Richard A. Lococo

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated February 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs of $10,000 all-inclusive to the responding defendants.

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

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

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying a request to review a set aside order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the grounds raised were either not responsive to the record or challenged findings of fact and exercises of discretion, which are not permitted under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the tenant fully participated in the hearings and never requested an adjournment or accommodation.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a renewal collective agreement for employees of a long-term care home.

The union argued that the wage adjustments awarded were unreasonable and that the arbitration board failed to provide adequate reasons, placed too much reliance on a master agreement, and failed to properly apply the statutory criteria under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was reasonable, adequately explained, and fell within the range of acceptable outcomes given the legislative nature of interest arbitration and the deference owed to such awards.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal council decision upholding a repair order issued against her for dumping sand on her shoreline property in contravention of a site alteration by-law.

The applicant argued that the alterations were historical, fell under provincial jurisdiction, and that the council breached procedural fairness by not providing written reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Township had concurrent jurisdiction, the decision was reasonable based on the evidence of by-law contravention, and the council's process met the requirements of procedural fairness for an administrative municipal decision.

The moving party sought leave to apply for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the prompt payment provisions of the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court established the test for granting leave in such cases, noting that adjudicators' decisions are interim and leave should rarely be granted.

The court held that the test is analogous to the conjunctive test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

Finding that the moving party did not meet this high bar, the court dismissed the motion for leave with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against an OPP inspector.

The complaint alleged the inspector failed to properly investigate the applicant's earlier complaint regarding the seizure of his boat's mooring anchor and a subsequent mischief charge.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD's decision not to proceed with the complaint was reasonable and within its statutory discretion.

The court also held that the OIPRD's internal review process met the required duty of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order that required him to pay outstanding costs awards, failing which his motion to change child support would be struck.

The Divisional Court determined that the order was interlocutory, not final, because the underlying motion to change would have continued if the costs were paid.

As an interlocutory order requires leave to appeal, the court granted the appellant an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal, finding no prejudice to the respondent and noting that both parties initially believed the order was final.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs of $10,000 to the responding parties other than one specific respondent.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for rent arrears, which they had subsequently voided by paying the required amount.

The tenants argued the Board erred in calculating the arrears and failing to account for previous costs awards owed by the landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenants' arguments raised factual issues rather than questions of law, which are required for an appeal under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rahman J. dated November 2, 2022.

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

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Regional Senior Justice MacLeod dated December 6, 2022.

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

The tenant appealed several Landlord and Tenant Board orders terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant had previously agreed to a consent order to pay arrears but failed to do so on time, leading to an ex parte eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or procedural unfairness in the LTB's refusal to set aside the eviction order.

The court held that the LTB properly considered the tenant's circumstances and balanced the rights of both parties under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Regional Senior Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed in the amount of $2,500 and awarded to the respondent.

The moving parties, Societe Air France and Air France-KLM Group, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated July 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $3,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $4,000.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board that reduced a $58,672.98 statement of account for the care of 80 cats to $1,800 based solely on the owner's inability to pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary a statement of account and that considering an owner's ability to pay was not unreasonable or contrary to the statutory scheme.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her entitlement to attendant care benefits following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law, and that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, as the case did not present exceptional circumstances.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying him Income Replacement Benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable question of law.

The court held that the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, the correct 'but for' test for causation was applied, and there was no lack of procedural fairness during the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.