Eli D. Mogil

The applicants sought a judicial recount of the ballots cast in the 45th General Election for the electoral district of Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore, where the initial count showed a 77-vote margin.

The court granted the application based on credible affidavit evidence of counting errors, without requiring proof of materiality.

During the recount, the court ruled on numerous disputed ballots, strictly applying the mandatory requirement for a mark in the circle while objectively assessing whether extraneous marks could identify the elector.

The court also admitted special ballots bearing initials on the reverse, finding they were likely placed by election officers.

The recount concluded with the leading candidate's margin reduced to four votes, confirming the election result.

The member was previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct by making derogatory and offensive remarks to students, making inappropriate sexualized comments on Facebook, and demonstrating poor professional behaviour.

At the penalty hearing, the Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of coursework regarding classroom management and appropriate communication.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted an application for a recount of votes in the electoral district of Mississauga–Erin Mills following Ontario’s 44th General Election held on February 27, 2025.

The applicants, including the Chief Electoral Officer and Returning Officer, sought the recount pursuant to sections 67, 69, and 71 of the Election Act due to the narrow margin of 20 votes between the two leading candidates, Sheref Sabawy and Qasir Dar.

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of ordering recounts even when the statutory threshold for a recount is met, balancing finality, reviewability, and public confidence in electoral outcomes.

The recount was ordered to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the democratic process despite no specific evidence of error.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Andrea Grebenc’s application for a judicial recount in the electoral district of Burlington, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case that a recount would change the election outcome.

The court emphasized the strict statutory timelines under section 71(1) of the Elections Act requiring recount applications to be brought and heard within four days of official tabulation.

Despite credible evidence from a scrutineer regarding improperly rejected ballots, the net difference in votes was only one, insufficient to justify a recount.

The decision underscores the importance of judicial discretion in balancing public confidence in election finality with the need for accuracy.

The member requested an adjournment of his penalty hearing due to health issues and an inability to obtain legal representation.

The College consented to a short adjournment, noting this was the member's first adjournment request at the penalty stage.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment, ordering the parties to collaborate on scheduling a new date that will be peremptory on the member.

This costs endorsement followed a decision on an appeal and cross-appeal.

Given the divided success of the parties on both the appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The United Jewish Appeal of Greater Toronto (UJA) brought motions for default judgment against 100181947 Ontario Inc. o/a TLC Worldwide Inc. (TLC) and Daljit Sohal, and to enforce a settlement against Ryan Singh.

UJA also sought orders validating service on Singh and for substituted service on Mohammed Ashfaq and Prestige Worldwide Transportation Network LLC.

The court granted default judgment against TLC and Singh for breach of contract in the amount of $68,260.00 plus interest, validated service on Singh, and ordered substituted service on Ashfaq and Prestige.

However, the court declined to grant default judgment against Sohal, finding that the claim for unjust enrichment was not sufficiently made out as there was no incontrovertible evidence that Sohal personally received the benefit.

This motion for summary judgment concerned a dispute over success fees owed by mdf commerce inc. ("mdf") to Echelon Wealth Partners Inc. ("Echelon"), a financial advisor.

Echelon was engaged by mdf to source credit facilities for strategic initiatives and acquisitions.

After Echelon sourced an initial facility in 2020, mdf pursued a large acquisition in 2021, securing additional credit facilities and temporary bridge financing from the same lender (BNS) without Echelon's direct involvement, but while Echelon's advisory agreement was still in effect.

Echelon invoiced mdf for a success fee on these new facilities, arguing they constituted a "Financing Transaction" or "Related Transaction" under the agreement, and that the fees were protected post-expiry.

The court granted Echelon's motion for summary judgment, finding that the 2021 credit facilities were indeed a "Financing Transaction" and a "related transaction" as defined by the agreement, and that the protected fee clause applied.

The court also determined that the temporary bridge financing, though not drawn upon, qualified as "committed bank financing" for which a success fee was payable. mdf's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for alleged professional misconduct, including making inappropriate comments to students in class, at a gas station, and on Facebook.

The Discipline Committee found that the member verbally and psychologically abused students by calling them derogatory names.

The Committee also found that the member's Facebook posts, which included sexist and demeaning comments about women and victims of sexual assault, constituted sexual misconduct.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct, with a penalty hearing to be scheduled.

The parties entered into a contract in 1999 for the provision of market pricing data.

The appellant, a custodial bank, redistributed the data to its numerous affiliates without authorization.

The respondent discovered the breach in 2016 and sued.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the contract and awarded damages based on a rateable approach, but also awarded damages for sharing data with a specific affiliate.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding, concluding the contract only authorized the appellant itself to access the data.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to change his unentered judgment and rejected the appellant's limitations defence.

