Peter Brian Cozzi

The defendant Toronto Transit Commission brought a motion to compel the plaintiff Aldea to produce 18 documents listed in Schedule "A" of her affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff refused to obtain these documents without upfront payment from the TTC, arguing they were available at third-party offices.

The court found that by listing documents in Schedule "A", the plaintiff admitted their relevance and could not object to their production or impose terms.

The court reiterated that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to secure and produce documents relied upon in their claim at their own expense.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to obtain and produce the documents and pay costs to the TTC.

The Insurer requested an expense hearing following a 23-day arbitration in which all of the Applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed.

The Applicant argued that under the Licence Appeal Tribunal rules, costs should only be awarded for frivolous or vexatious behaviour.

The Arbitrator held that the pre-transition Dispute Resolution Practice Code and Expense Regulation applied.

Given the Insurer's complete success, largely due to extensive surveillance evidence, the Arbitrator found the Insurer was entitled to its expenses.

However, noting the consumer protection objective of the legislation, the Arbitrator declined to award the full $220,598.99 claimed, fixing the expenses at $110,834.37 to avoid creating a barrier to access to justice.

The insurer, having successfully defended an appeal regarding statutory accident benefits, sought its legal appeal expenses.

The appellant argued that under the transitional rules, the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice should apply to the expense request, which would preclude an award absent unreasonable or bad faith behaviour.

The Director's Delegate held that the pre-transition Insurance Act, regulations, and Dispute Resolution Practice Code continue to apply to appeals commenced before April 1, 2016, and that an expense determination is not a separate proceeding.

The insurer was awarded $4,000 in appeal expenses.

This motion concerned the plaintiff's request for leave to further amend its Statement of Claim to add new causes of action and a new defendant.

The court assessed the tenability of proposed claims for civil conspiracy, inducing breach of fiduciary duty, and trespass to property against a newly added defendant, Allen Wilford.

The court permitted amendments for inducing breach of fiduciary duty and trespass to chattels, including a devaluation claim, but struck the civil conspiracy claim due to insufficient pleading of an agreement and predominant purpose to injure.

The court also allowed the addition of 7887035 Canada Inc. as a defendant.

The plaintiff brought a tort action for a motor vehicle collision.

After a jury awarded nominal general damages (less than the statutory deductible) and past loss of income (reduced to zero by collateral benefits), the defendant brought a threshold motion to declare the plaintiff not entitled to non-pecuniary damages.

The court determined the threshold issue was not moot, despite the net zero award, for costs purposes.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a permanent serious impairment of an an important physical, mental, or psychological function, largely due to the plaintiff's exaggeration of symptoms and the expert witness's lack of impartiality.

Consequently, the defendant's threshold motion was granted, and the plaintiff's total damages were reduced to zero.

The defendant was deemed the successful party and awarded costs and disbursements.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that he was not catastrophically impaired and dismissing his claims for statutory accident benefits.

The appellant argued that the Arbitrator erred in relying on surveillance evidence and the respondent's medical experts rather than his own presentation at the hearing and his family's testimony.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator made no errors of law.

The Arbitrator was entitled to weigh the evidence, including surveillance videos showing the appellant engaging in complex activities that contradicted his family's testimony and his presentation to his own medical experts.

The appellant appealed an order staying an action against a court-appointed receiver and refusing leave to sue the receiver.

The appellant argued that the receiver had already consented to the action and that the motion judge erred in finding the test for leave was not met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the prior consent did not encompass the new claim for conversion arising from a subsequent agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court also found no error in the motion judge's discretionary refusal to grant leave, as there was no evidence that the appellant suffered damages.

Following an appeal decision regarding child and spousal support, the parties were directed to submit joint calculations of arrears.

As the parties failed to agree and submitted separate calculations, the Court of Appeal reviewed the submissions and adopted the appellant's calculations, fixing the total spousal and child support arrears owing by the respondent at $277,853.81 as of December 31, 2013.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's decision to retroactively vary a 2005 final support order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act.

The trial judge had eliminated substantial support arrears and ordered the wife to repay over $113,000 to the respondent husband, based on a finding that the husband's income had decreased prior to the 2005 order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the trial judge erred in principle by relying on pre-order circumstances and effectively rewarding the husband for his failure to make financial disclosure in 2005.

Applying the S. (D.B.) and P. (L.M.) principles, the Court found the husband's subsequent income reduction constituted a material change, but limited the retroactive relief due to his delay and non-disclosure.

The Court reinstated the child support arrears for the daughter, terminated child support for the son as of December 2010, and terminated spousal support as of January 2012, relieving the wife of any repayment obligation.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to add its principal as a plaintiff and the lawyer for the principal's ex-wife as a defendant, alleging conversion of property and actions that devalued the plaintiff's lodge business during a receivership.

