Richard A. Lococo

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

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the respondents.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 21, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $7,500.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a committee's decision to take no further action on her complaint against a psychologist.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness because 96% of the Record of Investigation was redacted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB reasonably exercised its statutory discretion to limit disclosure to protect the privacy interests of the applicant's children and to prevent interference with ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant, an unlicensed cemetery owner, sought judicial review of an order by the Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario directing it not to interfere with the interment of a deceased individual.

The applicant argued the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine interment rights and denied it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar had the statutory authority to ensure orderly burials and incidentally determine interment rights based on reasonable evidence, without breaching procedural fairness.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 24, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,700.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,000 all inclusive.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application, the court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the respondent's partial indemnity costs.

On consent of the parties, costs were fixed at $30,000, payable by the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained after falling from a ladder at work.

The Tribunal had expanded his initial entitlement to include bicipital tendinitis and a rotator cuff tear but upheld the termination of benefits as of September 2015 and denied entitlement for left shoulder impingement and subsequent surgery.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal's decisions were justified, intelligible, and transparent, as they were supported by the evidentiary record.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace on long-term disability, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council recommending her removal from office.

The Council found she committed judicial misconduct by practicing law without a license or insurance on three occasions.

The applicant argued the hearing panel breached procedural fairness by not granting a further adjournment and that the penalty was unreasonable due to her cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing was procedurally fair and the recommendation for removal was reasonable given the lack of reliable medical evidence supporting a cognitive deficit and the severity of the misconduct.

The appellant appealed two orders of a Family Court judge that directed the release of proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial property to the respondent and dismissed the appellant's claim for an equitable interest in the proceeds.

The Divisional Court raised a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court determined that it had jurisdiction under s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the orders under appeal were made only under provisions of an Act or regulation of Ontario, specifically the Family Law Act and the Family Law Rules, and did not involve federal legislation.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision substituting a 30-day suspension for the discharge of a municipal standards officer.

The officer had been terminated for alleged anti-Black racism and harassment after an incident involving two Black women in a closed park.

The City argued the arbitrator erred by requiring proof of racial motivation for a finding of discrimination and by failing to transparently treat the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably responded to the City's specific allegations that the officer had singled out the complainants, and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with the arbitrator's factual findings.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order and sought to adduce fresh evidence on the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not satisfy the Palmer test as it was not relevant to the test for granting leave to appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal and requests for ancillary relief were also dismissed.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding the respondent made reasonable efforts to mitigate, alleging she fabricated records of online job applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to meet its onus to prove a failure to mitigate or fabrication of evidence.

The court also upheld the motion judge's determination that summary judgment was appropriate.

The Attorney General appealed an order requiring the production of an entire Crown brief from an ongoing criminal prosecution for use in a pending child protection case.

The motion judge had ordered broad disclosure because the Crown's Wagg Unit requested an indefinite adjournment to review the brief, which would have delayed the child protection trial.

On appeal, the parties reached a consent resolution requiring immediate production of the child's video statement and other witness statements, while giving the Crown 30 days to screen the remainder of the brief.

The Divisional Court approved the resolution and emphasized that a 24-week delay for Wagg vetting is unacceptable in child protection cases, which must be prioritized.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and a subsequent order denying a review.

The Board found that the landlord required the rental unit in good faith for his own occupation and that the tenants failed to establish the existence of a three-year lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's factual conclusions were supported by evidence, including the landlord leaving his personal belongings in the unit, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in the Board's treatment of hearsay evidence.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers dismissing his application for reinstatement and revoking his teaching certificate.

The appellant's certificate was automatically revoked following 2020 amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act due to a 2009 finding of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse of a student.

The appellant argued the panel erred by giving retrospective effect to the amendments and imposing a more severe penalty than his original two-year suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the presumption against retrospectivity was rebutted by the express language of the amended legislation, which clearly intended for the revocation provision to apply retrospectively.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the Homewood defendants and $1,000 to the defendant doctor.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $2,000.