Richard A. Lococo

The applicant, a member of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, sought judicial review to quash the appointment of investigators who were investigating her failure to pay legal costs to the College.

The applicant argued the College lacked jurisdiction as inability to pay cannot constitute professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, administrative processes should run their full course before judicial intervention.

Costs decision following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction and the dismissal of the defendant XTM's cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to either party.

The court awarded net partial indemnity costs of $25,000 to XTM.

The court also awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 to amicus curiae representing the self-represented defendants, and $3,982.69 for disbursements incurred directly by the self-represented defendants.

In a supplemental endorsement following a successful derivative action, the court clarified the award of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the prescribed rate from the date the action was regularized.

The court rejected the third parties' request for full indemnity costs under the Business Corporations Act, confirming the previous partial indemnity award of $125,000, but clarified that the costs are payable solely to the third parties who funded the litigation, rather than jointly with the plaintiff company.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the College's Complaints Committee.

The Committee had investigated a patient's complaint regarding inappropriate physical contact and, while unable to determine exactly what occurred, required the physician to be cautioned and complete a remedial program regarding boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate for a screening function and the decision was reasonable based on the physician's own admissions about accepting hugs.

The Court also rejected the argument that publishing a summary of the decision on the public register constituted an unauthorized sanction.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's order placing one child in extended Society care and two children in the custody of their paternal aunt.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the test for care and custody under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and made evidentiary errors regarding treatment records, hearsay evidence, and case notes.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding errors or errors in principle in the trial judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to a consent variation regarding access.

The appellant client appealed a motion judge's assessment of her former solicitor's account.

The motion judge had found the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction due to a contingency fee agreement, but relied on the officer's evidentiary record to conduct his own quantum meruit assessment, reducing the fees to $45,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on the assessment officer's report or his application of the Cohen factors.

The Court also lifted a sealing order that had been improperly requested.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that barred their civil action against the respondents for constructive dismissal and assault.

The Tribunal had found that the underlying incident was a workplace accident, not an intentional assault, and that the civil claims were inextricably linked to the workplace injury, thus barred by section 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable, the barring of the constructive dismissal claim was justified as a disguised tort claim, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

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

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Robert Smith dated July 7, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

The moving party 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 to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $3,148.63.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in favour of the responding parties in the amount of $2,500.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages for breach of fiduciary duty in a derivative action, the successful plaintiff and third parties sought full indemnity costs.

The court declined to award elevated costs, finding the defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $125,000, rejecting the defendants' argument that costs should be denied for failing to beat the simplified procedure threshold.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the applicant father to calculate his income for child support purposes.

The father, who had recently started his own law firm, argued the requests were disproportionate and premature.

The court emphasized the importance of timely income disclosure but agreed that some of the mother's requests were overreaching.

The court granted a temporary order requiring the father to provide a narrowed scope of disclosure, balancing the need for financial transparency with the principle of proportionality.

Following a 16-day family law trial regarding decision-making responsibility and parenting time, the respondent sought costs of $176,000 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued success was divided and no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

However, applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and noting the trial was needlessly protracted, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs alleged that during a settlement meeting for a fire loss claim, the insurer misrepresented that the plaintiffs could sue their former insurance broker for the shortfall in coverage, inducing them to sign a release and settle for less than they were entitled to.

The insurer argued the action was barred by the release and the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the misrepresentation was made, whether reliance was reasonable, and when the limitation period commenced.

The appellant tenants appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their motions to set aside eviction orders.

The landlord had obtained the eviction orders ex parte after the tenants signed agreements to terminate their tenancies (N11 forms) under pressure, having been told they had to vacate for renovations without being informed of their statutory rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding the Board Member erred in law by failing to apply the proper test under s. 77(8)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, failing to consider all the circumstances, and failing to assess the real substance of the transactions and the landlord's good faith under s. 202.

The eviction orders were set aside and new hearings were ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction against its former Chief Technology Officer and a competitor, seeking the return or destruction of alleged confidential information.

The competitor brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The court dismissed the injunction motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order, largely due to a 22-month delay in pursuing the motion.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the competitor's knowing involvement and the causation of the plaintiff's loss of a major client.

In a derivative action brought on behalf of a real estate investment company, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were equal shareholders and officers, misappropriated corporate funds while managing the company's properties.

The court found the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Business Corporations Act by misappropriating rent payments, retaining insurance claim proceeds, and taking unequal advances that reduced a shareholder loan.

The court ordered the defendants to pay $87,048.57 in compensatory damages to the corporation.

Claims for punitive damages and a third-party action against the other shareholders were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his battery claim and awarding the respondent $50,000 on a defamation counterclaim.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act because the original claim exceeded $50,000 and the jury did not indicate what damages would have been awarded had the claim succeeded.

Applying the Dunnington factors, the court exercised its discretion under section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal rather than dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

The parties separated after a high-conflict breakdown of their marriage and could not agree on decision-making responsibility or a parenting time schedule for their two young children.

The applicant father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time structured around his firefighter shift schedule.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making and a continuation of the interim parenting schedule, which included daycare.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility to the mother, finding the parties could not communicate effectively enough for joint decision-making, but required her to consult the father on major decisions.

The court also ordered a parenting schedule similar to the interim order, providing the father with significant but not equal parenting time, finding that the consistency of the schedule and daycare was in the children's best interests.