Richard A. Lococo

The applicant union sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions finding that it had abandoned its bargaining rights for certain construction employees, thereby allowing a rival union's certification application to proceed.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably departed from precedent by failing to focus on the union's intention to abandon its rights and by ignoring its 2021 negotiating efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board reasonably applied established principles, properly assessed the objective evidence of the applicant's prolonged inactivity, and correctly concluded that the bargaining rights had been abandoned by 2020 and could not be revived by subsequent conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding she breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses of a settlement agreement by posting about her human rights complaint on LinkedIn.

The Tribunal had ordered the applicant to repay the full settlement amount as liquidated damages and granted an anonymization order protecting the respondents' identities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the settlement agreement, its enforcement of the liquidated damages clause, and its decision to grant anonymization were all reasonable.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division upholding findings of professional misconduct, a five-month suspension, and costs.

The misconduct related to his representation of a vulnerable family law client, filing an affidavit containing personal attacks on a judge, and maintaining a website about a dismissed Canadian Judicial Council complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the disciplinary actions reflected a proportionate balancing of the appellant's freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and rejecting his s. 15(1) Charter and procedural arguments.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency to screen out his complaint against Toronto Police Service officers.

The Director had concluded the complaint, which included allegations of murder conspiracies and cloning, was frivolous and lacked an air of reality.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Director's decision was justified, intelligible, and transparent.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural fairness breaches, noting the low threshold at the screening stage.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's refusal to register him as a motor vehicle salesperson due to past misconduct involving sexually explicit and inappropriate messages sent to a former co-worker and a customer.

On appeal, the appellant argued procedural unfairness, alleging ineffective assistance by his paralegal and improper admission of hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish the factual basis for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the tribunal's admission of hearsay evidence, including the appellant's own admissions against interest, did not render the hearing unfair.

The moving parties sought an extension of time and leave to appeal two decisions of Stevenson J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $4,350 to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a lower court decision dated October 21, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $10,000.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding party.

The court noted it considered the responding party's original factum and compendium but not the subsequently provided amended versions.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dated September 18, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $3,660 to the responding party.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the insurer's denial of medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding he did not suffer from chronic pain, misapplied the AMA Guides, misapplied the pre-existing condition exception under s. 18(2) of the SABS, and breached procedural fairness by disregarding illegible clinical notes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were reasonable, it was entitled to weigh the expert medical evidence, and there was no breach of procedural fairness in a written hearing where the applicant provided illegible records.

The appellant, an operator of diagnostic imaging clinics, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister's requirement to reimburse over $1.1 million in facility fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by classifying the Ministry's sole witness as a 'litigant's employee with expertise' without giving the appellant prior notice or an opportunity to make submissions and call reply evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The applicant, a migrant farm worker, sought judicial review of decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his request for an extension of time to appeal a 2008 decision denying his WSIB claim.

The applicant argued the tribunal overlooked his diligence, miscalculated the delay, and failed to consider his vulnerability as a migrant worker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's decisions were reasonable, properly applied a holistic approach to the delay, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director, which confirmed the police chief's finding that the investigating officers did not neglect their duty.

The applicant alleged the officers failed to conduct a thorough investigation by not obtaining relevant subway surveillance video of an assault.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Director's decision reasonable because the officers had promptly requested the video but were inadvertently misled by the transit authority regarding its existence and the correct subway car number.

The court also found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness by the Director.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his discrimination application at a summary hearing.

The HRTO had found that most of his allegations were out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under the Human Rights Code, and that he had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the HRTO misapplied the case law regarding a series of incidents and denied the applicant procedural fairness by restricting his submissions on available evidence.

The matter was remitted to the HRTO for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellants, two veterinarians, appealed the penalty and costs orders made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario following findings of professional misconduct related to inadequate record keeping and other issues.

Dr. Van Arem appealed his one-month suspension, arguing it was disproportionate.

Both appellants appealed the costs orders, arguing the Committee failed to properly account for their offers to settle and the time spent on unproven allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding the suspension was within the appropriate range and fit given the aggravating factors, and finding no error in principle in the Committee's discretionary costs decision.

The appellant construction manager appealed a motion judge's order reducing the amount of security posted by the respondent developer to vacate a construction lien.

The motion judge had reduced the security by the amount the developer paid directly to the appellant's subcontractors, finding these were valid payments under section 28 of the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by interpreting section 28 to include payments to subcontractors who did not fall within the statutory definition of a 'person having a lien'.

The motion judge's order was set aside.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of D.A. Jarvis J. dated October 15, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McSweeney J. dated July 24, 2024.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Harris J. dated August 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the municipal respondent and $5,000 to the county and individual respondents.

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 to the responding party.