Richard A. Lococo

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order requiring them to pay outstanding legal fees to the respondent law firm.

The appellants argued that the motions judge failed to properly scrutinize the solicitor's accounts, applied the wrong test for summary judgment, and should have directed a reference for an assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly applied the summary judgment test, properly reviewed the accounts, and reasonably exercised his discretion not to order a reference given the appellants' failure to comply with the Solicitors Act timelines.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an appraisal award determining the replacement cost and actual cash value of dental equipment damaged in a fire.

The insurer argued the appraisal panel exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the equipment needed replacement rather than cleaning, which it characterized as a coverage issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the panel properly confined itself to valuation issues under Statutory Condition 11.

The court also rejected the insurer's arguments that it was denied procedural fairness during the appraisal process.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her post-104-week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT adjudicator erred in law by failing to reference a Functional Capacity Evaluation, ignoring subjective evidence, demonstrating bias, and misapplying the test for suitable alternative employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator's failure to mention specific evidence did not constitute an error of law, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the adjudicator's factual findings supported the conclusion regardless of the specific employment factors considered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rees J. dated November 30, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order dated March 20, 2024, as well as leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with no order as to costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions arising from her layoff and a letter of expectation.

The respondents argued the application was premature because one of the applicant's four OLRB applications was still ongoing following a successful reconsideration request.

The Divisional Court agreed that proceeding with the judicial review while related OLRB proceedings were ongoing would risk fragmentation and inconsistent findings.

The court adjourned the application for judicial review until the final decision on the outstanding OLRB application.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 12, 2023.

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

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness and that the LAT erred in its catastrophic impairment analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the LAT's findings regarding the appellant's pre-existing psychological conditions were factual determinations supported by evidence, which are not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to set aside an order striking out his defence to a counterclaim.

The Divisional Court found that the decision was interlocutory, not final, and therefore required leave to appeal.

The court declined to grant leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash O. Reg. 382/19, which amended transitional rules for planning appeals before the Ontario Land Tribunal, arguing it was ultra vires its enabling statute.

The regulation reimposed a more restrictive procedural regime on third-party appeals of municipal planning decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Attorney General had broad, express statutory authority under s. 43.1 of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 to make the transitional regulation.

The court held the regulation was consistent with the enabling statute and did not improperly deprive the applicants of vested substantive rights.

The court also declined to address procedural fairness issues, finding them premature as they should be raised in the applicants' pending motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant builder appealed an arbitrator's final award on damages and costs following a failed real estate transaction.

Previously, a Superior Court judge had set aside the arbitrator's initial liability award, finding the respondent buyers liable for anticipatory breach, and remitted the matter for damages assessment.

On remand, the arbitrator ignored the court's binding findings, created a legal fiction of 'contributory breach of contract,' and limited the builder's damages to the forfeited deposits without hearing evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that arbitrators are bound by the law and appellate court directions.

The award was set aside and remitted to a new arbitrator to properly assess damages based on the difference between the contract and resale prices.

The estate trustee appealed a costs order that denied her indemnification for legal expenses incurred while representing the estate in a dependent's relief application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in principle and failed to provide adequate reasons for denying costs.

Applying the framework for blended costs in estate litigation, the court awarded the estate trustee full recovery of her costs on a substantial indemnity basis, with the majority payable by the respondent whose egregious conduct unnecessarily increased the litigation costs, and the balance payable by the estate.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal breached procedural fairness in three ways: relying on the untested evidence of the respondent's expert who did not re-attend for cross-examination, deciding the issue of causation without notice when it was not in dispute, and relying on documents not in evidence that the appellant had no opportunity to address.

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

The appellant franchisee appealed a motion judge's decision denying an interlocutory injunction to prevent the termination of its franchise agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's two-paragraph reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to address the renewal clause, the factual disputes, or the RJR-MacDonald test.

The Court declined to decide the injunction on the merits, remitting it to a different judge.

The Court also held that the franchisor's undertaking not to terminate the agreement pending the determination of the injunction motion remained binding through the appeal process.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing on the basis of illness and a recent change in counsel.

The respondent initially opposed the adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but directed that the appeal proceed in writing, with a timetable for further submissions.

The court also refused to permit the appellants to file new evidentiary material, noting a lack of diligence in pursuing its admission.

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 moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order dated October 31, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 21, 2023.

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

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $160,171.70 in quantum meruit for cottage renovation work and $256,163.05 in substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants argued the remediation work was a fixed-price contract and that quantum meruit should not apply to customized goods left in the contractor's warehouse after the appellants terminated the project.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the contract was not fixed-price and that the contractor was entitled to reimbursement for the customized goods.

The substantial indemnity costs award was upheld due to the appellants' unproven and aggressively maintained allegations of fraud.

The moving parties, the Attorney General of Canada and others, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.