Eli D. Mogil

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for holding an unauthorized student event at the school during the holiday break without a custodian present, misleading the head custodian and principal about rescheduling the event, and tweeting a student's attendance record.

The Member pled guilty to failing to maintain the standards of the profession, failing to comply with the Education Act, unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and the completion of a professional ethics course.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations set out in three Notices of Hearing against the Member.

The Member did not attend the hearing, as he had passed away in May 2020.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion pursuant to Rule 13.13 of its Rules of Procedure, finding that the withdrawal of the allegations was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances of the Member's death.

Following a 70-day medical malpractice jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $3.75 million in damages, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $3.3 million in costs and disbursements, while the defendants argued for a significantly lower amount, citing proportionality and excessive hours.

The court analyzed the Rule 57 factors, noting the complexity of the case, the necessity of extensive preparation by plaintiff's counsel, and the fact that defence costs themselves exceeded $3.2 million.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $2,404,765 for fees and $628,387 for disbursements, totaling $3,033,152.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who had been criminally convicted of voyeurism for surreptitiously recording nude videos and images of a colleague.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting that his actions constituted a profound breach of trust and privacy that undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate, a written reprimand, and $5,000 in costs due to his uncooperative conduct.

A commercial tenant, Baketree Inc., brought a motion for a prohibitory injunction to prevent its landlord, 315-345 Flint Road Inc., from evicting it from the leased premises.

Baketree's lease had expired, and the property had been sold to the new landlord, Flint.

Baketree sought a temporary extension to allow it sufficient time to find new premises, renovate, and relocate its extensive bakery operations, arguing that immediate eviction would lead to the collapse of its business and the loss of 100 jobs.

Flint opposed, citing an Estoppel Certificate and "Entire Agreement" clauses, and offered a short extension until February 2020.

The court granted the prohibitory injunction, finding that Baketree met the low threshold for such an injunction, demonstrated irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured a temporary stay.

The court ordered Baketree to vacate by October 31, 2020, and adjusted the rent payments for the interim period.

The Member, an occasional teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for inappropriately touching students, using his cell phone during instructional time to conduct personal business, yelling and swearing at students, and hitting two students with a metre stick.

The Member pled guilty to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including physical and verbal abuse, and failing to maintain the standards of the profession.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of coursework on anger management, classroom management, and boundaries.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate electronic communications of a sexual nature with a student on a dating application.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, the Committee ordered that the Member be reprimanded and directed the immediate revocation of his certificate of qualification and registration.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against the Member.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered that the Member be reprimanded, that his Certificate of Qualification and Registration be immediately revoked, and that he pay $5,000 in costs to the College.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against the member for professional misconduct.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the member engaged in acts of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97.

The Committee ordered that the member be reprimanded in writing and directed the Registrar to immediately revoke the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The member was also ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the College.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct related to his off-duty conduct on social media.

The member retweeted numerous offensive posts concerning Muslims, immigrants, refugees, and transgender individuals on his personal Twitter account.

Following a parent complaint, the member's school board suspended him for two days without pay and transferred him to another school.

Before the Discipline Committee, the member pled guilty to committing acts that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and unbecoming a member.

The Committee accepted the guilty plea and ordered a penalty consisting of a reprimand, a requirement to complete coursework on appropriate communications and sensitivity training, and a 10-day suspension of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for failing to maintain professional boundaries with a vulnerable student over several years.

The Member drove the student to events, communicated with her over the summer, allowed her to stay at his house, and fostered a relationship where she viewed him as a father figure.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and the completion of a boundary violations course.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who submitted over $120,000 in fraudulent benefit claims to her employer's insurance provider.

The member pled guilty to criminal charges of fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document.

Before the Discipline Committee, the member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a 12-month suspension of her certificate of qualification and registration, and the successful completion of an ethics course prior to returning to teaching.

During a medical malpractice jury trial, the defendant physicians sought leave under Rule 53.08 to file a supplementary expert report and to elicit testimony from their experts on matters not explicitly stated in their reports.

