Richard A. Lococo

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal decision that imposed a 30-day suspension and conditions on a liquor licence rather than revoking it.

The tribunal found the licensee had breached conditions and failed to facilitate an inspection, but concluded a suspension was appropriate given the principal's health issues and lack of prior warnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's penalty and reliance on the public interest were reasonable.

The appellant, a former chairman of a publicly traded cannabis company, appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding he breached the prohibition against tipping material non-public information under s. 76(2) of the Securities Act and imposing sanctions.

The appellant had shared draft transaction documents with a personal friend and business colleague.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the appellant bore the onus of proving the disclosure was in the 'necessary course of business' (NCOB), that the NCOB test is purely objective, and that the disclosure was not necessary.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's argument that an objective NCOB test unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, finding any infringement was justified under s. 1.

The appeal against the merits and sanctions decisions was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his discrimination application as an abuse of process and denied reconsideration.

The applicant also brought multiple procedural motions before the Divisional Court, including requests for adjournments, stays, and judicial recusals, alleging systemic bias and procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed all motions, finding no denial of procedural fairness or reasonable apprehension of bias.

On the merits of the judicial review, the Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, noting the applicant's repeated failures to comply with tribunal directions and excessive filings.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated January 9, 2025.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated November 21, 2024.

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

The appellants, ten tenants of a mobile home park, appealed three Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions allowing the landlord's application to evict them to convert the property to non-residential use.

The tenants argued the LTB erred in law regarding the sufficiency of the N13 notices, the test for good faith, and the consideration of relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law, holding that the notices provided sufficient detail, the LTB correctly assessed the landlord's good faith intention to convert the land use, and the LTB adequately considered the tenants' circumstances before granting the eviction with a delayed enforcement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by disregarding his subjective evidence of psychological impairment, providing inadequate reasons, and demonstrating bias against subjective pain complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT adequately explained its weighing of the evidence and that no error of law or procedural fairness violation occurred.

The plaintiff, a party under disability, sued his former lawyers for professional negligence regarding the handling of his accident benefits claim.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's current law firm as counsel of record, arguing a conflict of interest because a lawyer from that firm had sworn an affidavit approving a prior settlement and would likely be a key witness.

The motions judge dismissed the removal motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the decision and ordered the firm removed, finding the motions judge erred by failing to properly consider the scope of the conflict, the plaintiff's status as a party under disability, and the likelihood that the lawyer would be called as a witness.

The moving party sought an extension of time to review a motion judge's decision under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion judge had previously dismissed a motion to extend the time to seek judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision, finding no apparent merit to the application because the moving party lacked standing and the challenged program was protected under s. 14(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court panel agreed with the motion judge, finding no error in principle and a reasonable result, and dismissed the motion.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision and settled his claims for statutory accident benefits with the respondent insurer, providing a full and final release.

He later sought additional benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, which the insurer denied based on the settlement.

The License Appeal Tribunal dismissed his claim because he had not returned the settlement funds as required by s. 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that repayment of settlement funds is a mandatory precondition to applying to the Tribunal, and there is no exemption for impecuniosity.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his complaint as abandoned after he failed to respond to a single email inquiring about the status of related WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal had refused to reconsider the dismissal, focusing solely on whether the email was delivered rather than conducting a contextual analysis of abandonment.

The Divisional Court held that inferring abandonment from the failure to respond to one email, given the applicant's history of compliance and the ongoing nature of the WSIB proceedings, was unreasonable.

The application was granted, the dismissal order was quashed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Kimmel J. dated December 13, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $2,200 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,200.

The appellant was injured in an ATV rollover and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found she was not catastrophically impaired, giving little weight to the impairment ratings of her chiropractor, who had offered psychological diagnoses beyond his scope of practice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's treatment of the chiropractor's evidence, affirming that while a chiropractor may compile impairment ratings under the AMA Guides, they cannot provide medical diagnoses outside their expertise.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision confirming the cancellation of his nomination approval under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program.

The nomination was cancelled because the applicant failed to apply for a work permit within the six-month validity period of his work permit support letter, citing COVID-19 travel restrictions in China and family responsibilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the internal reviewer's decision reasonable and concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness, no veiled credibility finding, and that adequate reasons were provided.

The appellant appealed an order granting a writ of possession to a non-profit housing co-operative.

The appellant, who was not a member of the co-operative, had been surreptitiously subletting a unit from a member who subsequently withdrew from the co-operative.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to member units of a co-operative and that the appellant had no right to occupy the unit.

The court upheld the application judge's discretionary decisions regarding the writ of possession and the time to vacate.

The moving parties, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Canada, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated October 4, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated October 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The issue of costs was left to the appeal panel.