Richard A. Lococo

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal which rescinded a previous order requiring the respondents to contribute over $2 million toward mining development expenses.

The Tribunal had found that an oral agreement between the parties' predecessors established the respondents' interest as a 'free carried, perpetual, non-contributing' interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and conclusion that a binding oral agreement existed.

The applicant, Heather Miller, sought to enforce an undertaking given by the respondents, Telemaco Matrundola and 1000125576 Ontario Inc., concerning the applicability of Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) to the sale of real property.

The parties had agreed that the purchase price would be readjusted based on a tax ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The applicant obtained a CRA ruling confirming the transaction was HST exempt, but the respondents refused to comply, alleging the ruling request contained inaccurate or incomplete information regarding commercial activity on the property and the applicant's HST registration status.

The court found that the applicant had complied with the undertaking and that the information provided to CRA was accurate and complete for the purpose of the ruling.

The court emphasized its limited jurisdiction in tax matters, which fall under the Tax Court of Canada.

The application was granted, ordering the respondents to pay the withheld portion of the purchase price to the applicant with interest.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their 16-year-old child, with parenting time at the child's discretion.

The motion judge had found the father engaged in family violence and harassing behaviour, while dismissing his claims of parental alienation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or application of the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act.

Two teachers' unions sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding collective bargaining with the Crown.

The OLRB had dismissed OSSTF's claim of bad faith bargaining, finding the Crown did not misrepresent its position on grid movement grievances.

The OLRB upheld ETFO's claim of bad faith bargaining but declined to award monetary damages, instead ordering a declaration and notice to members.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed both applications, finding the OLRB's factual findings, inferences, and remedial choices were logical, transparent, and entitled to deference given its labour relations expertise.

The appellants, two school boards and several employees, appealed a motion judge's refusal to strike the respondent's statement of claim.

The respondent, a mother involved in a bitter custody dispute, sued the school boards for misfeasance of public office, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and breach of her section 7 Charter rights, alleging they failed to provide records, notify her of incidents, and impeded access to her son.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that school employees do not owe a duty of care to parents that conflicts with their duties to students, and the conduct alleged did not meet the high thresholds for the intentional torts or Charter breaches pleaded.

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

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated October 3 and 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents jointly in the amount of $10,000.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated July 26, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, fixed in the amount of $7,000.

The appellant, a non-profit corporation providing affordable housing, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a municipal tax exemption under s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The application judge found that the appellant was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' because it did not engage in 'some form of endeavour' to provide relief, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Religious Hospitallers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or application of binding precedent, though a concurring opinion suggested the Religious Hospitallers decision should be revisited.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the school board's decision finding he breached its Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to in camera meetings and alleged bias of the Chair, and that the decision unreasonably infringed his freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was afforded adequate procedural fairness, the in camera meetings were statutorily permitted due to related litigation, and the board reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter rights with its statutory obligations.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Wilkinson J. dated July 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacEachern J. dated June 23, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a school board's decision to stop her presentation at a public meeting.

The applicant had been approved to speak about transparency in a library review process but digressed to critique specific books discussing gender identity.

The chair stopped her presentation on the basis that it could violate human rights legislation and board policies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision was reasonable, did not breach procedural fairness, and did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the board reasonably balanced the applicant's freedom of expression with its statutory objectives and policies regarding equity and inclusion.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City's decision to reject an advertisement for transit vehicles.

The City conceded that it failed to provide adequate reasons balancing the applicants' right to freedom of expression against its statutory objectives, as required by the Doré/Loyola framework.

The Divisional Court granted the application, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter back to the City for proper consideration and to provide adequate reasons.

The applicant lawyer sought judicial review of decisions by the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld an interlocutory suspension of her license and a costs award of over $60,000.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness, the decisions lacked adequate reasons, and the investigation was flawed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, adequately justified the risk of harm to the public, and that the applicant was not denied natural justice.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two unreported decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written submissions of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting a typographical error in the neutral citation of the underlying reasons for decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions that summarily dismissed his complaints against various City of Toronto officials and departments.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race and place of origin regarding the City's handling of his zoning by-law inquiries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the HRTO's conclusions that the complaints had no reasonable prospect of success and lacked a factual link to Code-protected grounds were reasonable and procedurally fair.