Leonard Ricchetti

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired driving after being acquitted at trial of the related “over 80” offence.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and improperly reversed the burden of proof in dismissing a Charter s. 8 challenge to the breath demand.

The Superior Court held that, when read as a whole, the trial judge correctly found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand a breath sample.

Any misstatement regarding the burden of proof caused no miscarriage of justice, particularly since the appellant was acquitted on the over‑80 charge.

The appellate court further found no error in the trial judge’s factual or credibility findings and confirmed that impairment and over‑80 are distinct offences that may yield different verdicts.

The Crown brought an application for mandamus with certiorari in aid to seek the committal of the respondents on charges relating to a tractor trailer robbery.

The preliminary inquiry judge had discharged the respondents, finding insufficient evidence to commit them to trial.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence, specifically the similar fact evidence linking the respondents to other similar robberies.

The court concluded that the similar fact evidence, combined with cell phone location evidence, provided sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude the respondents were parties to the robbery.

The application was granted and the matter was directed back to the preliminary justice to commit the respondents.

In a family law motion arising from competing motions to change a prior consent final order, the moving party sought to terminate spousal support, set aside arrears, add the respondent’s new spouse as a party for disclosure and questioning, and amend his motion to change to raise additional issues including custody and access.

The court held that termination of spousal support could not be granted on the interlocutory motion.

The request to add the respondent’s new spouse as a party was dismissed because no claim was advanced against the proposed party and he had not been served.

The court emphasized the moving party’s ongoing breach of existing support orders and concluded the attempt to add the new spouse would delay trial.

Leave was granted only to amend pleadings to properly set out issues already identified in a prior consent order, and the matter was directed to proceed promptly to trial.

The Crown applied for mandamus with certiorari in aid to quash a preliminary inquiry decision discharging the accused on robbery-related charges arising from a tractor‑trailer robbery.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider admissible similar fact evidence from other robberies when determining whether there was sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial.

The court held that the failure to consider the whole of the evidence, including potentially admissible similar fact evidence, constituted a jurisdictional error.

After analyzing the similarities between several robberies and the linkage evidence, the court concluded the similar fact evidence was admissible and that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the accused were parties to the July 2 robbery.

The discharges were quashed and the matter was returned to the preliminary inquiry justice with directions to commit the accused to trial.

The parties separated in 2012 and maintained a cooperative parenting arrangement for their two children until early 2015.

Conflict escalated, culminating in the respondent withholding the children from the applicant's scheduled parenting time and threatening to call the police.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for interim custody and access, and the respondent brought a counter-motion seeking primary residence.

The court rejected the respondent's unsubstantiated allegations of abuse and alienation, finding her actions were designed to gain an advantage in the proceeding.

The court granted joint interim custody and ordered a 50/50 week-about parenting schedule, finding it to be in the best interests of the children.

The court sentenced the offender after jury convictions for incest and sexual assault against his daughter, committed repeatedly over approximately two and a half years.

The abuse began when the victim was a teenager brought from Jamaica to Canada against her wishes, and it resulted in two pregnancies and two children, both confirmed by DNA testing.

Applying the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code and the appellate authorities on prolonged sexual abuse of children by adults in positions of trust, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were the dominant objectives and that the case fell at the high end of the sentencing range.

A sentence of 10 years for incest and 6 years for sexual assault, concurrent, was imposed, with 6 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA, and non-communication orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim in a construction lien action.

The defendant had repeatedly failed to produce financial documentation relevant to its delay counterclaim, despite multiple requests and a court order, resulting in the adjournment of four scheduled trial dates.

The court found that the defendant's actions were deliberate and calculated to delay the trial on the merits.

Applying Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that this was an exceptional case where striking the pleading was warranted to protect the administration of justice.

The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant spouse brought an urgent motion before a case conference seeking interim spousal support, interim child support, and an $8,000 advance on a potential equalization payment.

The respondent agreed to pay guideline child support but disputed the quantum of spousal support and opposed the advance.

The court held that while the applicant had prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the respondent’s financial obligations—including payment of substantial joint family debt and higher accommodation expenses—significantly reduced his ability to pay.

The court determined that strict adherence to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines is not mandatory on interim motions and must be balanced against the parties’ means and needs.

Interim spousal support was set at $700 per month and the request for an advance on equalization was refused.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a Mareva injunction freezing their assets in a civil fraud action involving alleged fraudulent factoring transactions worth approximately $6.5 million.

The court considered whether the plaintiff continued to demonstrate a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation.

Evidence showed that the moving defendants’ companies received substantial funds from entities involved in the fraud, that explanations for the transactions were unsupported by documentation, and that the alleged sale of a business appeared suspicious.

The court also noted conduct inconsistent with the injunction, including the use of undisclosed bank accounts.

The court held that the plaintiff continued to meet the requirements for a Mareva injunction.

On a pre-trial evidentiary motion in a joint heroin importation prosecution, one accused sought to exclude evidence that a small quantity of heroin was found in his home during a search warrant execution.

The co-accused advanced a cut-throat defence and argued the evidence was relevant to show that the applicant, not the co-accused, planned and knowingly imported the heroin.

