Leonard Ricchetti

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs under Rule 56.01.

The court found that the plaintiff Alexandra Tang was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and that the plaintiffs (including the corporations) lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential cost award.

However, the motion was dismissed due to the defendants' obstructive conduct during cross-examinations regarding the merits of the claim, their "hardball litigation" tactics, and significant delay in bringing the motion.

The court emphasized that the merits of the claim are relevant, especially when impecuniosity is not alleged, and that the defendants' conduct prejudiced the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate their case's merits.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis after successfully striking the Respondents' pleading due to their bad faith conduct, including deliberate non-disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The Respondents argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, finding the Respondents' conduct warranted a punitive award, but reduced the claimed amount due to some excessive hours and the abandonment of a contempt motion.

The costs were awarded jointly and severally against all Respondents due to their concerted efforts to obstruct disclosure.

The plaintiff sought an extension of time to serve a Statement of Claim, filed in 2017 for a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay of over five years to be extreme and inexcusable.

The plaintiff's explanations, including inability to locate parties, a negligent associate, and COVID-19, were deemed without merit.

The court found actual and presumed prejudice to the defendants due to the passage of time, loss of evidence, and compromised ability to investigate and bring third-party claims.

The decision emphasized counsel's ultimate responsibility for prosecuting the action.

The plaintiff, Sharna Gayle, brought a motion to amend her Amended Statement of Claim in a solicitor's negligence action against Lerners LLP and its lawyers.

The proposed amendments sought to increase the damages claimed from $1,000,000 to $20,000,000 and to add extensive particulars detailing the alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, including allegations of conflict of interest due to "religious and personal affiliations." The court granted the amendment to increase the damages, affirming that such an increase does not constitute prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion to add the detailed particulars, finding that these proposed amendments violated Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by pleading evidence, explanations, and submissions rather than concise material facts.

The court also found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action and that the delay in seeking amendments was not excessive enough to presume non-compensable prejudice.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the pleadings of the respondent and two added respondents for persistent and deliberate non-compliance with numerous court orders.

These orders included requirements for financial disclosure, payment of spousal support and costs, and adherence to preservation orders related to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondents' conduct to be in bad faith, rising to the level of fraudulent misconduct, aimed at frustrating the applicant's financial claims.

Given the egregious nature of the breaches and the futility of lesser remedies, the court granted the motion, striking the respondents' pleadings and allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01(3) due to pending related proceedings.

The court rejected arguments of res judicata and issue estoppel, finding no final determinations had been made.

It allowed the action to proceed against one defendant, Vilson Da Silva, as the claims were distinct and could not be brought in the existing lien action due to the Construction Lien Act.

However, claims against Leblon Carpentry were dismissed for lack of factual basis, and claims against Leblon Drywall were dismissed (without prejudice) as they were duplicative of an existing counterclaim in the lien action and contrary to the purpose of the Construction Lien Act.

To ensure judicial economy and avoid multiplicity of actions, the court ordered the transfer of a related Barrie action to Brampton and directed that all three interconnected actions be tried together or sequentially.

This is an appeal from a conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant raised four grounds: improper use of a prior consistent statement to bolster credibility, error in reliability analysis regarding the complainant's detailed description, failure to adequately address the physical improbability of the touching as described, and misapprehension of evidence regarding the touched breast.

The court dismissed all grounds, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, proper use of contemporaneous demeanor evidence, and a thorough consideration of the physical mechanics of the assault.

The conviction was upheld.

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.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from successful summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, Jeffrey Lehman et al. and the Corporation of the City of Barrie, against Correct Building Corporation and Correct Group Inc. The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the individual defendants, finding the claims against them frivolous, baseless, and an abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the City of Barrie, with a reduction for an abandoned counterclaim and an unrecoverable disbursement for an unproduced expert report.

The total costs awarded were $1,066,412.62.

This motion concerned the consolidation and case management of three interconnected legal proceedings: a family law matter and two civil actions.

The family law proceeding involved claims for child support, equalization, and setting aside a separation agreement due to alleged undisclosed commissions received by the former spouse.

The two civil actions, brought by Halton and Solution, alleged fraudulent diversion of commissions by the former spouse and his common-law partner's company.

