Leonard Ricchetti

The court heard a motion for directions regarding the disposition of settlement trust monies held following a dispute between trustees of a religious organization.

A third-party creditor sought standing and payment of the monies, arguing they were the source of the funds.

The court denied the creditor standing, finding they had no direct interest in the accounting between the trustees.

The court granted standing to the organization and the two trustees who paid the settlement monies, and directed that an accounting hearing proceed despite the organization being in receivership.

The moving party, an employee of the invoice payor, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the fraud action against him.

The plaintiff factoring company was defrauded of millions of dollars through fictitious invoices.

The moving party claimed his identity was stolen by the fraudsters to confirm the fake invoices and that he was also a victim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the moving party's emails, his financial ties to the fraudulent payee, and credibility issues among the co-defendants created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The applicant, charged with importing cocaine, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after being refused Legal Aid.

The court found that while the charges were serious and counsel was essential for a fair trial, the applicant failed to prove she was indigent.

The court rejected her evidence regarding her financial circumstances, noting unexplained frequent international travel and large cash transfers while purportedly living solely on disability benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for the brutal stabbing of his estranged wife in her home.

The Crown sought a 20-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought 12 to 15 years.

The court considered the extreme brutality of the attack, the domestic context, and the offender's lack of remorse as aggravating factors.

Applying the Shropshire principles, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 17 years, the top end of the usual range for spousal murder.

The accused was tried for first-degree murder after the victim was found with 138 stab wounds.

During the trial, the defence sought to have the trial judge instruct the jury on self-defence and provocation, arguing that the victim may have attacked the accused first with a knife found at the scene.

The trial judge applied the air of reality test and concluded there was no evidential foundation for either defence, noting that the placement of the knife was staged and there was no evidence of the victim initiating an assault or provoking the accused.

The request to include the defences in the jury charge was denied.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused during a prior plea inquiry where a guilty plea was ultimately rejected by the court.

The Crown intended to use these statements to cross-examine the accused if the defence of duress was raised.

The court ruled that statements made during a rejected plea inquiry are inextricably linked to the aborted plea and are inadmissible, as admitting them would undermine trial fairness and have a chilling effect on plea negotiations.

During a first-degree murder trial, the defence sought to admit a portion of a prior court transcript containing a judge's comments ordering an assessment of the accused's fitness to stand trial.

The defence argued the comments provided context to the accused's prior admissions of guilt.

The court ruled the judge's statements were inadmissible, finding they did not provide context to the accused's statements and that admitting them without the subsequent psychiatric assessment finding the accused fit to stand trial would mislead the jury.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following the stabbing death of his estranged wife.

At the close of the Crown's case, the accused brought an application for a directed verdict, arguing there was insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation to go to the jury.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused's prior statements, motive, and post-offence conduct provided sufficient circumstantial evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer that the murder was planned and deliberate.

The parties separated and agreed to a final order granting the mother sole custody and the father reasonable access.

Days later, the mother abducted the children and fled to Dubai en route to Pakistan, violating the order.

The police intercepted her, and the children were returned to the father, who was granted temporary sole custody.

The father brought a motion to change the final order to grant him sole custody, while the mother sought to restore her custody.

The court found the mother had no credibility, had lied to the court and police, and had neglected the children's medical and educational needs.

Finding a material change in circumstances, the court awarded sole custody to the father and ordered that the mother have supervised access at her own expense.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference after performing oral sex on his 3-year-old half-sister while babysitting her.

The Crown sought an 18-month custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court noted that a conditional sentence was statutorily unavailable and emphasized the need for denunciation and deterrence given the offender's position of trust and the victim's extreme youth.

The court sentenced the offender to 15 months in custody, followed by 3 years of probation, and imposed various ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order.

The respondent IT provider brought a motion to dismiss the applicant law firm's application for failure to comply with a prior consent order.

The applicant had sought mandatory orders for the release of its legal practice data and cloud infrastructure information.

A consent order required the applicant to pay outstanding fees into trust to obtain the cloud data, which the applicant failed to do, arguing the payment was merely an option.

The court rejected this argument, finding the payment was a requirement.

As the applicant had already obtained the other requested data and consented to the deletion of the cloud data due to non-payment, the court dismissed the application as moot.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring a sworn statement of worldwide assets and attendance at an examination.

The underlying action involved an alleged $1.4 million fraud.

The defendant sought an adjournment to retain counsel, which the court denied as a blatant delay tactic, noting the defendant had seven months to do so.

The court found the defendant in contempt, as he had actual knowledge of the clear and unequivocal order and deliberately disobeyed it.

A sentencing hearing was scheduled, with an opportunity provided to purge the contempt.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

The tenants' appeal automatically stayed the eviction.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' grounds of appeal were merely attempts to challenge the Board's factual findings and did not raise any genuine questions of law.

The court concluded the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit, quashed the appeal, and lifted the stay of the eviction order.

The accused, charged with multiple offences across three dates including uttering death threats, unlawful confinement, and weapons offences against his wife, applied to sever the charges into separate trials.

The court dismissed the application, finding a strong factual and legal nexus between the events, a risk of inconsistent verdicts given the complainant's recantation, and that evidence from each incident would likely be admissible in the others to provide context and establish post-offence conduct.

The accused, an airport employee charged with importing cocaine and firearms offences, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan with substantial sureties.

However, after conducting a fresh analysis, the court dismissed the application, finding that detention remained necessary on both the secondary ground (substantial likelihood of reoffending) and the tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) given the overwhelming evidence, the gravity of the offences, and the accused's access to firearms.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police executed a search warrant at his apartment and found a semi-automatic rifle, ammunition, and a tactical vest.

The accused, who was the sole tenant but in a drug rehab program at the time of the search, denied knowledge of the items.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, relying on his incriminating statements to police and the lack of any rational alternative explanation.

The court found the accused guilty of four counts, concluding the only rational inference was that he had knowledge and control of the items.

Following an application regarding a real estate transaction where Weldan Properties was entirely successful, Weldan sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The Deangelis parties argued for no costs, citing the novelty of the issue and the doctrine of good faith.

The court rejected the novelty argument, finding the doctrine of good faith could not override an explicit contractual term.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Weldan in the amount of $22,199.19.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80mg and operating a vehicle as a novice driver with a blood alcohol level greater than zero.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding a realistic risk that he would drive the vehicle after filling it with gas, and misapprehended evidence regarding his level of intoxication.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusion that the appellant posed a realistic risk of driving the vehicle.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault.

At trial, the appellant briefly denied the allegations in chief, which the trial judge found lacked detail and therefore gave little weight to his evidence under the W.(D.) framework.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that a denial of events will necessarily lack detail, and the trial judge erred in law by rejecting the evidence on this basis before properly applying the first two steps of W.(D.).

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant mother appealed an order denying her leave to bring a Motion to Change a final order regarding custody, access, and support.

The lower court had denied leave because the mother had not paid a $30,000 costs order, which was a prerequisite for bringing further proceedings.

The Superior Court held that an absolute prohibition on proceedings involving a child's best interests for non-payment of costs is unenforceable, and the court must consider whether there are reasonable grounds for the proposed motion.

The court granted leave to bring a Motion to Change regarding access and assessment issues, finding reasonable grounds that the respondent father was capriciously exercising his absolute discretion over access, but denied leave regarding custody, support, and contempt.