Leonard Ricchetti

In an ongoing family law dispute, the court addressed several issues regarding the court-ordered sale of eight properties.

The respondent brought a motion to vary the order to sell the properties, arguing they were no longer required to pay the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's continued obstructive conduct and the uncertainty of receivership costs and tax liabilities.

The court also established a mechanism for the applicant to obtain vesting orders if the respondent obstructed the sales, directed a trial of an issue regarding the validity of third-party mortgages, and refused to release sale proceeds to the respondent's company until the applicant was fully paid.

The applicant tenant, operating a supermarket, sought a declaration and permanent injunction to prevent the respondent landlord from constructing a new LCBO building on the shopping center's parking lot.

The applicant argued the construction would eliminate parking spots and alter access, breaching its proprietary rights under a 1971 lease as amended.

The court found the lease granted the applicant a proprietary interest in the parking area and minimum parking spots.

The court rejected the landlord's arguments based on estoppel and delay.

Concluding that damages would be an inadequate remedy for the prospective breach of a proprietary right, the court granted the declaration and a permanent injunction prohibiting the construction.

The Plaintiff, Jennifer Black, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the Defendants, Mandeville Private Client Inc. and Mandeville Holding Inc., to allow her to continue providing investment management services to the Majestic Access Funds and to prevent interference with her economic relationship with Majestic Asset Management LLC.

The Defendants brought a cross-motion for an injunction to prohibit Black from soliciting Mandeville clients, citing a non-solicitation agreement.

The court dismissed Black's motion, finding she had no contractual right to transfer the funds or become their sub-advisor, and that Majestic was not a party to the litigation.

The court granted Mandeville's cross-motion, determining that Black's communications with clients prior to her resignation constituted solicitation in breach of the enforceable non-solicitation agreement, which was part of a business sale.

Marijana Mudronja brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act to vary or set aside a prior order by Justice Shaw that set the valuation date for her shares in Mareddy Corporation to 2017.

She argued that Eddy Mudronja, the majority shareholder, failed to disclose relevant information and destroyed corporate records, and that the property's value significantly increased post-2017.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no new evidence, no fraud, and that the alleged undisclosed information was either requested after the initial hearing, already disclosed, or irrelevant.

The court emphasized the finality of orders and rejected the notion of continuing jurisdiction to re-litigate valuation dates based on market fluctuations or previously known facts.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and failing to comply with a breath demand.

He argued that the trial judge's verdicts were unreasonable, that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, and that his Charter rights were violated.

The summary conviction appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact, including the identification of the appellant as the driver.

The court also held that a separate voir dire on the voluntariness of the appellant's statements was not required given the blended trial procedure and the defence's reliance on the statements.

Finally, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that the police fulfilled their informational and implementational duties under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties attended a hearing to settle the terms of an order directing that several related actions, arising from a motor vehicle accident and subsequent obstetrical care, be tried together.

The plaintiffs sought to bifurcate discoveries, proposing to proceed with liability first and defer damages until the minor plaintiff's prognosis crystallized.

The defendant physicians and hospital opposed and sought a comprehensive timetable.

The court denied the request for bifurcation, noting the high onus to divide discoveries and the intertwined nature of the claims.

The court imposed the defendants' proposed timetable, requiring the actions to be set down for trial by December 2024.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a motion regarding the respondent's failure to make financial disclosure.

The court found that the respondent demonstrated a wilful disregard of his disclosure obligations, necessitating the motion.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a full indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $20,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant sought leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's interim determination under the Construction Act, which ordered him to pay the respondent contractor $119,314.

The appellant argued the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the contract had been abandoned and thus 'ceased to exist', and because a lien had already been registered and bonded off.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that jurisdictional challenges must be raised before the adjudicator first, an abandoned contract does not cease to exist, and the Act expressly permits concurrent adjudication and lien proceedings.

The applicant sought leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's interim determination under the Construction Act, which ordered him to pay the respondent contractor $119,314.

The applicant argued the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the contract had been terminated and thus 'ceased to exist', and that the adjudication conflicted with an existing lien action where security had been posted.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that a terminated contract does not 'cease to exist' for the purposes of the Act, the jurisdictional issue was not raised before the adjudicator, and the Act expressly permits concurrent adjudication and lien proceedings.

The applicant mother sought interim child and spousal support, while the respondent father sought interim primary residence and sole decision-making for their four children.

