.

The arbitrator held that death is not an impairment for the purpose of qualifying for caregiver benefits, as interpreting it as such would create absurdities and contradict the clear distinction between death and impairment in the Insurance Act.

The appellant appealed a judgment dealing with spousal support and ancillary orders after his pleadings were struck at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the spousal support amount of $1,515 per month, finding the appellant had notice of the amount in issue despite the Notice of Application claiming less.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decisions not to time-limit support, to defer review for three years, and to change access drop-off points.

The appeal was allowed only to set aside the order regarding pension benefits due to a lack of evidence, and to correct a typographical error in the support amount.

The appellant sought leave to appeal an interim arbitration order that denied his claim for interim benefits to cover first-class airfare and hotel accommodations for a trip to Italy.

The arbitrator had found that the appellant failed to demonstrate the necessity or urgency of the expenses.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal, holding that appeals from interim orders are generally not permitted under Rule 46.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code to avoid delay and minimize costs.

The Delegate concluded that the dispute would be best addressed at a full arbitration hearing rather than through an interim appeal.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

A dispute arose regarding the calculation of the applicant's pre-accident earning capacity and the deductibility of Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefits from his loss of earning capacity benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's pre-accident earning capacity should be based on his actual pre-accident salary, not an estimated wage for a modified position, pursuant to section 29(1) of the Schedule.

The arbitrator also held that CPP benefits are not deductible from loss of earning capacity benefits, following the Court of Appeal's decision in Cugliari.

The insurer was ordered to pay interest on overdue benefits and a special award of 25 per cent for unreasonably withholding payment.

The applicant, who sustained a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought interim statutory accident benefits to cover the cost of upgrading his and his wife's airline tickets to first class and for hotel accommodations during a trip to Italy to visit family.

The applicant argued these expenses were necessary for his rehabilitation and to avoid overstimulation.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion for interim benefits, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite need, necessity, or urgency, as the trip was voluntary and the 'emergent situation' was created by the applicant's own actions.