Richard A. Lococo

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order and requested leave to provide fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court granted leave to provide the fresh evidence and considered it, but ultimately dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering her to repay $29,570.92 in income replacement and attendant care benefits to the respondent insurer due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in applying section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application of legal principles to evidence is a question of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal under section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, which limits appeals to questions of law only.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a workplace investigation into an incident between a Black grievor and a white colleague.

While the arbitrator found the investigation procedurally flawed, he dismissed the claim that it was tainted by anti-Black racism or unconscious bias.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the proper articulation of the test for prima facie discrimination is a question of central importance subject to a correctness standard of review.

The court held that the arbitrator misapprehended the test by requiring racism to be the 'dominant possibility' and by misapplying the shifting evidential burdens.

The discrimination claim was remitted to the arbitrator.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding they engaged in illegal insider trading and tipping regarding Amaya Gaming Group Inc.'s acquisition of PokerStars, and imposing sanctions including market bans and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Tribunal erred in relying on circumstantial evidence, misapplying the law on similar fact evidence, and imposing punitive sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's factual findings or inferences, and holding that the sanctions were protective and within the Tribunal's wide discretion.

The appellant sought costs following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law application.

The appellant had submitted an offer to settle 10 days before the appeal hearing.

The respondent municipality argued the offer should not be considered because it lacked time to obtain instructions from the town council, and that it should not pay costs for the initial appearance where the application was stayed.

The Divisional Court rejected both arguments, finding the offer was served within the time required by the Rules and the respondent had supported the erroneous stay.

The court awarded the appellant costs of $29,303.73, including substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hilliard J. dated August 22, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party, acting as an estate trustee, sought leave to appeal an order of Gilmore J. dated August 22, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an endorsement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded nominal costs to the responding party.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request to stay a decision of the Animal Care Review Board.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from the applicant's residence and issued a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the stay motion was moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown due to non-payment.

The panel also upheld the motion judge's finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants, a registered political party and its fund, sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision refusing to pay them three quarterly per-vote subsidies following the 2022 provincial election.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus compelling payment or, alternatively, a finding that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that the CEO had rendered a reviewable decision involving statutory interpretation, making mandamus unavailable.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court found the CEO's interpretation of the Election Finances Act—that the party was ineligible for the payments based on the 2021 amendments—was reasonable.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a licensed chiropodist, appealed from misconduct findings and a $70,000 costs award made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropodists of Ontario.

The Committee found that the appellant failed to comply with a prior suspension order by continuing to benefit financially from his practice, failing to update his website to reflect his suspended status, and engaging in regulated activities such as sterilizing medical instruments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's liability findings and no error in principle in the costs award.

The appellant operates a licensed cannabis micro-cultivation facility on agriculturally zoned land.

The respondent municipality took the position that the zoning by-law prohibited this use, prompting the appellant to seek a rezoning amendment and a declaration from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

The appellant subsequently brought a Superior Court application for a declaration that the by-law did not prohibit his use.

The application judge adjourned the matter, finding it premature and potentially moot pending the administrative proceedings.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the administrative bodies lacked jurisdiction to interpret the by-law.

Exercising its discretion to decide the application, the Court held that the by-law's prohibition of a 'Medical Marihuana Production Facility' did not apply to the appellant's micro-cultivation facility.

The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision approving the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.

The municipality objected to a standard cost-sharing provision for pipeline relocation, arguing it conflicted with section 26 of the Drainage Act, which would otherwise require the utility to pay 100% of relocation costs caused by drainage works.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB had broad, exclusive statutory authority under the Municipal Franchises Act to prescribe the terms of the franchise renewal in the public interest, and did not err in law or exceed its jurisdiction by imposing the standard cost-sharing terms.

The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision that approved the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.

The OEB had found that the original 1957 franchise agreement expired by operation of the common law rule against perpetuities and ordered a renewal based on the OEB's Model Franchise Agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the OEB had jurisdiction to decide the issue, it erred in law by finding the agreement expired.

The Court determined that the utility's rights under the 1957 agreement were vested, not future contingent interests, and therefore the rule against perpetuities did not apply.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision dismissing his application for judicial review.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred in finding he lacked standing and that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision.

The respondent was awarded costs of $5,579.50.

The applicant, a nursing student, sought judicial review of a university tribunal's decision upholding her failing grade in a clinical placement and her subsequent removal from the nursing program.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable, illegal, and procedurally unfair, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the exceptions for judicial review.

Applying the reasonableness standard, the court found the tribunal's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The court also held that the applicant was afforded a high level of procedural fairness throughout the tribunal process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from final orders of the Family Court, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $4,000 in costs as the successful party.

The appellant also sought $4,000, arguing the respondent's counsel acted unreasonably by making paragraph numbering errors.

The Divisional Court rejected the appellant's argument, finding the cited conduct did not justify depriving the successful party of costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $3,000 to account for the appellant's limited financial circumstances.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Casullo J. dated September 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $4,600.