Leonard Ricchetti

The defendant, Dexter Griffith, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant for his residence, alleging a breach of his section 8 Charter rights.

The application challenged the validity of the information to obtain (ITO) the search warrant, arguing there were no reasonable grounds to believe Griffith resided at the searched premises, that he committed the alleged drug trafficking offences, or that evidence would be found there.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police had reasonable and objective grounds for the search warrant, and that there were no material omissions or misrepresentations in the ITO.

Even if a Charter breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The respondent moved to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that had been granted ex parte to the applicants concerning a property.

The court granted the motion, discharging the CPL and awarding costs to the respondent.

The reasons included the applicants' lack of full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, failure to establish the property's uniqueness, significant unexplained delay in seeking the CPL, and the prejudice to a bona fide third-party purchaser.

The court found the applicants' claim for damages would remain, and the balance of harm favored vacating the CPL.

The Crown sought to admit evidence from Sgt. Rodney Gray regarding the quantified weight of opium extracted from felt cloths, which Health Canada could not determine.

Sgt. Gray performed an experimental process involving rinsing the cloths in warm water and boiling the rinse water to obtain a residue he identified as opium.

The defence argued this constituted expert evidence for which Sgt. Gray was not qualified.

The court determined that the experimental methodology and the interpretation of its results were beyond ordinary human experience, thus qualifying as expert evidence.

Given Sgt. Gray's lack of scientific background and the unverified nature of his methodology, his proposed testimony was ruled inadmissible.

The Applicant sought costs of a motion and the overall proceeding after a settlement agreement in a high-conflict family law case.

The Respondent also sought costs.

The court awarded the Applicant $5,000 plus HST and disbursements for the motion on a full recovery basis, payable from the Respondent's share of net proceeds.

For the costs of the proceeding, the court found neither party substantially successful in the settlement but determined the Applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs due to the Respondent's unreasonable and obstructionist behaviour, including failure to disclose financial information and comply with court orders.

The quantum for the proceeding costs was reserved for a further attendance, requiring the Applicant to submit a revised bill of costs excluding "steps in the case" where costs were already dealt with.

The Respondent's claim of inability to pay was rejected due to his lack of financial disclosure and unreasonable conduct.

This case involved a commercial landlord-tenant dispute concerning a lease for an auto plaza unit.

The landlord sought declarations of lease breach and termination, damages for arrears, unapproved alterations, oil spills, and an order for possession.

The court found that the lease was not renewed for a second term, and the tenancy continued on a month-to-month basis, which was properly terminated.

The court awarded the landlord damages for outstanding lease payments, water bills, and fines incurred due to the tenants' unapproved alterations.

Issues regarding further damages for alterations and environmental contamination from oil spills were bifurcated for a future assessment.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as an unbuckled, intoxicated passenger in a taxi cab.

The plaintiff's insurer argued that the taxi driver owed a duty of care to ensure the visibly intoxicated adult passenger was and remained seat belted during the trip.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the Anns/Cooper framework and found no such duty of care exists in Canadian law.

The court held that adult passengers are responsible for their own seat belts, and imposing a positive duty on taxi drivers to monitor intoxicated passengers would be unmanageable and contrary to public policy.

The Father brought a motion seeking an alternating weekly summer parenting schedule and a variation of the parenting time commencing September 1, 2018.

The court limited the motion to summer access, as leave for the variation was not granted.

The Father argued for a "week about" schedule based on an OCL report's future recommendation, while the Mother raised concerns about a child's mental health, which the court found inconsistent and unsubstantiated for the purpose of the motion.

The court declined to vary the summer access from the 2017 agreement, which provided each parent with one full week in July and one in August, with the regular schedule applying otherwise.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the validation of service of a Statement of Claim on the defendant, Kin Long Chui, following significant delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide adequate explanations for the lengthy delays in serving the claim and bringing the motion.

The court determined that the defendant would suffer actual and inferred prejudice due to the passage of over four and a half years since the accident, impacting the ability to investigate, conduct surveillance, obtain timely medical assessments, and diminishing witness recollection.

The plaintiffs did not discharge their onus to show no prejudice to the defendant.

The Applicant Father brought a motion seeking a change in custody, supervised access for the Respondent Mother, and a s. 30 assessment, primarily due to the Mother's highly inappropriate and vulgar conduct involving their child during a phone call.

The Mother admitted her conduct was inexcusable and had since enrolled in anger management and therapeutic counselling, seeking dismissal of the Father's motion and for the Minutes of Settlement to be made a court order.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that while the Mother's conduct was deplorable, it appeared to be an isolated incident.

The court emphasized the importance of upholding the recent Minutes of Settlement and the potential for further litigation to negatively impact the children.

Specific orders were issued to prevent future inappropriate conduct, but the existing parenting arrangements were maintained, and a s. 30 assessment was not ordered at that time.