On damages, the Court struck the award relating to the specific affiliate as double compensation but otherwise upheld the damages assessment, including an adverse inference drawn against the appellant for spoliation of evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion brought by the respondents to dismiss the appellants' (Bouragbas') appeal for delay, primarily due to the appellants' inability to obtain transcripts from lower court proceedings.

The underlying appeal concerned a motion to amend a statement of claim and lift a stay.

The court determined that transcripts were not necessary for the appeal, as it was essentially an appeal on a paper record concerning pleadings.

While not dismissing the appeal outright, the court ordered the appellants to perfect their appeal within 30 days, failing which it would be administratively dismissed.

This is an appeal by Dr. Dimitrois Giannoulias from an Associate Justice's order that partially struck paragraphs from a Statement of Claim alleging medical negligence, prior incompetence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal specifically challenged the Associate Justice's decision not to strike certain pleadings related to the appellant's alleged high surgical complication rates, criticism by experts, and knowledge of deficient skills, arguing these were bald allegations lacking material facts.

The court allowed the appeal, finding the Associate Justice erred in law by not applying the correct test for pleading similar fact evidence and breach of fiduciary duty, as these allegations lacked sufficient material facts or supporting evidence.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse for exposing his genitals to a minor, resulting in the revocation of his certificate.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its credibility assessments, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the minor's evidence and the lack of explicit findings on the appellant's credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's reasons, read contextually, adequately explained its rejection of the appellant's denial and correctly applied the law regarding child witness credibility and inconsistencies.

During a trial of an issue on damages arising from an application, the applicant objected to numerous pieces of viva voce evidence introduced by the respondents.

The court had previously directed that the damages trial proceed on the closed record as it existed when the application was initially argued.

The court applied a bright-line test, ruling that any evidence not actually found in the underlying application record was inadmissible to prevent trial by ambush.

The court sustained the majority of the applicant's objections, rejecting the respondents' arguments that the new evidence was merely a permissible amplification of the existing record or a necessary response to the applicant's expert.

The Respondents brought a motion seeking the recusal of the presiding judge and a declaration of mistrial, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegations stemmed from the judge's conduct and rulings in three prior decisions related to the ongoing application, specifically claiming predisposition towards the Applicant, disparagement of the Respondents, and insinuation into the appeal process.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that, when viewed realistically and in full context, the judge's actions did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decision emphasized that adverse rulings, even if potentially erroneous, do not equate to bias and should be addressed through the appeal process.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant.

The Member, a teacher, admitted to professional misconduct after sending a nude photograph of himself to a colleague.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, finding the Member's actions constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and unbecoming conduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of a course on maintaining professional boundaries.

The applicant sought to vary a previous judgment regarding contract beneficiaries and liability for knowing receipt.

The court declined to change the finding on beneficiaries (para 19) as it was an intentional commercial interpretation.

The court did remove an erroneous finding of breach of contract against CIBC Mellon, but declined to substitute it with a finding of knowing receipt, as that relief was not sought in the initial application.

The court granted the applicant's request to introduce evidence of damages related to data sharing by all custodial entities of Mellon Financial Corporation at the time of the agreement, despite the previous finding that those entities were entitled to receive the data.

The Member requested an adjournment of his disciplinary hearing due to personal medical circumstances, including cognitive difficulties and a medical leave from work.

The College did not oppose the request but sought terms to ensure the hearing would not be delayed indefinitely.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment subject to terms requiring the Member to provide medical records and a report regarding his capacity to participate.

At a subsequent case conference, the Member provided a medical report confirming his competence to represent himself, and the hearing was scheduled to continue.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against his family physician, alleging the physician failed to diagnose and treat a respiratory infection over several months.

The plaintiff was eventually hospitalized and required invasive surgery for streptococcal empyema, resulting in chronic pain and other ailments.

The court found that while the plaintiff did suffer from respiratory symptoms prior to his hospitalization, he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he reported these symptoms to the defendant during his monthly visits.

The court held that the defendant met the standard of care of a reasonable family physician and dismissed the action.

This endorsement addresses a request from the parties to schedule a 20-day judge-alone trial in two non-consecutive, two-week tranches to secure earlier trial dates.

The court, acting as the local administrative judge for civil cases, granted the request.

The decision acknowledged the general preference for continuous trials but found the non-continuous format warranted due to significant delays in the case (partially administrative and pandemic-related) and the consent of all parties.

The court emphasized the need to avoid further deterioration of evidence and provide closure to the plaintiff, who had been involved in litigation for many years.