Leonard Ricchetti

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.

At a civil case conference requested by the defendant, counsel sought substantive orders regarding unanswered correspondence, undertakings, and a WAGG motion.

The court declined to make the requested orders, emphasizing that case conferences are for procedural matters and timetabling, not for obtaining substantive relief or enforcing civility between counsel.

The court directed the parties to bring formal motions if substantive relief was required.

The plaintiff, in her personal capacity and as an estate trustee, brought an action against her brothers and several family corporations, alleging oppression, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a 2002 estate freeze and the distribution of mortgage proceeds.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the estate freeze was validly implemented and that the distribution of the mortgage proceeds was a reasonable business decision.

The court dismissed the majority of the plaintiff's claims, finding no evidence of oppression, but ordered the corporate defendants to hold annual shareholder meetings, appoint an auditor, and retain independent counsel.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident action sought an order that their upcoming trial proceed virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of available courtrooms for in-person civil trials.

The defendant opposed, arguing that credibility and demeanor required an in-person hearing.

The court ordered the trial to proceed virtually, finding that a further two-year delay to accommodate an in-person trial was not in the interests of justice and that credibility could be adequately assessed virtually.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 2.1.01 application to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a motor vehicle accident, subsequent denial of statutory accident benefits, and alleged improper surveillance.

The plaintiffs also challenged the constitutional validity of certain Insurance Act provisions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the constitutional challenge and the claims could not be properly assessed or struck out using the limited summary procedure under Rule 2.1.01, as it was not the clearest of cases.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a software license agreement dispute.

The trial judge had found that the appellant fundamentally breached the agreement by failing to provide software support and training at no extra cost, relying on the respondent's subjective expectations and prior conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made several extricable errors of law by failing to apply proper principles of contractual interpretation, including ignoring the express language of the written agreements and the entire agreement clause.

A new trial was ordered.

Costs endorsement following a motion by the plaintiff to strike certain paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence.

The court found that success on the motion was mixed, with both parties succeeding on some significant issues and failing on others.

As neither party was substantially successful, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The third party, the City of Mississauga, brought a motion to strike the defendant's third party claim, which was dismissed.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $4,203.60.

The City argued no costs should be awarded or they should be in the cause, claiming it was a public authority and the motion was public interest litigation.

The court rejected the City's arguments, finding the motion was a tactical litigation strategy in a construction dispute, not public interest litigation.

The court awarded the defendant costs of $4,203.60 on a partial indemnity scale.

The moving party was successful on a motion to strike the responding party's application.

The court found that the application was duplicitous of an existing action and constituted an abuse of process.

As a result of this finding, the court awarded the moving party costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $10,000 plus HST.

The moving defendants (the Vuletics) sought a stay of the action, alleging an abuse of process because the plaintiffs (the Carotis) failed to immediately disclose a settlement agreement reached with a co-defendant (Kegalj).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement agreement did not entirely change the adversarial landscape.

The settling co-defendant was already adverse in interest to the moving defendants prior to the settlement, and the agreement merely required him to act as a truthful witness, which did not fundamentally alter the litigation's adversarial orientation.

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.

The defendant brought an application seeking the recusal of the trial judge assigned to his second trial, alleging that she demonstrated bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias during his first trial, which had ended in a mistrial.

The defendant argued that the trial judge's rulings, tone, and interventions during cross-examinations favoured the Crown and undermined defence counsel.

The court reviewed the transcripts and audio recordings and found that the trial judge's conduct was appropriate and necessary to manage a highly contentious trial.

The court concluded there was no cogent evidence of bias and dismissed the application.

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.