Richard A. Lococo

The appellant, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in a 1999 motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his entitlement to attendant care benefits.

The LAT had awarded a minimal monthly amount, focusing on the care actually provided by his family rather than his need for supervisory care due to his inability to respond to emergencies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test under the 1996 SABS and that the decision was unreasonable.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order appointing an inspector to investigate the financial affairs of their jointly owned pharmacies and granting the respondents leave to bring derivative actions on behalf of the corporations.

The appellants argued the dispute should be stayed in favour of arbitration, that an inspector was unnecessary, and that the oppression remedy was an adequate alternative to a derivative action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitration clauses did not apply to the corporations, the appellants had attorned to the court's jurisdiction, the inspector was necessary to uncover facts after the appellants failed to comply with production orders, and the derivative actions were in the best interests of the corporations to recover diverted funds.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers that revoked her teaching certificate for professional misconduct related to off-duty social media posts.

The appellant argued the penalty ignored her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee committed a fatal error of law by failing to conduct a proper Doré analysis regarding the Charter implications of disciplining the appellant for her speech.

The matter was remitted back for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for disability-based discrimination.

The applicant alleged she was terminated after disclosing her bipolar disorder and requesting accommodations.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent employer to file a second, more detailed witness statement during the hearing without permitting the applicant to cross-examine the witness on the discrepancies between his two statements.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The appellant contractor appealed a motion judge's order discharging and vacating its construction lien.

The motion judge had found that the lien expired prior to perfection because the contract was terminated or abandoned more than 150 days before the certificate of action was registered.

On appeal, the contractor argued the motion judge erred in finding termination or abandonment and improperly used enhanced fact-finding powers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings of termination and abandonment, and concluding that the motion judge correctly applied the evidentiary burden without resorting to enhanced fact-finding powers.

Sobeys Capital Inc. applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying Local 633 as a craft bargaining unit for 15 meat department workers at a Toronto supermarket.

Sobeys argued the decision was unreasonable, contrary to precedent, and created an absurd result by leaving the remaining 92 percent of employees non-unionized.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's decisions under both s. 9(3) and s. 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act were reasonable, given the union's long history of representing supermarket meat department employees and the lack of evidence that certification would cause labour relations problems.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) decision that upheld his misconduct conviction for Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority and ordered a new hearing for a Neglect of Duty charge.

The charges arose from an incident where the officer failed to remove handcuffs from a misidentified suspect after learning they were not the intended target.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OCPC's decision reasonable.

The court upheld the OCPC's dismissal of a fresh evidence motion regarding post-decision communications, found no reversible error in the hearing officer's use of copied precedents, and agreed that the failure to release the misidentified suspect constituted an unlawful arrest.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (OSET) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding his son's special education placement.

The applicant argued his son, who has autism, required 1:1 support in a regular classroom.

The OSET dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that 1:1 support was a 'service' rather than a 'placement.' The HRTO subsequently summarily dismissed the applicant's human rights complaints.

The Divisional Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding the OSET's narrow interpretation of 'placement' and the HRTO's summary dismissal were both unreasonable.

The HRTO decision was quashed and remitted for a hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the quantum of damages for warranted defects in the exterior brick cladding of their new home.

The Tribunal had awarded $16,724 to repair the front of the house, rejecting the appellants' claim for over $200,000 to rebrick the entire home.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellants argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the test from Ducas and by taking a functional rather than prescriptive approach to the Building Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Ducas test inapplicable to the one-year warranty at issue and holding that the Tribunal properly assessed the scope of damages based on the evidence.

The appellant was partially successful on appeal, having a set-off amount of $325,824.41 quashed, though failing to overturn the dismissal of their claim.

The parties could not agree on costs following the appeal's mixed outcome.

The court found that while success was divided, the appellant's success on the set-off ground was of greater monetary value, justifying a costs award.

The court awarded the appellant $6,000 all-inclusive, noting the amount sought was disproportionate to the final outcome.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision granting attendant care benefits to the respondent, who suffered from severe autism and was injured in a minor motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias because the LAT adjudicator had a history of, and continued, public advocacy for autism caregivers after his appointment.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the adjudicator's ongoing advocacy efforts following his appointment raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in a case specifically determining attendant care benefits for an autistic claimant.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant union (UA) sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the installation of a water-based fire suppression system.

The Board had assigned the work to the Labourers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) based on area practice, despite UA's argument that the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA) created exclusive jurisdiction for its members.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board reasonably concluded that BOSTA's purpose is to protect the public by determining necessary skill sets, not to override the traditional factors considered in work assignment disputes between competing unions.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner decisions ordering the Cabinet Office to obtain and review entries from the Premier's personal cellphone call logs that related to government business.

The IPC had found that these specific call logs were under the control of the Cabinet Office pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's application of the National Defence control test was reasonable and that the decisions appropriately balanced the public's right of access to government information with the protection of personal privacy.

The appellant factoring company appealed a trial decision that dismissed its construction lien claim and found it jointly liable for damages caused by the contractor who abandoned the project.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings regarding the lack of authority to approve invoices.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in using equitable and statutory set-off as a sword to award damages against the assignee factoring company that exceeded the value of its lien.

The damages award against the appellant was quashed.

The applicant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the Tribunal admitted the respondent insurer's expert psychiatric reports but refused to issue a summons to compel the expert's attendance for cross-examination due to non-compliance with procedural rules.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's strict application of its rules and refusal to facilitate the cross-examination of a key expert witness on a critical issue breached the applicant's right to procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant had been terminated after failing to return to work following the lifting of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, claiming injuries from a car accident prevented his return.

The union filed a grievance but struggled to obtain medical documentation from the applicant to substantiate his incapacity.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and found the OLRB's conclusion that the union did not act arbitrarily was justified, transparent, and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim decision and order of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded agreed costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Des Rosiers J. dated September 2, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The appellant was severely injured in a bicycle collision and rendered mentally incapable of making decisions.

She applied for non-earner benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) but was denied benefits for the period before her disability certificate was submitted, pursuant to s. 36(3).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider s. 34 of the SABS, which excuses non-compliance with time limits if there is a reasonable explanation.

The Court found that s. 34 applies to the requirement in s. 36(3), and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to determine if the appellant's incapacity constituted a reasonable explanation.