Frank N. Marrocco

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the calculation of a lender's administrative fee payable to the respondent under a loan agreement.

They argued the application judge erred by not considering the mortgage itself to determine the fee amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the mortgage provided for the fee, the mortgage commitment letter correctly governed its quantum.

The application judge's reasoning was adopted, and the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following the release of its decision on the main appeal, the Divisional Court realized it had inadvertently omitted addressing the appellant's supplementary notice of appeal regarding a $10,000 costs order made by the motion judge.

The respondent argued the issue should be left to the Court of Appeal or dismissed due to late service.

The Court rejected these arguments, deciding to hear the costs appeal and setting a timetable for written submissions.

The applicants, cancer researchers at the University Health Network, sought judicial review of the hospital CEO's decision affirming an investigation committee's finding that they committed research misconduct.

The committee found the applicants guilty of falsification, fabrication, and material non-compliance, resulting in a suspension of their research activities.

The Divisional Court held that the CEO's decision was subject to judicial review and reviewable on a reasonableness standard.

The court quashed the findings of falsification and fabrication as unreasonable because the committee could not identify who altered the images.

However, the court upheld the finding of material non-compliance based on systemic flaws in the applicants' laboratory management.

The matter of sanction was remitted for reconsideration.

Following a successful appeal, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $11,382.27 or partial indemnity costs of $8,119.39.

The appellants argued for no costs, claiming the appeal raised a novel issue regarding the enforcement of minutes of settlement under Rule 49.09.

The Divisional Court rejected both arguments, finding the issue was neither novel nor of public interest, and awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board Review Order that affirmed the Board's jurisdiction over an Occupancy Agreement and Option to Purchase Agreement.

The Board had relied on a previous Divisional Court decision involving the same landlords and a similarly worded agreement for a different property, concluding the agreements were parallel.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to conduct a specific inquiry into the true substance of the transaction at issue as required by section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The matter was remitted to the Board for reconsideration.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action was a subrogated claim brought by an insurer in the names of the respondents for damages arising from a fuel oil spill.

The appellants argued the action was a nullity because the respondents were undischarged bankrupts when the claim was issued, meaning their causes of action had vested in their Trustees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurer's subrogation rights crystallized before the husband's assignment in bankruptcy, and the Trustee had disclaimed interest in the insurance claims.

Thus, the insurer was entitled to commence the action in the husband's name.

The appellant mother appealed an order declaring she wrongfully retained her two children in Ontario and requiring their return to Germany under the Hague Convention.

The children had moved to Ontario with the respondent father's consent for a temporary period.

The Divisional Court found that the application judge erred in concluding the children's habitual residence remained in Germany.

The Court held that during the 16-month consensual period, the children's habitual residence changed to Ontario.

The appeal was allowed, the return order was set aside, and the Hague application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that a community house staff member violated his rights by asking him not to sit on a neighbour's bench pursuant to a 'Good Neighbour' policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and correct, as the applicant failed to link the impugned actions to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a mediated settlement agreement, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction, Rule 49.09 did not apply to minutes of settlement, and the settlement was signed under duress and was unconscionable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction because the settlement and counterclaim amounts were under $50,000.

The court held that Rule 49.09 applies to minutes of settlement and found no evidence of duress or unconscionability, noting the individual appellant's subsequent actions affirmed the settlement and his choice to proceed unrepresented did not invalidate the agreement.

The moving party sought enforcement of a settlement agreement requiring the bankruptcy trustee to pay $300,000 toward a previously awarded costs order.

The trustee argued the bankruptcy estate lacked sufficient funds and that payment would prejudice its ability to pay its own fees and ongoing litigation costs.

The court interpreted the settlement memorandum and held that the first $300,000 of the moving party’s costs were expressly not subordinated to the trustee’s fees and expenses.

The trustee’s failure to reserve those funds could not defeat the contractual arrangement.

The court ordered payment of $300,000 in trust to counsel holding a solicitor’s lien, with no costs of the motion.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The motions judge found a genuine issue for trial regarding when the respondent knew or ought to have known that the water leakage was caused by the appellants' acts or omissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion or his decision not to exercise fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04, as resolving the discoverability issue would require considering virtually all trial evidence.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interim order made by the Ontario Labour Relations Board requiring the provision of properly trained security personnel in a forensic psychiatric unit.

