Leonard Ricchetti

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 brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action or being frivolous and vexatious under Rule 21.01(1)(b) or 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found it plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against either the corporate or personal defendants, as the allegations of discrimination, defamation, fraud, improper discipline, and conversion lacked specific material facts and failed to meet the legal requirements for each tort.

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim was denied, and the claim was struck in its entirety.

The applicants sought a temporary injunction to prevent a power of sale, an order to assign a first mortgage, and a vesting order for three lots, aiming to extinguish a second mortgage held by one of the respondents.

The court dismissed all requests, finding the applicants' attempt to "cut out" the second mortgage was not bona fide.

The court held that the assignment, even if granted, would not extinguish the second mortgage due to contractual subordination and the subsequent mortgagee's right to redeem.

The court also found no serious issue to be tried for the injunction, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the respondents, noting the applicants did not come with clean hands.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of in-court statements made by the accused, Nelson Tayongtong, on two separate dates (March 11 and March 17, 2015).

The Defence opposed, arguing the statements were made to persons in authority, that the accused lacked an operating mind, or that their admission would lead to an unfair trial by revealing mental health issues.

The court found that the statements were not made to persons in authority, thus the confessions rule did not apply.

Even if it did, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had an operating mind.

The court also determined that the statements could be redacted to avoid disclosing mental illness to the jury.

Consequently, the in-court statements were ruled admissible.

This case involved two applications heard together concerning an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a condominium unit.

The purchasers (Deangelis) sought specific performance, while the vendor (Weldan) sought a declaration that the agreement was validly terminated, forfeiture of the deposit, discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation, and damages.

The purchasers failed to close the transaction on the agreed-upon date due to a lack of funds, despite the agreement containing a "time of the essence" clause.

The court found no evidence of bad faith on the vendor's part and upheld the vendor's right to terminate the agreement due to the purchasers' anticipatory breach and failure to close.

The court declared the agreement validly terminated, the deposit forfeited, and ordered the purchasers to vacate the property.

The court determined costs for consolidated matrimonial and civil proceedings.

Barbara Ann Blatherwick sought full indemnity costs from Brian Earl Blatherwick and joint and several costs from Seasons (H.K.) Limited.

The court found Brian Earl Blatherwick acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, engaged in deliberate non-disclosure, and complicated the proceedings, warranting full indemnity costs.

Barbara Ann Blatherwick was awarded $1,401,031.31 against him.

Seasons (H.K.) Limited was also found to have acted in bad faith and engaged in reprehensible conduct by presenting false documents and evasive evidence, leading to an award of full indemnity costs of $147,877.41 against it.

This amount was included in the award against Brian Earl Blatherwick and made joint and several to that extent only.

The court rejected a broader joint and several liability for Seasons (H.K.) due to lack of notice and policy concerns regarding consolidation.

The father appealed a lower court's order that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over their child, Julia, and ordered her return to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) following the father's unilateral removal of Julia from the UAE.

The father sought a stay of this order pending appeal, arguing serious harm to Julia if returned.

The mother opposed the stay and sought security for costs of the appeal.

The court dismissed the father's motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored Julia's return to her habitual residence in the UAE.

The court also dismissed the mother's motion for security for costs, despite finding the appeal lacked merit, due to the serious nature of the issues involving the child's best interests.

The Applicant mother and Respondent father brought motions for interim access to their 15-month-old child.

The mother sought temporary custody and limited access for the father, citing breastfeeding and separation anxiety.

The father sought increased parenting time, including an additional overnight.

The court rejected the mother's arguments regarding breastfeeding and anxiety, finding her not credible.

The court determined that increased parenting time with the father and his extended family was in the child's best interests, granting the father's requested schedule.

A s. 30 assessment was ordered, with costs to be shared equally.

The applicants brought a contempt motion against the respondents for failing to produce financial records as ordered by a prior court order.

Although the records were eventually produced, leading to no formal finding of contempt, the court found that the respondents' lengthy delay and non-compliance necessitated the motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicants, finding the respondents' conduct in delaying disclosure and forcing the contempt motion to be reprehensible and to constitute special circumstances justifying a higher scale of costs.

This endorsement addresses an issue regarding the payment of costs from trust funds in a construction lien proceeding.

Quality Rugs of Canada Limited sought to have its previously awarded costs for a motion and action paid from the Trust Funds, which were established to secure claims of various lien claimants.

The court declined this request, affirming its prior costs endorsement.

The court reasoned that the issue had been previously decided, that "Other Lien Claimants" were not parties to Quality Rugs' specific proceeding and should not bear its costs, and that allowing such payment would create an impermissible priority for Quality Rugs' costs contrary to the rateable distribution provisions of the Construction Lien Act.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion for interim relief in a family law dispute.

The Mother sought sole interim custody of the child and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the Father sought access and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the Mother sole interim custody and exclusive possession, emphasizing the child's best interests and the Mother's financial position.

The Father was granted unsupervised access, as the court found no evidence of danger to the child to warrant denial or supervision.

