r v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2019 QCCQ 5598

Ontario College of Teachers c. Abi-Mansour 2019 QCCQ 5598COURT OF QUÉBEC« Civil Division »CANADAPROVINCE OF QUÉBECDISTRICT OF GATINEAUCITY OF GATINEAU No.: 550-22-018457-182 DATE: September 13th, 2019______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE D.

TREMBLAY, J.C.Q.______________________________________________________________________ ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERSPlaintiffc.PAUL ABI-MANSOURDefendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT______________________________________________________________________ [1] The Court must rule on the Originating Application in recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions instituted by the OntarioCollege of Teachers (the “College”) as well as an application to declare an abuse of proceedings, in which the College requests that Mr.Abi-Mansour be condemned to pay, as legal costs, the College’s professional fees incurred for this proceeding, to punish Mr.

Abi- Mansour for substantial breaches committed in the conduct of this proceeding.[1] RELEVANT FACTS [2] Mr. Abi-Mansour was the subject of a complaint before the Ontario College of Teachers Discipline Committee. The DisciplineCommittee found that he had committed acts of professional misconduct. [3] Mr. Abi-Mansour then instituted several judicial procedures against the College before the Superior Court of Ontario, the Court ofAppeal of Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada in order to be allowed to challenge the Discipline Committee’s decision. [4] He lost in all cases against the College.

As a result, the College was awarded legal costs.[2] Those cost awards are final and not subject to appeal,[3] and Mr. Abi-Mansour does not contest the fact that the decisions were final and enforceable at the time the presentapplication was served upon him. [5] Although he was given formal notice to reimburse the various costs awarded to the College, Mr. Abi-Mansour consistently refusedto pay. Since Mr. Mansour resides in Quebec, the College is seeking the recognition of the following decisions in order to be in aposition to enforce them in the Province of Quebec. The decisions are the following: 1.

Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2015 ONSC 467 , 2015 ONCS 467; 2. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers, Ontario Court of Appeal, no. M46021, February 25, 2016, Feldman J.A.; 3. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONCA 602; 4. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers, Ontario Court of Appeal, No. M46734 (M46021), Gillese J.A; 5. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONCA 928; 6. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers, [2017] C.S.R.S.R. No. 69; 7. Abi-Mansour v.

Ontario College of Teachers, Respondent’s bill of costs awarded on November 22, 2017. (Hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Decisions”) ANALYSIS [6] As Mr. Justice Guthrie J.S.C. stated in DirectTv inc.,[4]

Article 3155 C.C.Q. establishes a basic presumption of the validity of aforeign decision and then goes on to enumerate six grounds for non-recognition.

A decision rendered outside Québec is recognized and, where applicable, declared enforceable by the Québec authority, except in the following cases: [ 1] the authority of the State where the decision was rendered had no jurisdiction under the provisions of this Title; [2] the decision, at the place where it was rendered, is subject to an ordinary remedy or is not final or enforceable; [3] the decision was rendered in contravention of the fundamental principles of procedure; [4] a dispute between the same parties, based on the same facts and having the same subject has given rise to a decision rendered in Québec, whether or not it has become final, is pending before a Québec authority, first seized of the dispute, or has been decided in a third State and the decision meets the conditions necessary for it to be recognized in Québec; [5] the outcome of a foreign decision is manifestly inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations; [6] the decision enforces obligations arising from the taxation laws of a foreign State. [ 7 ]

Article 3158 C.C.Q. requires this Court to "confine itself" to verifying whether the Decisions meet the requirements of

Article 3155 C.C.Q. "without considering the merits of the decision”. [5] [ 8 ] Mr. Abi-Mansour presents various grounds to challenge the College’s application. The Court will address these grounds in turn. The Ontario authorities had no jurisdiction [ 9 ] According to the defendant, under

Article 3134 C.C.Q. the Ontario authorities who rendered the Decisions that the College is now seeking to have recognized had no jurisdiction since the defendant was not domiciled in Ontario at the time the Decisions were rendered. [ 10 ] This argument is unfounded. [ 11 ] First,