The Respondent Wife brought a motion to set aside a divorce order obtained by the Applicant Husband, alleging non-service of documentation and misrepresentation in the Husband's affidavit for divorce.

The court found that the Wife delayed in bringing the motion and refused to accept a "nunc pro tunc" order severing the divorce from corollary relief, which would have addressed her claimed prejudice.

The court weighed the prejudice to both parties, noting the Husband had remarried, and dismissed the Wife's motion.

Instead, the court ordered the consolidation of three related files and, with the Husband's consent, severed the divorce from the corollary relief nunc pro tunc as of January 16, 2018.

Costs were awarded to the Husband.

The defendants applied for a re-hearing of their dismissed s. 8 Charter application regarding a police search of a residential property where marijuana plants were found.

They argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decisions in Jones and Marakah changed the law on standing, allowing them to rely on the Crown's allegations of possession to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court dismissed the application, holding that Jones and Marakah applied to informational privacy claims and did not overrule the Edwards test for territorial privacy claims.

The court found that even if the Crown's allegations were assumed true, they only alleged possession of the plants, not possession of the property, which was insufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched.

The applicants, acting as attorneys for property for their mother, brought a summary judgment motion to compel their sister, the respondent, to vacate the mother's home.

The mother required the proceeds from the sale of the home to fund her long-term care.

The respondent, who lived in the home without paying rent or full expenses, refused to leave and sought an adjournment.

The court denied the adjournment and granted the summary judgment motion, ordering the respondent to vacate the home within 60 days, as the mother's financial needs took priority.

The parties, former and remaining trustees of a Gurdwara, entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve a dispute over the sale of the property.

The settlement required the remaining trustees to pay $1,734,584 into trust, representing alleged loans made by the departing trustees, subject to an audit.

A court-appointed accountant reviewed the financial records and stratified the alleged loans into three levels of evidentiary quality.

The court reviewed the accountant's report and the evidence, rejecting many of the undocumented or poorly documented loan claims.

The court determined that the departing trustees proved bona fide loans totaling $820,131.69, after deducting repayments.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding custody, access, and support for their two young children.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody.

The court found the father to be deceptive, controlling, and manipulative, noting his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and his disregard for the children's best interests.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, established a specific parenting schedule, imputed the father's income at $100,000 for child support purposes, and dismissed the father's claim for spousal support.

The defendant brought a motion to strike paragraphs of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim relating to allegations of harassment, discrimination, and reprisal that pre-dated the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued that the allegations formed part of a continuous cause of action or a series of incidents under the Human Rights Code.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the law is unsettled as to whether the Limitations Act or the Human Rights Code limitation period applies to a civil action, and that it was not plain and obvious whether the allegations constituted a series of independent torts or a continuous cause of action.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mgs.

At trial, the judge excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the traffic stop was arbitrary.

In reaching this conclusion, the trial judge relied on extraneous information regarding the arresting officer's receipt of awards for apprehending impaired drivers, which was not entered into evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the trial judge erred in law by relying on this extraneous information, as it did not meet the test for judicial notice and could have affected the assessment of the officer's credibility.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder following a drive-by shooting, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan involving an additional surety and electronic monitoring.

However, the court dismissed the application, finding the proposed sureties unsuitable and concluding that detention was necessary under both the secondary and tertiary grounds due to the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offence, and public safety concerns.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault and related sexual offences against a 15-year-old complainant, the only live issue was whether the alleged sexual activity occurred.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court held that the accused's denial, supported in part by the spouse's evidence on a key alleged incident, raised a reasonable doubt.

The court found serious reliability concerns in the complainant's evidence, including material inconsistencies, an evidentiary gap surrounding the evolution of her allegations after treatment and discussions with others, and a significant contradiction concerning a specific alleged incident.

The Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The Crown brought a certiorari application to quash a Justice of the Peace's order that quashed an information charging the respondent with speeding.

The information contained an obvious typographical error regarding the year of the offence.

The Justice of the Peace quashed the information on his own motion at the first appearance, without allowing the Crown to make submissions or considering the mandatory amendment provisions under the Provincial Offences Act.

The Superior Court held that the Justice of the Peace exceeded his jurisdiction by failing to observe natural justice and mandatory statutory provisions.

The court granted the certiorari application, extended the time for service, and issued mandamus remitting the matter back to the Provincial Offences Court.

The applicants, Brian Nelson and Andrew Ramdass, brought certiorari applications to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision committing them to stand trial for manslaughter.

The charges arose from a physical altercation between two groups that resulted in a death.

The court dismissed Nelson's application, finding there was direct evidence from a witness that he punched the victim, which was sufficient for committal.

However, the court granted Ramdass' application and quashed his committal, concluding there was no admissible evidence from which a properly instructed jury could infer he intentionally applied force to the victim.