Leonard Ricchetti

The defendants brought a motion and the plaintiff a cross-motion in a Construction Lien Act action.

The defendants sought to adjourn the trial, challenge the authenticity of the Claim for Lien, amend their Statement of Defence, and have witnesses provide evidence by affidavit, while also making serious, unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct and ethical breaches against the plaintiff's current and former counsel.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion in its entirety, noting their failure to comply with court orders and the lack of evidence for their serious allegations.

The issue of removing plaintiff's counsel was abandoned with prejudice.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was not dealt with as the primary issues were resolved.

The trial was set peremptorily for May 2021.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for the plaintiffs, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $42,696.31, while the defendant proposed no more than $24,467.76.

The court found that offers exchanged did not trigger specific cost consequences under the Rules.

The court disallowed certain fees claimed by the plaintiffs, specifically those related to duplication from a change in law firms and an unnecessary outside legal opinion, deeming them not reasonably recoverable from the losing party.

After reviewing the bills of costs and considering the complexity of the matter, the court determined that 85 hours at $297.50/hour, plus disbursements, was reasonable.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs in the amount of $28,382.53.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant had agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' property but failed to obtain financing after a market correction.

The defendant communicated his inability to close prior to the closing date and failed to participate in closing preparations.

The court found that the defendant anticipatorily breached the agreement, relieving the plaintiffs of the obligation to tender perfectly.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The court issued a procedural endorsement setting a timetable for the completion of pleadings, cross-examinations, and document production.

The court also scheduled a motion date to address issues including striking pleadings, duplicitous claims, and severing a third-party action.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff subcontractor's action from Toronto to Brampton.

The action related to a construction project in Mississauga, where both parties performed their work and where related actions were already being case managed.

The court found that the plaintiff's choice of Toronto had no meaningful connection to the dispute other than the location of plaintiff's counsel.

The motion was granted as Brampton was a significantly better and more reasonable venue.

The City of Brampton sought costs following the dismissal of a motion brought by Essam Elbassiouni to be appointed as litigation guardian for his brother, Ahmed Elbasiouni.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that the parties had reached a no-costs settlement.

Finding that the motion had no reasonable prospect of success and was brought in a finally disposed proceeding, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the City.

The costs were ordered payable by Essam Elbassiouni, rather than the applicant's counsel, and were fixed at $15,536.83.

The applicant sought to be appointed as the guardian for his cousin under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The respondent had been admitted to the hospital multiple times for suicidal ideation and was found incapable of consenting to medical treatment or administering his property.

The court granted the application, finding compelling medical evidence from the attending psychiatrist that the respondent required a substitute decision-maker.

The applicant, Essam Elbassiouni, brought a motion to be appointed as the litigation guardian for his brother, Ahmed Elbasiouni, in several ongoing proceedings against the City of Brampton.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that Ahmed lacked the capacity to instruct counsel or manage his litigation.

The court noted significant flaws in the capacity assessment report and concluded the motion was likely a tactic to delay an upcoming Court of Appeal hearing.

Furthermore, the court held that even if Ahmed required a litigation guardian, Essam would be inappropriate due to conflicts of interest.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a reference to determine damages after the defendants breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The court found the property was unique to the plaintiffs given their specific criteria and the rising real estate market.

Applying the principles from Semelhago, the court assessed damages based on the difference in appreciation between the breached property and a substitute property the plaintiffs subsequently purchased.

The plaintiffs were awarded $150,000 in additional damages, plus thrown-away expenses and substantial indemnity costs due to the defendants' egregious conduct.

The applicants, 2235209 Ontario Inc. and Guy Salt, brought motions seeking interim orders including holding sale proceeds in trust, an injunction prohibiting dealings with Lot 5, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on Lot 5, and a Mareva Order.

The motions were based on allegations of fraud regarding mortgage amounts, which the applicants claimed vitiated prior settlements where they had terminated their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunctions.

The court also noted the applicants' lack of clean hands, delay, and insufficient undertakings.

The plaintiff sought over $20,000 in enforcement costs, including private investigator fees and legal costs, after obtaining a judgment and cost order against the defendants, who failed to make payments.

The court found it had jurisdiction to award costs beyond Rule 60.19 but deemed the private investigator fees and associated legal costs unreasonable and unnecessary, as an examination in aid of execution was a less expensive and available alternative.

The court awarded $7,139.60 plus HST for execution costs, including property/corporate searches, garnishment issuance, process server fees, and a portion of legal fees.

No costs were awarded for the motion itself due to mixed success.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the stay of eviction and order payment of arrears.

The tenant had a history of failing to pay rent and utilities.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding it might raise a genuine issue of law regarding a denied adjournment.

However, given the ongoing arrears and delay, the court varied the stay, ordering the tenant to pay $7,500 towards arrears within 30 days to maintain the stay and expedite the appeal.

The statutory third party, Allstate Insurance, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, who had moved to Angola after commencing a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court found that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and failed to establish impecuniosity, as the only evidence provided was a law clerk's affidavit.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $10,000 as security for costs.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of a home owned by the parties as tenants in common, and for an order permitting her to retrieve personal property.

The parties, who were unmarried, separated in 2018 and the respondent remained in the home.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the home, directing the respondent to vacate the property by April 30, 2020, and established a detailed procedure for listing and selling the property.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after the defendants repudiated the contract, alleging the vendor lacked mental capacity and that a Power of Attorney (POA) had been revoked.

The court found the APS to be a binding agreement, rejecting the defendants' claims of POA revocation and lack of capacity due to insufficient evidence.

The defence regarding spousal consent was also dismissed.

Partial judgment was granted to the plaintiffs for undisputed legal costs, with a reference ordered to determine additional damages.

The plaintiffs moved for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a mortgage held by the defendant on a property sold to a third party.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was overpaid upon the discharge of prior mortgages and claimed a trust interest in the new mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while a claim to a mortgage may constitute an interest in land, the equities weighed heavily against granting a CPL due to the plaintiffs' significant delay, prior acknowledgments of the debt, and inability to satisfy a potential damages award.

The accused brought an application to adjourn his joint jury trial for drug importation, scheduled to commence in less than three weeks, in order to retain counsel of choice.

The accused had previously discharged counsel and had been warned multiple times that the trial would proceed with or without counsel.

The court dismissed the adjournment application, finding that the accused had not acted diligently or in a bona fide manner to retain available counsel, and that the application was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the system to achieve a de facto severance from his co-accused.

The appellant, Suharshani Wijesuriya, appealed her conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, alleging the trial judge erred in dismissing her s. 10(b) Charter application and in failing to address evidence regarding breathalyzer operation.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that police provided a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel, rejecting arguments for an enhanced police obligation beyond 'reasonable steps.' The court also found the trial judge's reasons regarding the breathalyzer were adequate and that no Charter breach occurred, thus rendering the s. 24(2) analysis unnecessary but confirming evidence admissibility.

The defendant, Leonard Boucher, was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and uttering a threat to kill D.A. The trial involved conflicting testimonies from D.A. and Mr. Boucher regarding consensual sexual activity, payment, and alleged threats.

The court found D.A.'s evidence lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and the absence of crucial phone records.

Mr. Boucher's evidence also presented serious credibility issues due to prior convictions for dishonesty and inconsistencies in his police statement.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to Mr. Boucher's acquittal on all counts.

The respondent on an appeal brought a motion for security for costs.

The appellant was appealing a Small Claims Court judgment enforcing a promissory note, having raised an unsuccessful defence of set-off.

The Divisional Court found there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and that the appellant had insufficient assets to pay a costs award.

The court ordered the appellant to post $7,500 as security for costs.