The mother has a severe, ongoing drug addiction that resulted in multiple overdoses and CAS involvement.

The court granted the father primary residence and sole decision-making, finding it in the children's best interests despite the older children's preferences.

The mother's claim for child support was dismissed.

The court imputed the father's income at $103,000 and ordered him to pay interim spousal support of $550 per month while the mother remained in a family-owned property, increasing to $1,000 per month once she vacated.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and for a writ of possession after the plaintiffs failed to comply with a prior court order requiring them to pay funds into court and pay interim occupancy rent.

The plaintiffs sought an adjournment, which was denied due to a lack of reasonable explanation and prejudice to the defendants.

The court granted the defendants' motion, discharging the CPL, issuing a writ of possession, and ordering the plaintiffs to pay outstanding occupancy costs and $1,000 in costs.

The applicant wife brought a motion for contempt sentencing and the appointment of an investigative receiver following the respondent husband's deliberate and flagrant failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

The respondent brought a motion to adjourn the sentencing and to sell certain properties.

The court dismissed the adjournment, fined the respondent $50,000 for contempt, and appointed an investigative receiver over his personal and corporate assets to determine his true financial circumstances.

The court also ordered the sale of several properties to fund the receivership and satisfy outstanding court orders, piercing the corporate veil to do so.

The Cook defendants, who acted as counsel for the mortgagee in a mortgage transaction, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff mortgagor's claims against them.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented and did not file responding materials, alleged negligence regarding the distribution of mortgage funds.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Cook defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, who was represented by her own counsel.

Furthermore, the court held that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew of the material facts more than two years before adding the Cook defendants to the action.

The action against the Cook defendants was dismissed with costs awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The accused brought an application under s. 629 of the Criminal Code challenging the jury array, alleging partiality or wilful misconduct by the Jury Sheriff in compiling the 2022 Jury Roll.

The defence argued that errors in the jury source list, which excluded eligible 18-year-olds and mishandled prior jurors, compromised the panel.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the errors were unintentional mistakes made despite a rigorous review process, and did not render the jury panel partial or unrepresentative.

The accused brought an application under s. 629 of the Criminal Code challenging the jury panel, arguing that errors in compiling the jury roll breached the Juries Act.

The errors involved the inadvertent exclusion of eligible 18-year-olds and the potential inclusion/exclusion of individuals based on recent jury service.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of partiality or deliberate misconduct by the Sheriff.

The court also held that the unintentional exclusion of a minor segment of the population did not breach the accused's Charter right to a representative jury.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs regarding an industrial condominium unit.

The plaintiffs had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and took interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, leading to a dispute over who breached the agreement.

The court found that while the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, they established a triable issue regarding their claim for specific performance.

The court dismissed the motion to discharge the CPL but imposed strict terms requiring the plaintiffs to pay the full purchase price into court and pay all outstanding interim occupancy rent.

The parties brought competing motions regarding three disputed terms of their 2019 Minutes of Settlement: the removal of snowmobiles, the form of a share transfer agreement, and the payout of a life insurance policy.

The court ordered the applicant to remove the snowmobiles by a specific date, rejected the applicant's complex share transfer agreement in favour of a simpler one with basic representations and an indemnity, and refused to set aside the life insurance provision, finding no unilateral or mutual mistake that would justify rescission.

In a high-net-worth family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in civil contempt for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent engaged in a deliberate and continuous course of conduct to delay disclosure, hide assets through corporate restructuring, and dissipate funds despite a non-dissipation order.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent wilfully and flagrantly breached the clear and unambiguous disclosure orders.

The respondent was found in contempt, with a sentencing hearing to be scheduled.

The defendant brought a summary judgment motion to vacate or discharge the plaintiff's claim for lien, or alternatively to reduce the amount of security posted.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the contract price and the date the plaintiff last performed work on the project.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a fair and just determination of these issues without a trial, as there were serious credibility issues and conflicting evidence.

The motion was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims regarding a corporate estate freeze and a vendor take-back mortgage distribution, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, finding that the individual plaintiff advanced frivolous claims and made unfounded allegations of fraud against various parties, including counsel.

The court rejected the plaintiff's requests to set off unpaid dividends, include the estate in the costs liability, or reduce the award significantly.

The individual plaintiff was ordered to personally pay $150,080.01 in costs.