Peter Brian Cozzi

The defendant ruptured a gas main while excavating without calling for a utility locate.

The plaintiff successfully appealed the dismissal of its negligence claim to the Divisional Court.

The defendant subsequently brought a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The motion was dismissed because the proposed appeal was largely fact-based, lacked merit, and did not raise an arguable question of law or a matter of public importance.

The appellant, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for damages against the respondent contractor who ruptured a gas main while excavating with a backhoe.

The trial judge had found no liability, reasoning that the gas main was not buried at the required depth and a utility locate would not have prevented the incident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

The respondent breached his statutory duty and standard of care by failing to obtain a locate before digging, which was the sole cause of the damage.

Judgment was granted in favour of the appellant for the repair costs.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a default hearing to enforce child and spousal support arrears of over $292,000 against the respondent payor.

The payor argued he lacked the ability to pay and sought to encumber a property held in his deceased parents' estate, of which he was the sole executor and beneficiary.

The court found the payor failed to provide full and frank disclosure, thereby failing to rebut the statutory presumption of ability to pay under s. 41(9) of the FRSAEA.

The court ordered the arrears secured against the property, permitted the payor to list it for sale, and ordered ongoing monthly payments of $1,250 under threat of incarceration.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought an adjournment of the arbitration hearing to allow his psychiatrist to respond to the insurer's catastrophic impairment assessments.

The insurer opposed the adjournment, arguing the applicant had ample time to respond.

The arbitrator found that the insurer had failed to properly serve the catastrophic reports on the applicant's counsel or litigation guardian, causing unavoidable delay.

The adjournment was granted with conditions, and the insurer was ordered to pay $750 in expenses due to its role in delaying the process.

Following a family law trial concerning constructive trust, spousal support, and child support, the respondent sought costs of the proceeding alleging unreasonable conduct by the opposing party.

The court reviewed the costs framework under Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules, including the presumptive entitlement of a successful party to costs and the relevance of litigation conduct.

Although the responding party had some procedural shortcomings, the court found the moving party had also engaged in conduct contributing to the dispute and that the opposing party had achieved greater success at trial.

In the circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either side.

No order as to costs was made.

In a matrimonial proceeding involving a lodge business subject to a court‑appointed receivership, the respondent husband moved to remove the receiver, stay payments, and seek contempt findings against the applicant wife.

The wife cross‑applied for transfer of the property into her name and other interim relief including support.

The court held that removal of a receiver requires strong evidence of bad faith or misconduct and found no basis to discharge the receiver despite disputes over expenditures and alleged bias.

The court declined to transfer ownership of the property or make certain enforcement orders but granted modest interim spousal support and ordered financial disclosure.

Several ancillary requests, including contempt findings and other relief, were denied pending trial.

Following a 17-year common law relationship, the applicant sought a constructive trust over the respondent's share of the proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned home, along with child and spousal support.

The applicant had previously used a $275,000 motor vehicle accident settlement to pay off the joint mortgage and fund improvements, which the court found was a gift.

However, the court found a resulting trust in the applicant's favour regarding a subsequent remortgaging of the home used to purchase assets solely in the respondent's name.

The court awarded the applicant $25,132.34 for the trust claim, $5,436 in retroactive child support, and $40,000 in lump sum spousal support to compensate for the economic disadvantage suffered from dissipating her settlement funds.

The applicant sought to prohibit the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) from enforcing support arrears after he and his wife consented to an order extinguishing all arrears and withdrew from the FRO.

Prior to the consent order, the applicant made a support payment that was returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF), but the FRO had already disbursed the funds to the wife.

The court dismissed the application, finding that under sections 57 and 58 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, the FRO has an independent statutory right to continue enforcement to recover the NSF amount as reimbursement for monies paid out, regardless of the parties' private agreement to extinguish support arrears.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside two previous orders under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

He argued the motion judge failed to take a contextual approach to setting aside a default judgment and that the previous judge lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that alleged legal errors or jurisdictional issues are not 'mistakes' correctable under Rule 25(19)(b), but rather appealable errors.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for abuse of process against the bank.

The appellant alleged the bank brought bankruptcy proceedings for the improper purpose of purchasing his share in a company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant had the opportunity to purchase the assets, did not object to the court-approved sale, and a previous judge had already struck similar allegations and found no improper purpose.