The Father's request for the sale of the matrimonial home was denied, as his beneficial interest had not yet been established on an interim basis.

The defendant was charged with importing cocaine into Canada.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the cans in her luggage contained cocaine.

The court considered circumstantial evidence, including the high value of the cocaine and the defendant's exclusive control over the cans.

The court rejected defence theories as speculative, concluding that the only reasonable inference was that the defendant had knowledge of the cocaine.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The Crown applied for a pre-trial ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the defendant, C.C., during a police interview concerning charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The defence sought to exclude statements made after C.C.'s arrest, arguing they were involuntary due to emotional, physical, and psychological condition, oppressive questioning, and inducements.

The court found no evidence that C.C.'s will was overborne, noting his consistent reliance on the right to silence regarding the allegations, the non-oppressive nature of the interview, and the absence of a "quid pro quo" inducement.

The court ruled the statements were voluntarily made and admissible.

The defendant, Carol Andrea Gilmore, was found guilty by a jury of importing 217 grams of cocaine into Canada.

This was her third conviction for drug importation, in addition to other drug-related offenses and breaches of court orders.

The court considered the serious impact of drug importation on society, the principles of sentencing, and relevant case law on sentencing ranges for cocaine importation.

Despite the relatively small quantity of cocaine, the defendant's extensive criminal record, lack of genuine remorse, and history as a repeat drug courier were significant aggravating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 4 years imprisonment, which, after credit for pre-sentence custody, resulted in 31.5 months in custody, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition order.

This costs endorsement addresses three sets of costs arising from prior motions: Quality Rugs' unsuccessful claim for carriage/salvage costs, Quality Rugs' successful summary judgment motion, and Quality Rugs' costs of the action.

The court applied principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing proportionality and reasonable conduct.

Quality Rugs' claim for salvage costs was dismissed, with the court finding its tactics unreasonable and the claimed services not benefiting the lien class.

Consequently, Quality Rugs was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to Carriage Counsel ($20,125 plus HST) and Casaco/Casimiro ($4,000 plus HST) for that motion.

For its successful summary judgment motion, Quality Rugs was awarded $7,500 plus HST from Casaco/Casimiro.

For the action, Quality Rugs was awarded $10,000 plus HST from Sedona Development Group (Lorne Park) Inc., Sedona Development Group Inc., Casaco Developments Inc., and Casimiro Holdings Inc. The court found Quality Rugs' overall costs claims to be disproportionate to the amount at stake and its conduct in pursuing salvage costs to be unreasonable, though not egregious enough for substantial indemnity.

The costs orders were subject to set-off.

The defendant, Jacqueline Simone, was charged with attempting to export cocaine, possession for the purpose of exporting, and conspiracy to export cocaine.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by Ms. Simone to the police following her arrest.

The Defence sought to exclude these statements, alleging violations of Ms. Simone's Charter rights.

The court conducted a blended *voir dire* and ultimately ruled that Ms. Simone's statements were voluntary and admissible, finding no Charter breaches.

The defendant, Jacqueline Simone, faced charges including attempting to export cocaine and conspiracy.

During the trial, the defence brought two applications: to exclude telephone records from a co-conspirator's cell phone and to prevent the testimony of an officer regarding retrieved deleted messages from the defendant's phone.

The court dismissed both applications.

The first application was dismissed as the defence failed to establish that the co-conspirator hearsay evidence lacked necessity and reliability, applying the "rare cases" exception from R. v. Mapara.

The second application was dismissed, finding the officer's testimony factual, not expert opinion, and the evidence of deleted messages was probative as post-offence conduct, outweighing any potential prejudice.

The Moving Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss tort claims by Correct Building Corporation (CBC) arising from an aborted development project.

CBC, a related corporate entity to Correct Group Inc. (CGI), was not a party to the preliminary agreement with the City of Barrie but anticipated being awarded the construction contract.

The court applied the *Cooper v. Hobart* test for duty of care, finding no reasonable foreseeability of harm or sufficient proximity between CBC and the Moving Defendants.

The court also cited policy reasons against extending a duty of care to potential subcontractors.

The motion was granted, and CBC's claims against the Moving Defendants were dismissed.

This decision addresses multiple interim motions in a family law dispute concerning child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed incomes for both parties, ordered child and interim spousal support, dismissed the wife's claims for educational expenses, and ordered the sale of the matrimonial home.

The matter was scheduled for an expedited trial.

This decision concerns the sentencing of the respondent, Brian Earl Blatherwick, for civil contempt of court.

He was found in contempt for deliberately and flagrantly breaching two terms of a prior judgment: failing to cash in a life insurance policy and pay the value to the applicant, and transferring control of a business.

Despite having 50 days to purge his contempt, the respondent failed to do so.

The court considered mitigating and aggravating factors, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the respondent's extensive history of ignoring court orders, lying, and financial non-disclosure.

The court imposed a sentence of 180 days incarceration without electronic monitoring and awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $30,000, finding the respondent's actions to be in bad faith with intent to inflict financial harm and deceive the court.