Article 3164 C.C.Q. provides that a foreign authority’s jurisdiction is established to the extent that the dispute is substantially connected with the State whose authority is seized of the matter. There is no doubt that the decisions regarding the court costs are “substantially connected” with the matter with which the Ontario authorities were seized. [ 12 ] Second,

Article 3168 C.C.Q. states that the jurisdictions of foreign authorities is recognized when the defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign authorities. Mr. Abi-Mansour used the Ontario courts at length to challenge several decisions against him. There is no doubt that Mr. Abi-Mansour submitted to the Ontario authorities. Not to mention that he initiated some if not all of the proceedings that resulted in the court costs awarded against him. The limitation period [ 13 ] The defendant submits that the three-year limitation period should be applied to the College’s application.

One of the orders the College is seeking to have recognized is dated March 6, 2015, tehrefore the application filed on May 2018 falls outside of the limitation period. The defendant’s argument is based on Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v.Figliolini , [6] in which the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the basic limitation period should be applied to a proceeding on a foreign judgment in Ontario. [ 14 ] This argument is unfounded. [ 15 ] The Court should exercise caution before endorsing the reasoning of an Ontario court.

The question of the applicable limitation period in Québec for such an application is codified in

article 3131 of the C.C.Q.: 3131. Prescription is governed by the law applicable to the merits of the dispute. [ 16 ] In Minkoff , [7] the Court of Appeal summarized the state of the law as follows: [7] L’appelant plaide que ce jugement ne confère à son bénéficiaire qu’un droit de créance, défini en common law comme étant « contract debt » ou « promise » ou « contract » assujetti à la prescription extinctive de 3 ans, prévue à l’

article 2925 C.c.Q . [8] Selon la proposition de l’appelant, la décision d’un tribunal étranger n’est pas un jugement auquel s’applique la prescription décennale de l’article 2924C.c.Q. S’appuyant sur l’auteur Castel, il soutient que cette décision étrangère n’acquiert des effets comparables en tous points à ceux d’un jugement québécois qu’à compter de l’exemplification. [9] Ces énoncés doivent être nuancés. [10] La jurisprudence au Québec n’a pas défini le statut du jugement étranger comme ne créant qu’un « contract debt ».

Le juge Mackay écrit dès 1870 : Actions on foreign Judgments are held, says Demers’ counsel, actions on simple contracts, and are sued upon as such, and are prescribed after six years, so it is, he says, in England, and so it must be held here. We hold that our own law must control; against judgments whatever, our own, or foreign, we enforce but one law of limitations.

[11] Les auteurs et la jurisprudence avant le premier janvier 1994 ont retenu la même approche et conclu que le jugement étranger seprescrivait par trente ans. … [12] Le Code civil ne prévoit aucun terme de prescription des décisions étrangères. Le législateur a toutefois tranché une controverseantérieure, la prescription est une question de substance et non de procédure et elle est régie par la loi qui s’applique au fond du litige(art. 3131 C.c.Q.).

«À la loi qui attribue un droit, il appartient de fixer le délai dans lequel ce droit est susceptible d’être exercé.» [13] Une décision ne peut avoir au Québec plus d’effet qu’elle n’en a dans son pays d’origine. Comme notre Cour l’a décidé dansl’arrêt Ginsbow inc., une

partie ne peut par une requête en exemplification prolonger la période de validité du jugement étranger, ni lefaire revivre une fois éteint. À l’inverse, à défaut d’une disposition spécifique dans notre droit, on ne peut restreindre ou annuler laportée d’un jugement étranger pendant sa période de validité dans le pays d’origine. [14] La loi compétente dans ce dossier, selon les règles de conflit québécoises, serait celle du Royaume-Uni laquelle ne fut pas alléguéeet dont la teneur n’a pas été prouvée. Dans une telle situation, l’article 2809 C.c.Q. prévoit que le tribunal applique le droit en vigueurau Québec.