The court held that, although the Crown could not lead the evidence as propensity evidence, different considerations applied where a co-accused tendered it in support of full answer and defence.

With an appropriate limiting instruction, the prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh the probative value, and the evidence was admissible.

The accused brought a mid-trial mistrial application in a jury trial, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel after his own cross-examination had gone badly.

The court held that although a trial judge has jurisdiction to entertain such an application, the appellate ineffective-assistance framework must be modified in the trial context because there is no verdict and defence strategy is still unfolding.

The accused bore the onus of proving the factual foundation for the allegations and establishing that counsel's incompetence had irrevocably compromised trial fairness such that any eventual verdict would likely be unreliable.

On the evidence, the allegations were found speculative, unsupported, and in several respects dishonest, while trial counsel's performance appeared prepared, focused, and competent.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a motion seeking a stay of charges alleging sexual offences against a child on the basis of unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Morin framework, the court assessed total Crown and institutional delay at approximately 17 months within an overall period of about 29 months and 21 days from charge to trial.

The court attributed a significant portion of the delay to the complainant's hospitalization and found only limited prejudice arising from stigma, legal expense, and restrictive bail terms.

Balancing the accused's interests against the strong societal interest in trying serious sexual offence allegations on their merits, the court held the delay was not unreasonable.

In a high-net-worth matrimonial dispute, the court addressed equalization, spousal support, a related corporate application, and a bankruptcy annulment.

The husband, who founded a highly successful international Halloween products business, engaged in extensive efforts to hide his income and assets in offshore companies, breached a Mareva injunction, and made a strategic assignment into bankruptcy to defeat his wife's claims.

The court imputed the husband's income at $1,400,000 per year, ordered an equalization payment of over $3.5 million, and awarded lump sum spousal support of nearly $6 million due to his history of non-compliance.

The court also annulled the husband's bankruptcy as an abuse of process and dismissed a related application by one of his offshore companies claiming beneficial ownership of an Ontario property.

In a high-conflict family trial, the court held that joint custody was unworkable and contrary to the children's best interests given prolonged parental conflict and an inability to communicate.

Sole custody was awarded to the father based on his demonstrated involvement, responsiveness to the children's educational and welfare needs, and greater likelihood of supporting the children's relationship with the other parent.

The court also resolved disputes over surnames, child support, section 7 expenses, and equalization-related claims concerning sale proceeds from the former jointly owned home.

Income was imputed to the mother, retroactive section 7 reimbursement was denied, and credits were granted to the father for mortgage overpayments, occupation rent, and personal property.

The plaintiff moved for an interlocutory injunction and Anton Piller relief against former senior employees, related corporations, and an IT contractor alleged to have misappropriated confidential business information and usurped a corporate opportunity.

The court found a strong prima facie case of contractual breach, fiduciary breach, direct competition, and improper removal and retention of hard drives and server data containing confidential investor, marketing, and business-planning information.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald injunction test and the Celanese framework for Anton Piller orders, the court held that irreparable harm would result from the defendants' entry into a unique market using the plaintiff's confidential materials, and that there was a real possibility relevant electronic evidence would be destroyed.

The injunction and Anton Piller order were granted.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to enforce a second mortgage arising from a Sharia-compliant financing structure arranged through an intermediary.

The central issue was whether the borrower's monthly payments were profit-only payments with the principal due at maturity, or principal repayments on an interest-free loan.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found the documentary record permitted a fair and just determination and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding principal, prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, enforcement fees, possession of the property, and costs to be addressed separately.

The father appealed a settlement conference order regarding custody and access, arguing he did not understand the agreement, was under duress, and the judge was biased.

The court rejected the claims of duress and bias but found that the order terminated certain access provisions from a previous order that were not discussed or agreed upon by the parties.

Because the order did not accurately reflect the parties' agreement and resulted in unintended changes to access, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to a different judge.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness and admissibility of statements made by the accused to Canada Border Services Agency officers during a secondary inspection at an airport following his return from abroad.

The defence argued that the statements were obtained in breach of Charter rights and should be excluded due to delayed rights warnings and the absence of audio or video recordings.

The court found that the accused was not constitutionally detained until contraband was discovered in concealed compartments of containers in his luggage, at which point he was immediately arrested and properly cautioned.

Several incriminating statements were spontaneous utterances and others were made in response to brief investigative questions rather than interrogation.

The court held the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and that the lack of recordings did not undermine admissibility in the circumstances.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendant as the estate trustee of her late husband's estate.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached his fiduciary duties, ignored preservation orders, and deliberately prejudiced her family law and trust claims by liquidating estate assets.

Although the court found sufficient facts to justify removal, it declined to exercise its discretion to do so because all estate assets had already been sold, the estate had no money to pay a new trustee, and replacing the trustee would delay the impending trial where the defendant's actions would be scrutinized.

The father brought a motion seeking sole custody and restricted access for the mother following the parties’ separation and ongoing disputes over parenting time.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking sole interim custody and equal parenting time after she unilaterally retained the children.

The court found no clear basis to prefer one parent over the other pending an investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

An interim order for joint custody was granted with equal parenting time on a rotating weekly schedule during the summer.

Issues of child support were adjourned pending further submissions.