Leonard Ricchetti

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 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defendants repudiated the contract, alleging the vendor lacked mental capacity and that a Power of Attorney (POA) had been revoked.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 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 applicant moved to strike the respondent's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with court orders for financial disclosure.

The respondent had a history of obstructing the sale of the matrimonial home and failed to provide complete financial documentation despite being given a "final opportunity" by prior court orders.

The court found the respondent in deliberate breach of disclosure orders, noting the critical importance of financial disclosure in family law.

Applying the three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court determined that this was an exceptional case where no other remedy would suffice, and therefore struck the respondent's pleadings.

The Plaintiff, Falcon Lumber Limited, sought to strike the pleadings of the Lotey Defendants due to their persistent and deliberate failure to comply with numerous court orders for document production and examinations for discovery over a three-year period.

The Lotey Defendants engaged in a "corporate shell game" involving undisclosed security agreements, receivership, and asset transfers to new companies controlled by Mr. Lotey, all while obstructing discovery.

The court found the defendants' conduct to be contumelious, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for the Rules of Civil Procedure and judicial orders.

Consequently, the court struck the Lotey Defendants' pleadings without leave to amend, noted them in default, and allowed the Plaintiff to obtain default judgment.

Additionally, the court awarded full indemnity costs of the motion against the Lotey Defendants' counsel personally, finding counsel complicit in the deliberate delay and obstruction of justice.

The defendant, B.G., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose of a person under 14, inviting a person under 14 to touch him for a sexual purpose, and uttering a threat to cause death, all against his daughter, N. The court imposed an 8-year custodial sentence, with all counts served concurrently, after considering aggravating factors such as the position of trust, the young age of the victim, the prolonged and intrusive nature of the abuse, physical violence, and death threats.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and employment history.

Ancillary orders for DNA, lifetime Section 109 and SOIRA orders, and a Section 161 prohibition were also issued.

This family law proceeding under the Divorce Act addressed decision-making authority, parenting time, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found both parents capable but noted significant conflict, particularly regarding children's non-school activities.

Joint decision-making was ordered, with a mechanism for resolving disputes over extracurriculars.

Equal parenting time was granted, conditional on the Father relocating to the children's school district by a specified date.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis.

The court made specific rulings on equalization claims, including rejecting the Mother's claim for household contents, accepting her loans from siblings, valuing Fern Property appliances at zero, and rejecting the Father's alleged loans to relatives and vehicle gifts.

Post-separation adjustments for the Fern Property were to be recalculated by the parties.

The defendant, Natalia Safroni, was found guilty by a jury of importing opium.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine the quantity of opium for sentencing purposes, as the exact amount could not be scientifically quantified.

The court determined that a substantial, though not precisely quantifiable, amount of opium (approximately 3 kilograms of residue/solvent containing opium) was imported.

Considering mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record, youthfulness, and prospects for rehabilitation, and aggravating factors including the serious nature of importing a Schedule 1 narcotic and the significant quantity, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 2 years less pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA sample, and forfeiture of offence-related property were also issued.

The Applicant Father and Respondent Mother brought competing motions for interim custody and access.

The Father sought sole custody and supervised access for the Mother at a supervised access facility, along with a restraining order and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Mother sought interim joint custody, exclusive possession (which became moot due to a fire), and increased supervised access transitioning to equal parenting time.

The court also addressed preliminary issues regarding the admissibility of MVA medical reports, surreptitiously recorded video/audio, and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records.

The court granted interim joint custody, finding no evidence that the parties could not agree on child-related decisions prior to separation, and noting the Father's unilateral decisions regarding residence and daycare.

The Mother was granted increased supervised access (Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, 10 am to 7 pm), supervised by Millie Fogliano or Jane Morrow, with conditions regarding alcohol/marijuana consumption and driving.

A mutual restraining order was issued, and a non-removal order.

The court emphasized the need for a review in 6 months due to ongoing conflict and the Mother's need to demonstrate stability.

The defendant, Shane Trought, facing firearm and drug charges, brought motions seeking a sealing/non-communication order regarding his submissions on police credibility and extensive disclosure of CPIC audits.

The court dismissed the sealing order, finding no basis to presume Crown misconduct and emphasizing the Crown's duty to prepare witnesses.

Regarding disclosure, the court distinguished between Stinchcombe (first-party) and O'Connor (third-party) disclosure.

It ordered the Crown to produce CPIC information related to specific license plates and Mr. Trought himself, deeming these "fruits of the investigation." However, disclosure requests for other individuals (Mr. Velasquez, Mr. White, Mr. Tryden Reis, and Mr. Royden Reis) were dismissed as speculative "fishing expeditions" and due to the lack of proper service required for third-party disclosure applications.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.