Richard A. Lococo

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 9, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs in the amount of $4,520.56 to the responding party.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its application for a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board had found the statutory prerequisites were met but declined to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration, reasoning it would improperly expand the union's bargaining rights without any actual erosion of existing rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's exercise of discretion was reasonable, intelligible, and entitled to deference.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,972.66.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Centa J. dated May 29, 2024.

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

The moving parties, Joseph A. John and Intact Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Michael T. Doi dated April 16, 2024.

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

The responding party was granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

However, the motions for leave to appeal the decision of Trimble J., brought by both the moving party and the responding party, were dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a family physician, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming a remedial caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to public statements the applicant made objecting to her church's COVID-19 communion protocols, in which she identified herself as a physician.

The applicant argued the decisions failed to reasonably balance her Charter right to religious expression under the Doré framework.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the screening committee reasonably balanced its statutory mandate to protect the public with the applicant's Charter rights, noting she was not precluded from expressing religious views, but cautioned on identifying herself as a physician when doing so.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a lower court decision.

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

No costs were awarded as no costs outline was filed.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had ordered the applicant to complete a Specified Continuing Education Program and be cautioned after he erroneously extracted a healthy adult tooth from a minor patient instead of a supernumerary tooth.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision to uphold the ICRC's findings—including that the applicant should have taken additional steps to verify the correct tooth and that expert evidence was not required to interpret intraoperative x-rays—was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The appellant sought statutory accident benefits after suffering a spinal cord hemorrhage and paraplegia following a stressful incident involving aggressive driving by motorcyclists and her driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied benefits, finding the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the Tribunal's analysis of the expert medical evidence unreasonable and its application of the intervening cause and dominant feature tests legally flawed.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a Superior Court of Justice decision dated June 24, 2024.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of MacLeod RSJ dated May 17, 2024.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision granting the responding party leave to commence an action under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, identifying specific questions regarding whether the motions judge erred in holding that the Court of Appeal erred in a previous decision, and whether such an error rendered the decision unsafe.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $20,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party brought a motion for a stay and for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay and leave to appeal paragraph 3 of the order.

However, the court granted leave to appeal paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding whether the motions judge erred in deciding an evidentiary issue on a final basis.

Costs of $7,200 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant appealed an order reducing the amount of security the respondent was required to pay into court to vacate a construction lien.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in law by providing deficient reasons that prevented meaningful appellate review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the motion judge's five-paragraph endorsement lacked sufficient explanation for reducing the security and failed to address the conflicting evidence regarding the contract price.

The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for redetermination by a different judge.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for catastrophic impairment and income replacement benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal had found that the accident was not a necessary cause of her psychological impairment and that a subsequent 2018 volleyball injury was an intervening event.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of causation, pre-existing injuries, or the intervening event.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial decision awarding prejudgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate rather than the higher contractual rate.

The respondent homeowners cross-appealed the trial judge's award of damages for two change orders and the refusal to award damages for deficiencies covered by a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal.

The court found the trial judge did not err in the interest award because the contractor had withdrawn its claim for the contractual rate at trial.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings that the change orders were payable as extras and that the LAT had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement regarding deficiencies.