The court allowed the amendments relating to conversion, finding they raised a tenable cause of action and were not clearly statute-barred, as discoverability was a triable issue.

However, the court dismissed the proposed amendment claiming damages for the devaluation of the lodge, finding it failed to plead a tenable cause of action for intentional interference with economic relations, conspiracy, or inducing breach of fiduciary duty, but granted leave to move again with fresh amendments.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, housekeeping, and attendant care, following a 2003 motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer relied on extensive surveillance video taken over four years showing the Applicant driving on highways, running errands, and performing complex tasks, which starkly contradicted the Applicant's presentation to medical assessors and his family's testimony that he was severely cognitively and physically impaired.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's medical evidence and family testimony unreliable due to the glaring inconsistencies with the objective surveillance evidence.

The Arbitrator preferred the Insurer's medical experts, concluded the Applicant was not catastrophically impaired, and dismissed all claims for benefits and a special award.

This was a costs decision following dismissal of a motion to remove defence counsel for alleged conflict of interest.

The court held the defendants were plainly the successful parties because the underlying motion had been dismissed.

The court found no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event and considered the defendants' prior offer to settle.

Costs were fixed at $6,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The plaintiff moved to remove defence counsel on the basis of an alleged conflict arising from an earlier discussion in which the plaintiff's representative said confidential financial information had been disclosed while considering whether to retain that lawyer on an unrelated matter.

Applying the framework from MacDonald Estate, the court accepted for the purposes of the motion that confidential information had been imparted, but found it was not attributable to a solicitor and client relationship.

The court also found the alleged information was only tenuously relevant to the current litigation, particularly given that the issue was raised only after a proposed security for costs motion.

The motion was dismissed because there was no evidence of a real risk that any confidential information would be used to the plaintiff's prejudice.

Following a motion to change in a family law matter, the court determined costs.

Although the responding party had been dilatory in pursuing the motion and providing financial disclosure, he was largely successful on the motion to change and therefore presumptively entitled to costs under rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The opposing party argued that circumstances justified rebutting the presumption and sought costs despite the outcome.

The court found no basis to depart from the ordinary rule of success, particularly given that the successful party had made a more generous offer to settle than the final judgment.

Modest partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful party.

The insurer, having successfully defended an appeal regarding statutory accident benefits, sought its appeal expenses.

The insured argued that the preparation time claimed by the insurer's counsel was excessive and that the maximum hourly rate under Rule 78 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code only applied to representatives of insureds.

The Director's Delegate agreed that the hourly rate should be adjusted to the Legal Aid rate and found that the appropriate amount for legal fees was $3,000, consistent with average awards for straightforward appeals.

The insured was ordered to pay the insurer $3,057.05 in total appeal expenses.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order for the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

The respondent challenged the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction, arguing that section 7 of the Partition Act directs such appeals to the Divisional Court.

The panel agreed it lacked jurisdiction as the Court of Appeal but, given the imminent trial date, was designated as a panel of the Divisional Court to hear the matter.

On the merits, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the sale order, noting the motions judge failed to explicitly address whether the sale would prejudice the appellant's rights under the Family Law Act and that a pre-trial sale was practically unnecessary.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought additional income replacement benefits, a physical rehabilitation treatment plan, and assessment costs from the respondent insurer.

The Arbitrator denied the claims, finding the appellant's evidence regarding his employment status, pre-accident income, and disability to be inconsistent and unreliable.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate confirmed the Arbitrator's decision, holding that the Arbitrator made no error of law in her assessment of the evidence and was not required to accept uncontradicted evidence.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to change the children’s primary residence, alter the parenting schedule, determine schooling, and terminate his child support obligations.

The court considered extensive evidence regarding one child’s serious behavioural disorders, professional assessments, and testimony from a family services worker indicating the need for stability, structure, and consistent parental supervision.

The court found that the mother had demonstrated ongoing inconsistency in attending appointments, follow-through with services, and providing stability, while the father presented a structured care plan including specialized educational programming.

Determining that the children’s best interests required urgent intervention, the court ordered that primary residence change to the father commencing September 1, 2013 and directed that the children attend a school capable of addressing the behavioural needs of one child.

The father’s child support obligation was terminated effective July 1, 2013, while the issue of potential support from the mother was adjourned and disclosure ordered.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter proceeded to an arbitration hearing, but the applicant failed to attend, communicate with the Commission, or provide instructions to his counsel.

As no evidence was presented to prove the applicant's claims, the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration.

The insurer was awarded its reasonable expenses and disbursements, assessed at $3,384.26, after a reduction for efficiencies gained from a related consolidated matter.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, a physical rehabilitation treatment plan, and the costs of two assessments.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence regarding his employment status, income, and continuing disability to be inconsistent and unreliable.

The arbitrator also found that the proposed treatment plan and assessments were not reasonably required or necessary.