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

The insurer refused to pay, arguing the applicant was not injured in an 'accident'.

The applicant subsequently died, and his relatives indicated they did not intend to pursue the application.

The insurer moved to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for want of prosecution, finding that no one with an interest in the estate intended to pursue it.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant's paralegal abandoned his practice and failed to attend a scheduled hearing, resulting in a conditional dismissal and costs order.

The applicant later retained new counsel and reached a settlement with the insurer.

The applicant subsequently attempted to resile from the settlement without following the proper rescission procedures.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the arbitration based on the settlement.

The arbitrator found the settlement binding and dismissed the arbitration.

Costs were awarded against the applicant and his former paralegal jointly for the missed hearing, and against the applicant alone for the dismissal motion.

The appellant sued the respondents for damages arising from the alleged wrongful repudiation of an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The respondents had originally agreed to purchase the home from a builder, but the builder's agreement prohibited assignment or sale without consent.

The appellant and her husband, an experienced real estate broker, knew of this prohibition but still entered into an agreement with the respondents to purchase the property.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the agreement was illegal as it was designed to defeat the builder's rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding that the courts will not assist a plaintiff in recovering damages for the breach of an agreement intended to circumvent the known rights of an innocent third party.

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

The applicant failed to appear at the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator stayed the proceeding to allow the applicant time to provide an explanation, but no correspondence was received and mail sent to the applicant's last known address was returned.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, applied for statutory accident benefits and subsequently for arbitration.

He failed to appear at the hearing, having sent a letter requesting an adjournment due to alleged family emergencies, but subsequently lost contact with his counsel and the Commission.

The arbitrator refused to grant the adjournment immediately but declined the insurer's request to dismiss the application outright.

Instead, the arbitrator stayed the proceeding and ordered the applicant to provide justification for his absence and pay $750 in expenses to the insurer by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging the accident was staged and fraudulent.

In the substantive arbitration, the arbitrator found that an accident did occur, rejecting the insurer's fraud allegations, but dismissed the applicant's claim for benefits due to a failure to prove a compensable impairment and obfuscation of his health record.

In this subsequent decision on expenses, the arbitrator held that neither party was entitled to their general expenses.

However, because the insurer raised serious, unproven allegations of fraud that unnecessarily prolonged the hearing, the insurer was ordered to reimburse the applicant for the cost of his expert report commissioned to rebut the staged accident theory.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging the accident was staged and the damage was caused by a blunt object.

The arbitrator found that while an incident involving the two vehicles did occur, the applicant failed to prove he suffered a compensable impairment arising from the accident.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found that the applicant made wilful false statements regarding his medical history and prior accidents, thereby forfeiting his right to recover indemnity under section 233(1)(c) of the Insurance Act.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The appellant husband was ordered to discharge the mortgage on the matrimonial home and arrange substitute security for a joint line of credit.

He failed to comply, defaulted on payments, and made a voluntary assignment in bankruptcy.

The motions judge found him in contempt and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued that compliance would constitute an unlawful preference under bankruptcy legislation and that the order was for the payment of money, precluding a contempt finding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's late invocation of bankruptcy was an impermissible collateral attack on a valid court order, and that the order did not require the payment of money.

The six-month sentence was upheld due to the appellant's continuous and cavalier non-compliance.

The appellant husband sought a stay of enforcement of a warrant of committal for contempt pending his appeal.

He had been found in contempt for failing to remove a mortgage and a joint line of credit from the matrimonial home as ordered in a family law judgment, and was sentenced to six months in jail.

The husband argued he was insolvent and could not legally comply with the order without creating a fraudulent preference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious question to be tried regarding the contempt finding, but expedited the appeal to address the length of the incarceration period.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits and medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging the applicant was involved in an insurance fraud scheme and had misrepresented his pre-accident and post-accident employment.

The arbitrator found the applicant entirely unreliable, noting he had pleaded guilty to fraud in relation to false employment confirmation forms.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries, was not disabled, and had been actively employed in auto body shops during the benefit period.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to repay $27,600 in benefits obtained by fraud, plus interest, and to pay the insurer's $2,000 arbitration assessment.