Richard A. Lococo

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a conciliation decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation, which found that 14 construction items in a condominium's common elements breached statutory warranties and that the conciliation was chargeable to the builder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld Tarion's findings.

The court found that Tarion reasonably relied on its construction performance guidelines and the Building Code in assessing the defects, including water leakage in the garage roof slab and tenting of a waterproofing membrane.

The court also upheld Tarion's determination that the conciliation was chargeable, as the builder's settlement offers did not meet the requirements for an exception.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his application for Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) as statute-barred.

The LAT found that the insurer's May 3, 2021 letter constituted a clear and unequivocal denial of benefits, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding no error in its application of the limitation period or its refusal to extend the time to appeal.

The court also rejected the appellant's arguments regarding discoverability and the impact of subsequent correspondence from the insurer.

The appellants appealed a judgment awarding them financial compensation rather than a 45 percent ownership interest in the respondent corporation under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to give effect to their reasonable expectation that shares would be issued pursuant to a non-binding term sheet.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly considered the appellants' reasonable expectations, correctly concluded the term sheet was not a binding agreement to issue shares, and appropriately exercised his broad remedial discretion in awarding financial compensation instead of shares.

The applicant sought judicial review of a college's decision to involuntarily withdraw him from a respiratory therapy program after he failed clinical placements.

He also challenged the college's refusal to process his internal academic appeal due to missed deadlines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the college's academic decision was reasonable and justified by patient safety concerns.

The court also held that the college did not breach procedural fairness in strictly enforcing its internal appeal deadlines.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board decision upholding a remedial agreement between the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and a psychiatrist.

The applicant had complained about her premature discharge from a psychiatric unit while experiencing suicidal ideation.

The court found the Board's decision reasonable, concluding the investigation was adequate and procedurally fair.

Although the court expressed concern that the remedial agreement might have been crafted to avoid public disclosure requirements under the Protecting Patients Act, it declined to remit the matter as the physician had already completed the program.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report and the subsequent municipal council decision suspending her salary for 90 days.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached sections 10 and 15 of the Code of Conduct through social media posts following a defeated motion regarding flag-raising.

The Divisional Court held that while the finding of a breach of section 15 (discreditable conduct) was reasonable, the interpretation of section 10 (improper use of influence) to prohibit continued advocacy after a council decision or advocacy on matters outside council's purview was unreasonable.

The report and council decision were quashed and remitted for reconsideration of the penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting the respondent's application for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to a lack of responsive reasons and procedural fairness breaches.

The Divisional Court found that the applicant had standing to seek judicial review despite recent legislative amendments removing its statutory right of appeal.

The court quashed the decision, holding that the Committee's reasons, which merely recited statutory language, failed to meet the requirements of Vavilov and s. 45(8.1) of the Planning Act.

The matter was remitted to the Committee for a determination de novo.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination claim for being filed one day beyond the one-year limitation period.

The HRTO had refused to extend the time limit, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, noting the applicant had filed a timely complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and moved with reasonable dispatch to file with the HRTO after the federal commission declined jurisdiction.

The HRTO's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for a determination on the merits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The moving party brought two motions for leave to appeal in a family law dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the order of Bezaire J. dated May 2, 2025, with no costs awarded.

The court granted the motion for leave to appeal the order of Hebner J. dated May 13, 2025, specifically regarding the suspension of the moving party's parenting time, with costs left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay the orders of the motion judge, which had authorized the release of funds.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered a stay pending appeal, noting that the underlying orders were made under the mistaken belief that the moving parties and the responding bank had been served with the motion in writing.

No further payments are to be made pending the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal and a related costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the City of Vaughan and $5,000 to the other responding parties.

The appellant sought to set aside a settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits reached in 2016, arguing he lacked the capacity to enter into the contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no errors of law in the capacity analysis and concluding the decision was reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective expert capacity report.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) to screen out his police conduct complaint.

The applicant also moved to set aside a motion judge's decision refusing to add certain internal LECA documents to the record of proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the law regarding the scope of the record.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application, concluding that the screening decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Complaints Director reasonably exercised his discretion to consolidate the applicant's complaint with an ongoing statutory review of a related prior complaint.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time on consent but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $1,900.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated March 28, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Centa J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay agreed costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of McGee J. dated March 6, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties did not provide a costs outline.

The appellant sought to quash a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a reconsideration decision, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the appellant was given notice of the hearing, did not request an in-person hearing or accommodation, and did not raise procedural unfairness in his reconsideration request.

The court noted that the decisions do not bar the appellant's claims for attendant care benefits or a special award relating to the timing of non-earner benefits payments.

No costs were awarded.