Leonard Ricchetti

During a criminal trial for assault with a knife, the Crown brought an application to admit the complainant’s preliminary inquiry testimony through an audio recording rather than calling the witness at trial.

Medical evidence established that the witness had developed schizophrenia and was suffering from psychosis, paranoia, and disorganized thinking, rendering him unable to testify and likely to suffer psychological harm if required to attend court.

The court held that the requirements of s. 715(1)(c) of the Criminal Code were satisfied because the witness was unable to testify and had previously testified under oath with full opportunity for cross‑examination.

The court further found that the evidence met the principled exception to hearsay, satisfying both necessity and threshold reliability.

The prior testimony from the preliminary inquiry was therefore admitted.

Following an application regarding the interpretation of a municipal zoning by-law, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The applicant argued it should not pay costs as a public interest litigant.

The court found the applicant failed to establish it was a public interest litigant, as the issues were predominantly local rather than of broad public interest.

Due to divided success on the issues, the court reduced the costs awarded to the respondent municipality.

The court declined to award separate costs to the added corporate respondent, finding its interests were adequately represented by the municipality.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the municipality.

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer in a family law proceeding.

The custody and access issues had already been resolved, leaving only financial issues.

The husband had repeatedly failed to provide required financial disclosure, breaching multiple consent orders and the Family Law Rules over a period of more than two years.

The court found the husband's breaches to be deliberate, flagrant, and prejudicial to the wife.

Concluding that this was an exceptional case where the husband's conduct prevented the case from being dealt with justly, the court granted the motion and struck the husband's Answer.

In matrimonial litigation involving equalization claims and control of a seasonal motel business, the husband sought authorization to complete an agreement of purchase and sale of the property to a third‑party purchaser, disclosure from the court‑appointed receiver, and temporary permission to travel outside Canada to attend his mother's funeral.

The court found the purchaser to be a bona fide arm’s‑length third party and held the negotiated purchase price reasonable given the business’s financial losses, receivership, and lack of competing offers.

The court granted disclosure from the receiver and permitted the husband to travel subject to security conditions due to support and costs arrears.

It further ordered the wife to remove the matrimonial home designation and authorized completion of the sale with proceeds to be paid into court pending resolution of the family claims.

The applicant, charged with numerous serious offences including home invasion, unlawful confinement, and firearms offences, applied for a detention review after spending approximately 2.5 years in pre-trial custody.

He argued that the delay constituted a material change in circumstances and that the original show cause justice erred in principle by detaining him on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that much of the delay was attributable to the applicant himself.

The court also upheld the original justice's findings that detention was necessary for the protection of the public and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, given the horrific nature of the allegations and the strength of the Crown's case.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine into Canada after returning from Jamaica with two suitcases containing frozen fish stuffed with over a kilogram of cocaine.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused knew the cocaine was in his luggage.

The accused claimed he was bringing the fish back for his girlfriend and was unaware of the drugs.

The court rejected his testimony as not credible, citing his suspicious interactions with the supplier in Jamaica, his failure to inspect the packages, and his false customs declaration.

The court concluded that the only rational inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused knew he was importing cocaine, and found him guilty.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, wilful damage to property, and uttering a death threat arising from a road rage incident involving a dump truck and a pickup truck on a highway.

Evidence from an independent witness established that both drivers engaged in aggressive driving, including cutting each other off, braking to obstruct the other, and throwing objects.

The court rejected the accused’s testimony and found that his operation of the dump truck constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver under s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of assault with a weapon, mischief causing damage, or uttering threats.

The accused was convicted of dangerous driving and acquitted on the remaining counts.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to issue a building permit for a waste processing facility.

The applicant argued the facility was not a permitted 'Dry Industry' use and lacked required municipal service connections.

The Superior Court of Justice found the applicant had standing and upheld the CBO's reasonable determination that the facility was a permitted use.

However, the court modified the building permit to mandate that the facility be fully connected to municipal water and sewer services prior to occupancy, as required by the zoning by-law.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking to terminate spousal support and reduce child support on the basis of his early retirement at age 65.

The court found the father lacked credibility, having deliberately chosen to retire early to avoid his support obligations while secretly continuing part-time employment.

The court held that the voluntary early retirement did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The father's income was imputed at his pre-retirement level, and his motions to terminate spousal support, reduce life insurance, and eliminate health benefits were dismissed.

The court also determined the parties' proportionate shares for the children's section 7 post-secondary expenses.

The accused required a Tagalog interpreter for a criminal trial, but there were no accredited Tagalog interpreters in Ontario.

Defence counsel objected to the court conducting a competency inquiry into non‑accredited interpreters, relying on prior decisions suggesting that only accredited interpreters should be used.

The court held that s. 14 of the Charter guarantees a competent or qualified interpreter, not necessarily an accredited one, and determined that a competency inquiry into proposed interpreters was appropriate.

The matter was adjourned to allow arrangements for a conditionally accredited Tagalog interpreter who had previously interpreted at the preliminary inquiry to attend.

The accused waived s. 11(b) Charter rights for the adjournment period.

The accused was charged with failing to stop after an accident, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a series of collisions while driving with low blood sugar due to diabetes.

