Frank N. Marrocco

The applicant sought to appeal a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had dismissed his appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, to a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The applicant claimed he was advised by court staff that this was the proper forum.

The court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the proper forum for such an appeal is the Court of Appeal.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) preliminary decision finding that the respondent was a resident of Ontario at the time of his motor vehicle accident in Alberta, and thus an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had been living and working in Alberta for more than 60 days prior to the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT reasonably applied a flexible, context-specific test for 'ordinary residence' rather than a strict physical presence test, and that the LAT's weighing of the evidence regarding the respondent's ties to Ontario was reasonable.

The appellant, a registered physiotherapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for inappropriate touching during a patient's ankle treatment.

The Committee imposed a three-month suspension and costs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee breached procedural fairness by attempting to physically recreate his described treatment techniques during their private deliberations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's actions were a proper evaluation of the evidentiary record and its credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The penalty was also upheld as falling within a reasonable range.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, having paid no rent since April 2017.

The tenant sought an adjournment to file fresh evidence and argued the landlord was negligent regarding safety and pest control.

The Divisional Court refused the adjournment and dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision and noting the tenant was fully heard at the review hearing.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent landlord.

The appellant, a minority shareholder in a family holding company, appealed the dismissal of her application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

She sought a court-ordered sale of her shares to her brothers after they rejected her offer to sell and she was unable to find a third-party purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of liquidity for her shares and that her interests as a shareholder were not unfairly disregarded.

The appellants, construction trades, appealed a Master's decision granting summary judgment dismissing their breach of trust actions against the respondents and refusing to lift bankruptcy stays.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that the appellants' breach of trust claims were discovered when they signed minutes of settlement in 2009, making their 2012 and 2013 actions statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Consequently, there was no basis to lift the bankruptcy stays under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant First Nation appealed a costs decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the 'polluter pays' principle and by not considering the appellant's First Nation status when assessing whether the respondent's conduct was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, costs are only awarded for unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct.

The Court found that the 'polluter pays' principle does not apply to costs considerations and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the respondent's conduct in defending the appeal was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her income replacement benefits and a treatment plan.

She argued procedural fairness was breached because the hearing was held by telephone rather than in person, minor injury guidelines were added without notice, medical records were not fairly evaluated, and the rule in Browne v. Dunn was not followed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the telephone hearing, noting the appellant should have been aware of the MIG issue, and concluding the adjudicator reasonably evaluated the medical evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of ongoing disciplinary proceedings before the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the principle that judicial review should generally await the completion of administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances, noting that the referral to the Discipline Committee complied with the Professional Engineers Act and that disclosure issues should be addressed in the related civil proceedings.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.

The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.

The moving party Estate sought leave to appeal two final discretionary cost orders that dismissed its motion for costs against the impecunious respondent and her former lawyer personally.

The motions judge had found the respondent was unable to pay and that the lawyer, who acted pro bono for a limited time, did not act frivolously or vexatiously.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no error in principle and that the motions judge's decision was not plainly wrong.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order requiring them to pay an outstanding amount on a business loan.

The appellants argued defences of non est factum and unconscionability regarding the personal liability of the individual owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, given the clear structure of the loan document and warnings respecting personal liability.

The applicant, a civil liberties organization, brought a public interest challenge against the administrative segregation provisions (sections 31-37) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, arguing they violated sections 7, 11(h), and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant had standing to seek a declaration of invalidity under section 52(1) but not a personal remedy under section 24(1).

The court held that the legislative scheme violated section 7 of the Charter because it failed to provide an independent review of the institutional head's decision to maintain an inmate in administrative segregation, which breached the principles of fundamental justice (procedural fairness) and was not saved by section 1.

The court dismissed the claims under section 11(h) and section 12, finding that segregation is not a punishment and that the scheme, if properly applied with consideration for inmates' mental health, does not constitute cruel and unusual treatment.

The court declared the provisions unconstitutional to the extent they authorize segregation beyond five working days without independent review, but suspended the declaration for 12 months.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that ordered the Registrar not to revoke the registration of a real estate salesperson who admitted to stealing from a client's home.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The Tribunal erred by relying on opinion evidence from a therapist who was not qualified as an expert, refusing to view relevant video evidence of the theft, and imposing unreasonable monitoring conditions that failed to protect the consumer public.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for the production of corporate documents, including financial statements, at the respondents' expense.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed his request to the financial statements of three corporations, claiming to be a 15% shareholder.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the relief sought was premature given a pending appeal of an earlier decision between the parties, and that there was no demonstrated prejudice to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an application judge's discretionary decision to order the sale of a property rather than its partition, and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with reasonable diligence.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the appellants failed to identify any error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the application judge's conclusion that an order for sale was appropriate given the number of owners and the nature of the land.

The court heard an urgent motion to vary an interlocutory order that had prohibited the withdrawal of life support for Fernando Ferreira.

Mr. Ferreira had suffered a cardiac arrest, leading to brain death.

His wife, as substitute decision-maker, and family had agreed to discontinue life support and proceed with organ donation.

An ex parte order prohibiting withdrawal of life support had been obtained by Mr. Ferreira's motor vehicle accident lawyer.

The court, treating the matter as a motion to vary, found that given the patient's brain-dead status and family consensus, the previous order should be set aside.

The application to prohibit life support withdrawal was dismissed.

The Crown sought an adjournment of a constitutional challenge brought by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) against administrative segregation provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Crown argued for deference to Parliament due to pending legislative amendments (Bill C-56) and a new administrative policy.

The CCLA opposed the adjournment.

The court refused the adjournment, finding that the CCLA's constitutional challenge addressed aspects of the existing Act that would remain unaltered by the proposed amendments, thus rendering the adjournment unnecessary and not a matter of disrespect to the legislative process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her complaint against the City of Toronto as an abuse of process, and against her union and its counsel for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant had previously settled her grievance and human rights complaint with the City but later filed a new complaint, alleging she signed the settlement under duress from her union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decision was reasonable and correct, as the settlement was binding and the allegations of duress did not invalidate it.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed a grievance regarding the calculation of retirement gratuities for employees working less than 12 months per year.

The arbitrator found the employer's method of dividing yearly earnings in half to determine the six-month cap was reasonable and consistent with the Municipal Act paradigm referenced in the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation fell within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.