Salvatore Mannella

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking $140,000 in interim disbursements from the respondent husband to cover business valuations, real estate appraisals, and anticipated legal fees.

The court found the requests for valuation and appraisal costs lacked specificity and were premature given the early stage of financial disclosure.

However, the court awarded $40,000 in interim disbursements for imminent legal fees, finding the applicant lacked the means to fund the litigation and the advance was necessary to level the playing field.

Three lien claimants brought a motion in a receivership proceeding to determine the proper interpretation of s. 78(2) of the Construction Act regarding priority over building mortgages.

The claimants argued they were entitled to priority for the holdback deficiency against each building mortgage individually, effectively multiplying their priority amount.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the lien claimants' priority is limited to the extent of the single deficiency in the owner's holdback over all building mortgages combined, as multiplying the priority would be contrary to the statutory scheme and unfairly prejudice subsequent encumbrancers.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support following the breakdown of a 14-year relationship.

The respondent argued the applicant was intentionally under-employed and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant had a good arguable case for entitlement on non-compensatory grounds, noting her age, health issues, and limited employment prospects.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $1,809 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Cindy Cordi and Carlo Cordi separated after over three decades of marriage.

Cindy sought divorce, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and damages for alleged abusive behavior.

She also claimed a beneficial interest in a farmhouse owned by Carlo's father, Vincenzo Cordi, or, alternatively, unjust enrichment for contributions made to it.

The court granted divorce, awarded Cindy spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range ($3,078 per month indefinitely), and an equalization payment of $5,690.07.

The court imputed income to both parties for support calculations, finding Carlo received undeclared cash and Cindy was intentionally underemployed.

Cindy's claims for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering, and her claims for a trust or unjust enrichment regarding the farmhouse, were dismissed.

The applicant sought urgent relief regarding access to their fifteen-month-old child, Samuel, including unsupervised access and a modified 2-2-3 schedule.

The respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent and brought a cross-motion for continued primary residence and the existing interim access schedule.

The court, applying the "urgency" test from the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession during the COVID-19 pandemic, found the initial access issue urgent but the request for an equal time-sharing schedule was not.

The court expanded the applicant's interim unsupervised access schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' prior co-parenting involvement, while noting the Children's Aid Society found no ongoing violence.

The applicant's request for a 2/2/5 schedule was adjourned for a more fulsome record.

The appellant contractor appealed the dismissal of its claim for an unpaid final invoice for renovation work.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed both the contractor's claim for payment and the homeowners' counterclaim for deficiencies, finding insufficient evidence for both.

On appeal, the Superior Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law by requiring supporting receipts for the invoice when the invoice itself, coupled with the appellant's credible testimony and the respondents' admission of receipt, was sufficient evidence.

The court also noted the respondents' failure to properly plead or cross-examine on the invoice's quantum.

The appeal was granted, and judgment was substituted for the appellant, deducting only the cost of disputed heaters.

The respondents' unappealed claim for deficiencies was not reconsidered.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant who was successful in the main action, sought full indemnity costs from the defendants.

The plaintiff claimed costs for his time expended in litigation, calculated at an hourly rate, plus disbursements and HST.

The defendants opposed, arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of lost remuneration (opportunity cost) as required for self-represented litigants under *Fong v. Chan* and *Mustang Investigations Inc. v. Ironside*.

The court, bound by these precedents, denied costs for the plaintiff's personal time due to the lack of evidence of opportunity cost, but awarded fixed costs previously ordered by a Master, and allowed most disbursements, disallowing some travel and "Tier 1 Time" claims.

Dirm 2010 Inc. was substantially successful in a construction lien trial, recovering over $1.3 million.

This decision addresses the issue of costs.

The court, Master C. Albert, fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, considering factors such as the principle of indemnity, reasonable expectation of the payor, complexity, importance of issues, and proportionality.

Dirm's failure to make a formal settlement offer under Rule 49 resulted in a $6,000 deduction from the awarded costs.

The court also adjusted counsel's hourly rates, reduced the time claimed for a junior lawyer due to excessive docketed time as a student, and disallowed costs for two lawyers attending trial.

Costs were fixed at $354,151.19 payable by Prestressed Systems Incorporated to Dirm 2010 Inc.

The plaintiff sought a proportionate share of funds deposited into court following the settlement of prior litigation, based on a written 'Acknowledgement' agreement and his financial contributions.

The defendants argued for a prior oral agreement granting priority repayment to their fathers who loaned money for security for costs, and that an express trust was created.

The court found that the 'Acknowledgement' provided for reimbursement based on proportionate monetary contributions, rejecting the defendants' claim of a prior oral agreement for priority repayment to the fathers and finding no express trust.

The plaintiff was awarded 38.37% of the disputed funds, and his claim for exemplary damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Otomic Contractors Ltd., sought partial indemnity costs after successfully claiming damages and upholding a construction lien in a four-and-a-half-day trial.

The defendant, Royal 7 Developments Ltd., opposed the plaintiff's claim for $120,902.32, arguing over-preparation and an excessive hourly rate.

The court, applying principles of judicial discretion, reasonableness, and proportionality under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's requested hours disproportionately high.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in fees plus HST and disbursements, totaling $94,724.74 after a credit for a prior costs award.

The Applicant sought to remove the Respondent's counsel, Mr. Salvatore Mannella, from the record, alleging he was a key witness regarding the Respondent's alleged non-disclosure in a previous separation agreement proceeding and had intimate knowledge of family businesses.