Le droit résultant d’un jugement se prescrit par 10 ans s’il n’est pas exercé (art. 2924 C.c.Q.). [15] Par conséquent le jugement obtenu par l’intimée à Londres, le 11 mars 1998, n’est pas prescrit. [17] Pursuant to the Limitations Act of Ontario there is no limitation period in respect of a proceeding to enforce an order of a court.[8]Article 2924 of the C.C.Q. contains a 10-year limitation period for the rights resulting from a judgment. [18] Consequently, the College’s application falls well within the limitation period.

The public order defence [19] As Justice Guthrie J.S.C. stated in DirectTV, the public order defence is meant to be of limited application: [16] At the outset, it should be noted that the public order exception of Article 3155(5) C.C.Q. is meant to be of limited application andshould be narrowly construed by Québec courts. In the Court of Appeal decision Mutual Trust Co. v. St-Cyr,[6] Rousseau-Houle J. whowrote the judgment stated: « […] On reconnaissait en général à l'ordre public un rôle particulier en matière de reconnaissance des jugements étrangers au momentde la décision d'exemplification.

Il ne s'agissait pas, à ce stade, de porter un jugement sur le contenu de la décision étrangère mais decontrôler si elle pouvait être exécutée telle quelle dans l'ordre juridique de réception. En d'autres termes, on examinait si l'applicationdes lois étrangères, en vertu desquelles la décision avait été rendue, conduisait à une décision acceptable au Québec.

En général, les tribunaux québécois se sont montrés très hésitants à se servir de l'exception d'ordre public pour faire échec à lareconnaissance de jugements étrangers lorsque la solution donnée pouvait s'intégrer harmonieusement dans l'ordre juridique du for. » [20] In the present case, the Court fails to see how the public order exception could be applied with respect to decisions that awardcourt costs. Not to mention that the amount of the court costs awarded appears to be reasonable in the circumstances and the decisionswere rendered by Canadian courts. [21] This argument is without merit.

College’s Claim for Costs to cover professional fees [22] The College’s claim is based on

Article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure: 342.

The court, after hearing the parties, may punish substantial breaches noted in the conduct of the proceeding by ordering a party topay to another party, as legal costs, an amount that it considers fair and reasonable to cover the professional fees of the other party’slawyer or, if the other party is not represented by a lawyer, to compensate the other party for the time spent on the case and the workinvolved. [23] In support of its application, the College alleges that the Defendant lost in all its proceedings against the College and that hebasically appealed each decision without merit.

The College also refers this Court to findings of facts made by the Ontario Court ofAppeal in which Mr. Abi-Mansour’s use of the judicial system is criticized. [24] It may be true that Mr. Abi-Mansour filed a series of frivolous and meritless interlocutory motions in Ontario.

However, thisCourt has to analyse the conduct of the Defendant in this proceeding, regardless of the strengths or the weaknesses of his position. [25] The difficulty in agreeing on a case protocol and the delay in filing an interlocutory motion for security for costs do not amountto a substantial breach in the conduct of the proceeding within the meaning of

Article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [26] The College’s application seeking costs to cover professional fees is therefore dismissed. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the Originating Application; RECOGNIZES and DECLARES ENFORCEABLE in the Province of Québec the following judgments: 1. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2015 ONSC 467 , 2015 ONCS 467;

2. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers , Ontario Court of Appeal, No. M46021, February 25, 2016, Feldman J.A.; 3. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers , 2016 ONCA 602 ; 4. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers , Ontario Court of Appeal, No. M46734 (M46021), Gillese J.A; 5. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers , 2016 ONCA 928 ; 6. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers , [2017] C.S.R.S.R. No. 69; 7. Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers , Respondent’s bill of costs awarded on November 22, 2017.

DISMISSES the Ontario College of Teachers application seeking costs to cover professional fees; AUTHORIZES the Ontario College of Teachers to withdraw the security for costs held by its attorneys Therrien Couture S.E.N.C.R.L.; WITH LEGAL COSTS in favor of the Ontario College of Teachers. __________________________________ STÉPHANE D. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: July 25 th ,2019