The respondents argued that reviewing the interim order before the Board had completed its proceedings would be an inappropriate, fragmented approach.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the application premature as the Board's proceedings were still ongoing and the impugned order was only one aspect of a broader safety regime being considered.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent unions.

Competing summary judgment motions arose from acrimonious litigation following a lawyer's withdrawal from a Thunder Bay law firm and related management partnership.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because multiple interrelated claims, including breach of trust, slander, defamation, and a separate substantial claim for work in progress and disbursements, would proceed regardless, creating risks of duplication and inconsistent findings.

In resolving factual matters relevant to case management, the court found the withdrawing partner did not actually leave the partnership until November 11, 2011, and that the associated family trust was required to withdraw from the management partnership on the same date.

Both summary judgment motions were dismissed and no costs were awarded.

The proposed interveners, two unions, brought motions for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review concerning the payment of post-retirement benefits by a school board.

The judicial review was scheduled to be heard immediately after a related Stated Case in which both proposed interveners were already participating.

The court dismissed one union's motion to intervene, finding it could efficiently make its arguments in the Stated Case proceeding without prolonging the judicial review.

However, the court added the other union as a responding party because it was a joint signatory to the collective agreement at issue in the underlying arbitration.

The applicants sought certiorari quashing a summary conviction trial judge’s interlocutory order requiring them to personally attend their trial rather than appear only by counsel.

The underlying prosecution involved charges relating to possession and sale of unstamped cigarettes under federal and provincial tobacco legislation.

The applicants argued the trial judge fettered his discretion by relying on a local practice requiring accused persons to attend and that the order infringed Charter protections against arbitrary detention.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge exercised a broad discretion under s. 800(2) of the Criminal Code and considered both general and case‑specific factors.

No jurisdictional error was established and, in any event, the discretionary remedy of certiorari would not be granted.

Trinity Western University (TWU) applied for judicial review of the Law Society of Upper Canada's decision to deny accreditation to its proposed law school.

The Law Society denied accreditation because TWU's community covenant, which prohibits sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage, was found to be discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Law Society's decision was reasonable.

The Court held that while the decision infringed TWU's freedom of religion, the Law Society proportionately balanced this right against its statutory mandate to protect the public interest and the equality rights of its future members.

The appellant, an Aboriginal man who suffered abuse at a training school as a youth, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation.

The Board had weighed the abuse he suffered against his extensive subsequent criminal record and concluded compensation was not reasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board made no error of law in considering his criminal record under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, and that Gladue principles do not strictly apply to civil compensation determinations.

Following a successful appeal that set aside an order requiring the appellant to have a litigation guardian, the court determined the costs of the appeal.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $30,000, arguing that full recovery is the norm in family law proceedings.

The respondent argued for no costs due to the novelty of the issue, or alternatively $7,000.

The Divisional Court held that the normal rule of partial indemnity costs applies to appellate proceedings in this court, rejecting the family law full-recovery norm for appeals.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants, federal inmates, sought to certify a class action against the Crown after correctional officers seized t-shirts they had designed to commemorate inmates who died in custody.

The motion judge refused certification, finding that the inmate grievance process under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was the preferable procedure for resolving the dispute.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellants argued the motion judge erred in her preferability analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied the framework from AIC Limited v. Fischer and made no error in principle in concluding that the grievance process could provide meaningful redress and access to justice.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed both statutory accident benefits and tort damages.

The insurer, which insured both the plaintiff and the defendant, denied coverage alleging a staged accident.

The insurer retained the same law firm to defend it in the accident benefits arbitration and to defend the tort action, providing the law firm with the plaintiff's confidential accident benefits file without consent.

The plaintiff successfully moved to remove the law firm as solicitor of record due to a conflict of interest.

The insurer appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an insurer owes a duty of good faith and must maintain a privacy 'firewall' between its accident benefits and tort departments.

Retaining the same counsel and sharing confidential information without consent created an irreconcilable conflict of interest.