Richard A. Lococo

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that set aside a proposal to refuse a cannabis retail manager licence to the respondent.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse the licence due to the respondent's past operation of illegal cannabis dispensaries and related criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in applying the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard of proof, nor did it make irrational inferences when concluding that the respondent's past transparency and subsequent conduct indicated she would comply with the law in the future.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Ministry decision affirming the acceptance of a competitor's aggregate permit application as complete.

The applicant argued the Ministry unreasonably justified its acceptance of the competitor's application and failed to concurrently reconsider the applicant's own application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry provided a reasoned explanation for departing from its policies regarding site visits and archaeological checklists, and that concurrent reconsideration was not required to meet the reasonableness standard.

The applicants, families of adults with severe autism, sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to discontinue special, non-statutory funding for Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) therapy and transition them to mainstream adult developmental services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation of public funds is a political decision not subject to judicial review absent bad faith.

The court also dismissed the applicants' Charter claims, reaffirming that section 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to fund specific health or social services, and finding no breach of sections 7, 9, or 12 regarding one applicant's involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a college.

The tribunal had dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to establish a connection between her removal from an academic program and any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the tribunal's decision exhibited the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Van Melle J. dated April 19, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated April 14, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties, Wrestling Canada Lutte, Tamara Medwidsky, and Lee Mackay, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of K. A. Jensen J. dated May 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Barbara Conway dated September 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $4,500 payable by the moving party to the respondent.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal and for a stay of two previous orders.

Prior to the hearing, the moving party filed a Notice of Abandonment of Appeal.

Consequently, the Divisional Court dismissed the motions as abandoned.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the respondent landlord to convert the unit to a non-residential use.

The appellants argued the Board erred by denying an adjournment, finding the landlord required possession, and refusing discretionary relief from eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues raised were questions of fact or discretionary decisions, not extricable questions of law as required for a statutory appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Law Society Tribunal refusing his paralegal licence application after it had already been granted.

The Law Society discovered the applicant had failed to disclose a prior disciplinary sanction from the Real Estate Council of Ontario on his application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted its governing statute and by-laws to allow for the post-issuance refusal of a licence where an applicant deliberately makes a false declaration.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant had a full opportunity to be heard at the licensing hearing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a not-for-profit corporation owning a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent leaseholder was a 'tenant' under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued that the respondent, as a 'member' of the non-share corporation, fell within the statutory exclusion for a 'shareholder' of a corporation that owns the residential complex.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation that a 'member' of a not-for-profit corporation is not equivalent to a 'shareholder' for the purposes of the exclusion.

The appellant landlords appealed three decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding they terminated a tenancy in bad faith and denying two subsequent review requests.

The landlords failed to attend the initial hearing, claiming confusion over multiple hearing notices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law.

The Board reasonably proceeded in the landlords' absence, considered their late-filed evidence, and properly denied the review requests due to the landlords' lack of diligence in failing to attend or seek clarification.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which upheld the Director's refusal to deduct a CRA tax payment from her monthly employment earnings for ODSP purposes.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the payment and breached procedural fairness by not allowing her former spouse to represent her while she was at work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision to consider the tax payment during a later review of business earnings.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant had ample notice of the hearing and her former spouse was permitted to assist her.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certification motion for a proposed class action against a car rental company.

The proposed class consisted of branch managers who alleged they were misclassified as managers and improperly denied overtime pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims lacked sufficient commonality due to the substantial variability in the job functions and duties actually performed by the proposed class members across different branch locations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to certify aggregate damages and the finding that British Columbia class members had no cause of action.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Chalmers J. dated March 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, fixed in the amount of $3,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation against a property owned by the respondents.

The appellant had sued one of the respondents for defective construction work and alleged that the subsequent sale of the respondent's home to his daughter and son-in-law was a fraudulent conveyance.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge erred in law on the second branch of the test for issuing a CPL, she made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a milk processor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's (DFO) order requiring the applicant to pay approximately $7 million for milk pricing adjustments.

The DFO had charged the applicant the highest price for milk after audits revealed the applicant's Milk Utilization Verification (MUV) declarations could not be verified due to inadequate record-keeping.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the regulatory scheme—that MUV declarations must be verifiable—was reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's findings that the higher price was a surcharge, not a penalty, and that the interlocutory order requiring a $3.3 million letter of credit was reasonable.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file materials for a motion for leave to appeal a contempt order, citing a broken ankle.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, setting a new timetable for the filing and service of materials, and scheduled the motion to be heard in writing.