The accused admitted the actus reus but argued he lacked the necessary mens rea because he became disoriented due to hypoglycemia.

The court found the accused was aware that his blood sugar level had become low and nevertheless made a conscious decision to continue driving despite knowing the risks.

Expert evidence established that symptoms of disorientation would arise minutes after awareness of low blood sugar, leaving sufficient time to pull over.

The court held the accused’s conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent driver and found him guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, but acquitted him of failing to stop.

A father brought a motion seeking to vary a 2002 interim custody order and formalize a long‑standing parenting arrangement under which the children primarily resided with him during school weeks and with the mother on weekends.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking to set aside a recent temporary order granting the father custody and instead sought interim custody and a week‑about parenting schedule.

The court found that, despite the earlier order granting the mother custody, the parties had for many years followed a different residential routine and that continuation of the original order was no longer in the children’s best interests.

Emphasizing stability during the school year and the children’s educational and developmental needs, the court concluded that the established routine—school weeks with the father and weekends with the mother—should continue on an interim basis.

During a blended voir dire, the Crown sought a ruling that the accused’s videotaped police statement was voluntary, while the defence argued that it was obtained through inducement and in violation of the accused’s Charter rights under ss. 7 and 10(b).

The court found the police interview was conversational, non‑threatening, and did not involve any improper quid pro quo inducement capable of overbearing the accused’s will.

The accused had been repeatedly cautioned about his right to silence and had consulted duty counsel before the interview.

The court concluded the statement was voluntary and that no Charter breaches occurred.

Even if a breach had occurred, the statement would have been admitted under s. 24(2) after applying the Grant factors.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the court received written submissions on costs.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $64,000 each.

The self-represented plaintiff, despite being unsuccessful, also sought costs and raised numerous objections to the defendants' claims.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claim for costs but reduced the defendants' claims to account for their unsuccessful summary judgment motion, a late pleading amendment, and unrecoverable items.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 payable by the plaintiff to each of the two active defendants.

A dispute arose during a passing of accounts over whether funds held in joint bank accounts between a deceased parent and two adult children formed part of the estate.

The accounts were opened with rights of survivorship and funded exclusively by the deceased.

Applying the principles in Pecore v. Pecore, the court considered evidence of intention, bank documentation, control of funds, tax treatment, and surrounding circumstances.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted because the deceased intended to gift the beneficial interest in the joint accounts inter vivos.

The evidence further supported that the surviving joint account holders were to distribute the funds equally among all siblings, either as direct beneficiaries or through a bare trust.

The funds therefore did not form part of the estate.

Unit owners brought an oppression application under s. 135 of the Condominium Act alleging that a condominium corporation acted oppressively by deactivating FOBs and denying access to both a condominium unit and recreational facilities.

The court found the corporation acted improperly when it deactivated the owners’ FOBs without notice, temporarily preventing access to the unit, which constituted oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct.

However, the denial of access to recreational facilities was not oppressive because the applicants refused reasonable requests to complete a resident information form and provide identification establishing residency.

The court held that the inability to access amenities resulted from the applicants’ own refusal to comply with reasonable condominium management requirements.

Nominal damages were awarded for the brief interruption of access to the unit.

The plaintiff alleged that a religious divorce certificate and related registry entry were fraudulently altered after execution to insert a waiver of her contractual entitlement to a marriage gift contained in a marriage contract.

She sought declarations invalidating the waiver and damages exceeding $2 million.

After an eight‑day trial, the court rejected the allegation of fraud, finding on a balance of probabilities that the waiver of the marriage gift was present in the documents when signed and that the plaintiff’s subsequent conduct was inconsistent with her claim of later alteration.

The court also held that, even if fraud had been proven, the action would have been barred by applicable limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action was dismissed.

The moving party sought an order permitting him to secure a line of credit or mortgage on the jointly owned matrimonial home for $400,000 to fund legal fees for an upcoming trial involving family and corporate claims.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court found this to be a highly unusual case where encumbering the matrimonial home was justified, given the substantial other assets available to satisfy any potential judgment for the respondent.

The court granted the motion but limited the encumbrance to $250,000, subject to specific terms including that the funds be paid directly into counsel's trust account.

The court heard several pre‑trial motions in a business dispute involving alleged partnership interests and related claims.

The defendants sought to exclude evidence arising from mediation meetings and related communications on the basis of settlement privilege.

The court held that discussions during meetings arranged to mediate the dispute were bona fide settlement negotiations conducted in contemplation of litigation and therefore protected by settlement privilege.

However, alleged statements made to a third party regarding destruction of financial records were not protected because there was no evidence of a common intention to engage in settlement discussions.

The court also addressed requests for witnesses to testify by Skype, permitting remote testimony for one peripheral witness but requiring in‑person testimony for another whose evidence was central to a spoliation claim.

The offender was convicted of three counts of fraud over $5,000 after defrauding three individuals of $139,000 through a fake investment scheme.

The Crown sought 21 to 36 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender posed no danger to the community.

After applying 10 months of credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, the court imposed a 13-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation, along with a restitution order for the full amount defrauded.