Frank N. Marrocco

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a construction industry bargaining unit.

The core issue was whether two employees performed construction industry work on the application date.

The Divisional Court found the Board's conclusion that disconnecting a pump for off-site repair constituted construction work 'at the site' to be unreasonable.

However, the Court upheld the Board's finding that replacing a thermal sensor constituted repair work, as it was a reasonable, fact-driven conclusion owed deference.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant applied for a school purposes bus licence.

The Ministry of Transportation deferred the decision until the applicant's outstanding criminal charges were resolved.

The applicant sought judicial review to overturn the deferral or compel a decision.

The Divisional Court found the application was not premature but held that the Minister's decision to defer was reasonable given the safety concerns arising from the outstanding charges, which included possession of a switchblade and possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which found that a tenancy was provided as part of an employment compensation package and ended when the employment relationship ended.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable and within its jurisdiction, and that no error of law was demonstrated.

The court also declined to stay the eviction order, noting that an application for a stay requires proper materials addressing the test for injunctive relief.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to repay illegally collected rent, arguing the leases were void under s. 50(3) of the Planning Act because the Residential Tenancies Act's automatic renewal provisions effectively created leases exceeding 21 years.

The tenants cross-appealed the Board's decision to limit their repayment to a one-year period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that statutory renewal does not trigger the Planning Act's subdivision control provisions, estoppel cannot override the RTA's prohibition on illegal rent, and the Board reasonably applied the one-year limitation period for collecting illegal rent.

The applicant sought remedies under Part VII.1 of the Competition Act after the respondents advertised that their wireless service had fewer dropped calls than competitors without conducting adequate and proper testing beforehand.

The court previously found the respondents engaged in reviewable conduct under s. 74.01(1)(b) for making an untested performance claim, although the applicant failed to prove the claim was false or misleading under s. 74.01(1)(a).

In determining remedies, the court assessed proportionality and the factors in s. 74.1(5), including market reach, financial position, and the fact that later testing substantiated the claim.

The court held that post-claim substantiation does not excuse the statutory requirement for prior testing but is relevant to penalty quantum.

An administrative monetary penalty of $500,000 was imposed, while the request for a 10‑year prohibition order was denied.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his malicious prosecution claim against his former landlord.

The underlying dispute arose after the appellant’s arrest and bail conditions preventing him from returning to his rental unit, followed by a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy.

The Small Claims Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over residential tenancy matters under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and recast the remaining claim as malicious prosecution, which was later dismissed after trial.

On appeal, the court held there was evidence supporting the finding that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, including police records and the unappealed Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

Finding no palpable and overriding error, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant physician sought a declaration that the hospital board's decision to revoke his privileges mid-term was automatically stayed pending his appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA).

The Divisional Court granted the declaration, finding that the hospital's by-laws and a prior agreement created a legitimate expectation that the applicant was entitled to a formal hearing.

Because a hearing was required 'otherwise by law', the SPPA applied, triggering the automatic stay provision.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding a $90,000 rent deposit.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the deposit was voluntary and therefore not 'required' under section 106 of the Residential Tenancies Act, meaning there was no contravention of section 135.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that section 106(6) requires interest to be paid on the deposit, calculated on the monthly declining balance.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision regarding a landlord and tenant dispute, raising an issue of estoppel based on a 2012 final order concerning the description of the premises.

The Divisional Court found the issue to be hypothetical and, applying the doctrine of mootness from Borowski, declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no order as to costs.

An application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the current value assessment of a commercial property.

The applicant argued the Board committed an error of law by requiring the use of at least two of the three generally accepted property valuation approaches to establish current value.

The court held that, read as a whole, the Board’s reasons did not impose such a legal requirement but instead reflected a preference for the respondent’s expert evidence using the direct sales comparison approach.

The alleged error concerned the weight given to evidence, which is a question of fact and not appealable under the Assessment Act.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied.

The parties consented to fix costs in the amount of $89,972.43.

The court ordered that the costs be payable within two weeks of the respondent deciding not to appeal, or within two weeks of an order dismissing the respondent's appeal if leave is granted.

If the respondent successfully appeals, costs will be determined by the Court of Appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge's decision to halt a judgment debtor examination because the debtor was receiving social assistance.

The Divisional Court found that there is no authority in the Small Claims Court Rules to prevent an examination on this basis.

The purpose of the examination is to gather financial information, which may include uncovering assets unknown to social assistance agencies.

The application was allowed, the Deputy Judge's order was set aside, and a new examination was ordered before a different judge.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar General's decision to cancel his birth registration under the Vital Statistics Act, following a criminal conviction where it was found he had assumed a false identity.

The applicant argued that delegating the decision to a Ministry lawyer created a reasonable apprehension of bias and that denying his request for a teleconference hearing breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias given the distinct roles within the Ministry, and concluding that a written hearing satisfied the duty of fairness as the applicant failed to provide new evidence conclusively impeaching the prior judicial finding of his identity.

The respondent sought costs following a proceeding.

The court found the time spent and rates claimed by the respondent's counsel to be reasonable.

However, the court made a downward adjustment to the costs claimed because the court had appointed amicus curiae, which raised real legal issues that the respondent was obliged to address.

Costs were fixed at $6,250 payable by the opposing party to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which had issued amended orders correcting a typographical error in a 2002 assessment decision six years later, resulting in a back tax bill of over $500,000.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the amended decisions and that correctness outweighed any prejudice to the taxpayer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction and by failing to balance the objective of correctness with the delay and prejudice suffered by the taxpayer.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator at the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The applicant had requested information from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation regarding a $20 million winning lottery ticket he claimed was stolen from him.

The adjudicator upheld the OLGC's redaction of a Draw Report and found that the OLGC had conducted a reasonable search for records in its custody or control.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OLGC was not required to obtain records from third parties like Lotto Québec or the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation, as it did not have control over those records.

The applicant Ministry sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision reinstating a Transportation Enforcement Officer who was terminated after pleading guilty to off-duty indecent acts.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and upheld the termination, finding that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Board misapprehended medical evidence regarding the employee's long-term risk of reoffending and unreasonably diminished the significance of the Millhaven criteria for off-duty conduct, particularly the negative impact on the employee's credibility as a peace officer required to testify in court.

The appellant appealed a summary trial decision dismissing her claim for $32,000 under an equity-splitting agreement related to the sale of the respondent's house.

The trial judge had found the agreement unenforceable because the appellant was not a licensed real estate agent under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, and because the agreement was unconscionable due to the respondent's vulnerability and unequal bargaining power.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the bargain was unfair and unconscionable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of her application for registration as a Nurse Practitioner.

The appellant had failed the required examination three times and argued the examination was unfair because it was based on American nursing practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as the appellant provided no evidence to establish the examination was unfair or that she was personally adversely affected by its content.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board approving the respondent's application to construct electricity transmission lines for a wind energy project and approving the forms of land agreements offered to affected landowners.

The appellant argued the independent legal advice clauses in the agreements were misleading and the Board failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the approval of the form of agreement was a discretionary decision that did not raise a question of law or jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Board's decision was reasonable and its reasons were adequate.