The Respondent opposed, arguing privilege, availability of evidence from other sources, and prematurity.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, emphasizing the reluctance to interfere with choice of counsel, the privileged nature of the information sought, and the availability of alternative disclosure methods.

Otomic Contractors Ltd. (Otomic), an excavating contractor, sued Royal 7 Developments Ltd. (Royal 7), a property owner and developer, for $217,945.74 in unpaid excavation work on a multi-phased condominium project and sought a construction lien.

Royal 7 counterclaimed for $273,700.31, alleging Otomic failed to complete work and overcharged for volumes, forcing Royal 7 to hire a related company, Toocor Ltd., to finish.

The court found that Otomic's truck count method for billing was reasonable and accepted, and that Royal 7's payments had become slow and holdbacks unpaid, leading to the breakdown.

The court dismissed Royal 7's counterclaim, finding no overcharge and that Otomic was not responsible for Toocor's costs due to the non-arm's length relationship and Royal 7's failure to formally terminate or request Otomic's return.

The court granted Otomic's claim for $217,945.74 and declared its construction lien valid.

Following a long motion concerning temporary and retroactive spousal support, the court determined costs.

The primary issue in the underlying motion involved imputing income to both parties and relied on competing expert reports from income valuators.

Although the applicant was successful in obtaining a temporary spousal support order, neither party’s offer to settle closely matched the outcome.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering factors such as complexity, counsel rates, time spent, and reasonableness of behaviour, the court reduced the applicant’s claimed costs.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 plus HST and limited disbursements, while the substantial expert report expense was deferred to trial for determination.

The applicant father brought a motion to permit questioning of the respondent mother in a family law proceeding involving custody of their child.

The mother brought a cross-motion for interim custody and other relief.

The court reviewed the divergent case law on whether questioning should be permitted under Family Law Rule 20(5).

Finding that questioning is a valuable tool to test contradictory affidavit evidence and narrow issues, the court granted the motion, allowing each party to question the other for up to two hours, subject to specific subject matter limitations.

The court also granted parts of the mother's cross-motion on consent, including orders for child care expenses and financial disclosure, and adjourned the balance of her motion.

Following earlier findings that the respondent parent had frustrated court‑ordered access and had been found in contempt, the court considered whether the contempt had been purged and whether sanctions such as suspension of child support or probationary conditions should be imposed.

Evidence showed that several access visits eventually occurred and the child, now 15, expressed a preference to arrange contact directly with the father.

The court found the respondent had made genuine efforts and successfully purged the contempt.

The court declined to suspend child support and ordered that future access be arranged directly between the child and the father, with the respondent facilitating transportation and encouraging the relationship.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent’s unreasonable conduct that necessitated repeated court attendances.

In a complex construction lien dispute involving multiple related actions arising from the redevelopment of a municipal facility, several parties brought a motion to vary a prior case management order to establish a trial sequence.

The consolidated litigation involved lien claims, bond claims, and related economic loss and trust claims among a municipality, a general contractor, sub‑trades, architects, and bonding parties.

The moving parties sought to try the sub‑trades’ lien claims first, followed by the general contractor’s lien claim and then the remaining actions.

The court held that a case management judge has broad procedural authority under Rule 77 to manage litigation efficiently and may vary earlier procedural orders where new circumstances arise.

Considering a conditional settlement offer and the potential for significantly shortening the litigation, the court granted the motion and ordered the proposed trial sequence.

In a family law proceeding concerning parenting time, the court considered whether the respondent had purged a prior finding of contempt related to failure to facilitate access between the child and the applicant father.

Evidence showed that although the child was brought to the access location, arrangements were made for adult siblings to immediately retrieve him, preventing any meaningful access.

The court found the respondent had not purged her contempt and had conspired to frustrate the access order.

The court emphasized the Divorce Act principle promoting maximum contact between children and both parents and expressed concern about ongoing obstruction of access.

The matter was adjourned to permit the respondent to show cause why child support should not be suspended as a sanction and to provide financial disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of financial records from a non‑party corporation, including financial statements, shareholder agreements, and accounting records.

The plaintiff argued the records were necessary to quantify damages arising from alleged breach of an oral employment agreement and fiduciary duties by former employees who allegedly diverted business.

The court held that production from a non‑party is exceptional and requires proof of relevance to a material issue and unfairness if production is denied.

Because the plaintiff elected to claim disgorgement of profits only from the named defendants and not the non‑party corporation, and there was no evidence that customers were diverted to the non‑party, the relevance requirement was not met.

The court further found the motion attempted to circumvent an earlier ruling denying the addition of the non‑party as a defendant due to the limitation period.

The motion for non‑party production was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt alleging that the respondent failed to comply with a court order requiring her to transport the parties’ child to an access visit with the father.

The respondent argued that the child refused to attend and that she encouraged him but could not physically force him.

The court held that a custodial parent must require a child to attend court‑ordered access despite the child’s stated wishes, and that merely asking or encouraging the child is insufficient.

The evidence demonstrated that the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to comply with the order, including failing to personally transport the child or arrange alternative transportation when offered.

The respondent was found in contempt of court under Rule 31 of the Family Law Rules.

Following a family law trial concerning access and household items, the successful party sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the applicant’s costs outline and found the claimed amount reasonable.

The respondent, who was self‑represented, filed extensive submissions largely addressing issues unrelated to the matters litigated at trial.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs for the trial in the amount claimed.