The court denied leave for the supplementary report, finding it failed to comply with Rule 53.03 by omitting the reasons for its conclusions, and its admission would cause undue prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The court also ruled on several evidentiary objections, narrowly interpreting the 'latency' principle.

The court held that experts cannot use conclusory statements in their reports to ambush opposing parties with new reasons or theories at trial, though exceptions were made where testimony directly responded to new developments during the trial.

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 39.02(2) for leave to file an additional affidavit following cross-examinations in an application concerning the alleged breach of market data licensing agreements.

The court applied the four-part test for leave, finding the objective factual evidence regarding corporate structure relevant and responsive to undertakings given during cross-examination.

However, the court struck out portions of the affidavit that contained impermissible subjective opinions on contract interpretation.

Leave was granted on terms, with costs awarded to the responding party on a substantial indemnity basis.

Prior to a medical malpractice jury trial, the court ruled on several procedural and evidentiary motions.

The plaintiffs had entered into a Pierringer Agreement with the defendant hospital and nurses, leaving only the physicians as defendants.

The court ruled that both the plaintiffs and the physicians could cross-examine the settling nurses at trial.

The court also determined the sequencing and phrasing of jury questions, ruling that standard of care must be determined before causation, and permitting 'caused or contributed' language due to the presence of multiple tortfeasors.

Finally, the court allowed the plaintiffs to use photographs of the amputations in their opening address but restricted the experts' use of lengthy PowerPoint presentations.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for allegedly mistreating a special needs child during a behavioural outburst at a respite centre.

The incident was captured on video by a co-worker.

The College alleged verbal, physical, psychological, and emotional abuse.

During the hearing, the Committee ruled on several evidentiary issues, refusing to admit hearsay evidence from the co-worker who recorded the video and refusing to admit expert evidence proposed by the Member.

After reviewing the video and hearing testimony, the Committee found that the College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee accepted the Member's explanations that his actions, while perhaps not best practices, were attempts to de-escalate and manage the child's behaviour, not abuse.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of expert medical evidence from Dr. Harmeet Gill, an ophthalmologist, in a medical malpractice trial.

The plaintiffs sought to have Dr. Gill testify on the standard of care for ophthalmologists, diagnosis and treatment of orbital cellulitis, the general standard of care for physicians dealing with orbital cellulitis (including emergency room and infectious disease specialists), and causation.

The defendants objected to Dr. Gill testifying outside his specialization and on causation.

The court admitted Dr. Gill's evidence regarding the standard of care for ophthalmologists, general physician knowledge (e.g., sepsis identification), and multidisciplinary team communication and record-keeping, finding it relevant and necessary to the plaintiffs' theory of the case.

However, the court excluded Dr. Gill's opinions on causation, as he admitted lacking expertise on the ultimate outcome of septic patients.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06 or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The court found that the defendants' conduct in bringing the summary judgment motion, though unsuccessful, did not meet the threshold of "unreasonable" or "bad faith" required for substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06.

The court emphasized that Rule 20.06 applies in "exceptional circumstances" involving improper conduct, not merely an arguable but unsuccessful motion.

Consequently, substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $85,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, after considering the complexity and importance of the motion, and the limited benefit of the work product for the remainder of the action.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of an independent contractor agreement and interference with business opportunities.

Alternatively, the defendants sought an order holding themselves liable but assessing damages based on the motion record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the termination of the agreement was justified.

The court also rejected the defendants' alternative request, noting that Rule 20.01(3) does not contemplate a defendant moving for summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff to assess damages, and that partial summary judgment was inappropriate as the issues could not be readily bifurcated.

The defendants in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Family Law Act claims of the deceased's partner, arguing he did not meet the definition of a spouse.

The defendants also moved to remove him as the litigation guardian for the deceased's minor grandchildren.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the partner's spousal status based on conflicting evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to remove the litigation guardian, finding him qualified, indifferent to the outcome, and not adverse in interest to the minors.