Ernest G. Tannis

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member who had pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges of gross indecency and sexual assault involving former students.

The member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to uphold the ethical standards of the profession, failing to concern himself with the welfare of pupils, and contravening laws relevant to his suitability to teach.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment upholding a Sharia Law-based arbitration award rendered in Iran regarding a property dispute between brothers.

The trial judge found that the appellants had clearly agreed to be bound by the arbitrator's judgment, all four conditions for a binding Sharia Law ruling had been met, and the appellants were estopped from relitigating the same issues in Ontario.

The appellants argued the International Commercial Arbitration Act should apply, but the trial judge found the application was out of time and, in any event, there was no unfairness in the arbitral proceeding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no error and deferring to the trial judge's factual findings.

Following a judgment in favour of the defendant, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The plaintiffs argued no costs should be ordered because they were relatively successful at case conferences and the case was precedent-setting regarding the recognition of a Sharia Law arbitration decision.

The court found that while the litigation was not completely unfounded, the defendant was entirely successful at trial and awarded partial indemnity costs of $53,116.82.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to apply the doctrine of res judicata to an arbitral award rendered under Sharia Law in Qom, Iran, which had addressed a dispute over the distribution of proceeds from a jointly owned property in Lebanon.

The plaintiffs, who initiated the Ontario proceedings, argued the arbitration was merely advisory.

The court found that the arbitration was a binding judicial decision by a competent jurisdiction, meeting the preconditions for issue estoppel.

It dismissed the plaintiffs' statement of claim, concluding that the dispute had been finally resolved by the arbitrator and that the International Commercial Arbitration Act's time limits for challenging an award had passed, with no "real unfairness" warranting setting it aside.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant’s statement of defence and sought default judgment and additional production relating to affidavits of service.

The defendant, self‑represented and residing in Florida, had twice delivered pleadings that failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 25.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the seven‑line defence was wholly deficient and demonstrated disregard for prior court directions and procedural rules.

The pleading was struck without leave to amend as an abuse of process under Rule 25.11.

However, the court declined to grant default judgment at that stage and refused the request for disclosure of the commissioners of affidavits of service.

Following a successful motion regarding the children's schooling, child care, and telephone access, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity and full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be limited to a partial indemnity basis from the date the amended notice of motion was served.

The court found the applicant was successful and had made an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis from the date the assessor's report was received, fixed at $3,500 plus disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $6,945.18 for waste removal services.

The appellant, who suffers from a sleep disorder and admits to hoarding, argued that the contract only required him to pay the amount he received as a disability tax credit refund.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the contract was unambiguous, there was no misrepresentation, and the appellant was fully aware of his legal obligations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or evicting them from commercial premises used to operate an auto repair garage.

In the alternative, they sought interim relief from forfeiture of a commercial lease after failing to exercise an option to renew within the contractual deadline.

The court held that although there were serious issues to be tried concerning the lease terms and the parties’ conduct, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

The court also found that the tenant had not demonstrated diligent efforts to comply with the lease renewal provisions and therefore did not meet the requirements for relief from forfeiture.

The motion was dismissed.