Richard A. Lococo

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to revoke a special event permit for a cultural festival after violent protests erupted on the first day.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it moot since the 2023 festival dates had passed and the 2024 festival proceeded without incident.

The court also noted that the City's decision was substantively reasonable given the immediate risk to public safety, and declined to rule on the jurisdictional and Charter issues.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits.

The LAT had found that the appellant's physician, Dr. Ofokansi, provided only a conclusory opinion on the OCF-19 form without supporting analysis or medical data.

The appellant argued the LAT should have considered the evidence of his psychologist, Dr. Reesor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 45 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule requires a catastrophic impairment assessment to be conducted by a physician.

Since the physician's assessment was entirely conclusory and entitled to no weight, the psychologist's evidence alone was insufficient to establish the claim.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action against a temporary help agency for alleged employee misclassification.

The motion judge had found that the proposed common issues regarding whether the agency was an employer under the Employment Standards Act or at common law lacked sufficient commonality and required individual determinations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no systemic commonality among the putative class members' arrangements.

Leave to appeal the costs award of $333,114.05 was also denied.

The appellant, a Registered Practical Nurse, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding she committed professional misconduct by submitting false insurance claims to her employer's benefits plan.

The Committee had ordered a six-month suspension and other penalties.

On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court dismissed as the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing and constituted a collateral attack.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual and credibility findings, and held the penalty was not clearly unfit.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they committed securities fraud, unregistered trading, and illegal distribution, and imposing sanctions including a joint and several disgorgement order of approximately $8.7 million.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the Commission refused to adjourn the merits hearing and restricted cross-examination, and that the joint and several disgorgement order was demonstrably unfit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the adjournment refusal or hearing conduct, and holding that the Commission's broad public interest discretion under the Securities Act permitted joint and several disgorgement orders.

The appellants appealed a discipline panel's decision finding they engaged in professional misconduct by devising and sending three falsified emails to discredit former employees.

The appellants admitted to sending one email but claimed the other two were sent by a hacker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the panel correctly applied the burden of proof, reasonably rejected the hacking theory, properly qualified the respondent's digital forensics expert, and appropriately drew an adverse inference against the appellants for failing to produce key evidence.

The court also upheld the panel's penalty and costs awards, noting the sanctions were measured given the fundamental dishonesty involved.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing her claims for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, catastrophic impairment designation, and attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LAT's decisions regarding the 104-week deadline for income replacement benefits, the assessment of catastrophic impairment criteria, and the reduction of attendant care benefits were reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness violations, concluding that the LAT appropriately controlled its own process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision that struck the personal respondents and dismissed his human rights application at a summary hearing.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision to strike the personal respondents was reasonable, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

However, the court held the HRTO unreasonably dismissed the application by failing to justify its conclusion that there was 'no evidence' of discrimination despite the applicant's factual assertions.

Furthermore, the HRTO breached procedural fairness by ordering a summary hearing after a previous Vice-Chair had already directed a merits hearing which had commenced.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO for a merits hearing.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $2,500 payable to the responding parties.

The moving party, Stride Credit Union, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of L.B. Stewart J. dated October 2, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the leave motion left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated January 15, 2025.

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

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the city council to suspend her pay for 30 and 60 days, respectively, based on reports from the Integrity Commissioner finding she breached the code of conduct.

The first breach involved a social media post targeting residents who opposed her minor variance application, and the second involved conduct promoting homophobic and transphobic attitudes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Integrity Commissioner performs an investigative rather than adjudicative function, and that the council's decisions to accept the Commissioner's reports and impose the recommended sanctions were reasonable.

The court also denied the applicant's motion to amend her application to allege bias against the mayor.

The appellant father appealed a temporary order dismissing his urgent motion for the immediate return of his three-year-old son, who had relocated to Sudbury with the respondent mother.

The father argued the motion judge was biased, created a de facto interim relocation, and erred by not ordering the child's return as a remedy for the mother's failure to provide statutory notice of relocation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no apprehension of bias and holding that a failure to provide notice under the Divorce Act does not override the best interests of the child analysis.

The court upheld the motion judge's decision to implement a stepped-up parenting schedule rather than uprooting the child pending trial.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge dated November 15, 2024.

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

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding parties.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court ordered that no costs be awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Richard J. dated December 18, 2024.

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

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits and medical expenses, and ordering the destruction of internal tribunal documents she submitted as evidence of institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that the insurer's examination notices complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's orders striking the applicant's reply evidence and directing the destruction and non-dissemination of internal documents, concluding that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its jurisdiction to control its process and properly applied the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated two employees terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The arbitrator had ruled that an employer can never discipline an employee for refusing to consent to medical treatment.

The Divisional Court found this conclusion unreasonable, as it failed to balance the hospital's duty to protect patients against the employees' privacy interests in the context of a pandemic.

However, the court upheld the arbitrator's ultimate decision to reinstate the employees, noting that terminating them after only two weeks of unpaid leave was premature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dated January 23, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,210.33.