The court granted the motion for consolidation and case management, finding significant factual overlap, a high likelihood of inconsistent findings if tried separately, and that consolidation would lead to a more just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following Sundial Homes (Castlemore) Limited's successful summary judgment motion to dismiss Triplecrete Limited's action.

Sundial sought substantial indemnity costs, while Triplecrete proposed a significantly lower amount.

The court determined that Triplecrete's action became unmeritorious after its construction lien was vacated due to failure to set the action down for trial.

The court awarded Sundial partial indemnity costs for the period up to the lien's vacation and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, including for the summary judgment motion.

The total costs awarded to Sundial were $40,805.58, inclusive of fees and disbursements.

Triplecrete's request for a Sanderson order, seeking costs to be paid by Pentad Construction Limited, was denied due to lack of notice to Pentad and the unmeritorious nature of Triplecrete's continued claim.

The defendants, former truck drivers, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a lawsuit by the plaintiff trucking company for defamation, trespass, and other torts.

The lawsuit arose from protests and online comments alleging unpaid wages.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that their expressions, which included calling the plaintiffs "thieves" and disrupting business, were primarily a private collection dispute aimed at circumventing ongoing legal processes (Canada Labour Code complaints), rather than a matter of genuine public interest.

The Respondent Mother sought an interim order to relocate with the child, Zahida, to Sudbury for a unique career opportunity.

The Applicant Father opposed the relocation and brought a cross-motion to prohibit it, arguing it would negatively impact his relationship with the child and that the Mother's employment reasons were not compelling.

The court granted the Mother's relocation motion, finding her reasons compelling and that the move was in the child's best interests, given the child's young age and the Mother's role as primary caregiver.

The Father's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court also addressed the onus of proof in relocation cases under the Divorce Act and ordered continued supervised parenting time for the Father.

The plaintiff, Earth Boring Company Limited, brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs from the defendant Dufferin Construction Company's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

Earth Boring argued the paragraphs were irrelevant, duplicative, or lacked material facts.

The court dismissed the motion to strike paragraph 1, which referenced Earth Boring's original statement of claim, and paragraph 41, concerning Dufferin's claim for back-charges.

However, the court granted the motion to strike paragraphs 7-20, finding them to be primarily focused on issues between Dufferin and the City of Mississauga, and not sufficiently tied to Dufferin's defence against Earth Boring's claims.

Leave to amend these struck paragraphs was granted to allow Dufferin to clearly relate the material facts to its defence in this specific action.

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga brought a motion to strike an application filed by Dufferin Construction Company, arguing it constituted an abuse of process due to multiplicity of proceedings.

The City contended that Dufferin's application, seeking payment of holdback monies, was subsumed within an existing, broader action (the 'Dufferin Action') between the same parties concerning the same construction project.

The court found that the claims in the application were inextricably linked to the factual and legal determinations required in the Dufferin Action, and allowing the application to proceed would risk inconsistent findings and undermine judicial integrity.

The court granted the City's motion, striking Dufferin's application without leave to amend, emphasizing the principle of avoiding multiplicity of legal proceedings.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to strike the Third Party Claim filed by Dufferin Construction Company, or alternatively, to strike certain paragraphs from Dufferin's Third Party Claim and Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

The City argued that the Third Party Action constituted a multiplicity of proceedings and an abuse of process, being duplicative of claims already advanced in a separate action between Dufferin and the City.

The court dismissed the City's motion, finding that while there was some overlap, the Third Party Action was distinct as it specifically sought contribution and indemnity for Earth Boring's claims against Dufferin, ensuring all three parties were bound by determinations related to Earth Boring's specific work.

The court emphasized the importance of avoiding inconsistent findings and ensuring fairness, citing Section 113 of the Courts of Justice Act which permits third-party claims for contribution and indemnity.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed motion brought by the defendants.

The court found the defendants' conduct, including raising serious, unfounded ethical allegations against the plaintiff's counsel and subsequently abandoning a motion to remove him, constituted an abuse of process.

The court affirmed its broad inherent jurisdiction to award costs in such circumstances, including for abandoned motions.

Given the abusive and damaging nature of the allegations, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the plaintiff and their counsel.

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.