Brigitte Pilon

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty and costs hearing after finding the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct.

The lawyer had acted dishonestly in family law litigation by using a disputed foreign divorce to remove a matrimonial home designation, assisting his client in defeating court orders, and misleading the court and opposing counsel.

The Tribunal determined that while presumptive revocation did not apply, the ordinary penalty analysis required revocation due to the serious and calculated nature of the dishonesty, which undermined public confidence in the profession.

The Tribunal declined to impose an additional fine but ordered the lawyer to pay $50,000 in costs.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence amid allegations of misappropriating approximately $256,000 from an incapacitated client while acting as power of attorney.

The lawyer admitted to borrowing money from the client in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct and misleading the client's family and bank.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public.

It initially granted an interim restriction allowing the lawyer to complete one scheduled trial, followed by a full interlocutory suspension.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order and the Guidelines for suspended lawyers by failing to provide a compliance report.

The lawyer admitted the misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission for a one-month suspension and $3,889 in costs.

The Tribunal rejected the lawyer's request to apply the suspension retroactively, finding that the current misconduct was separate from the conduct that led to his existing suspension.

The one-month suspension was ordered to be served prospectively, and the lawyer was granted 12 months to pay the costs.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion to admit the reasons and findings of fact from a Court of Appeal decision (R v Cowan) as proof of those facts in a conduct application against the respondent lawyer, and to preclude the lawyer from re-litigating those facts.

The Tribunal found that while the decision was admissible, its findings of fact should be accorded only limited weight because the lawyer was merely a witness in the prior proceeding, which focused on trial fairness rather than his professional conduct.

The Tribunal also held that the doctrine of abuse of process did not preclude the lawyer from leading evidence to contest the findings of fact.

The Law Society alleged that the Licensee engaged in professional misconduct by failing to act with honour and integrity, practising while suspended, and failing to co-operate with investigations.

The Licensee admitted to lying to three clients about the status of their matters, fabricating correspondence and court documents, and charging for work that was not done.

The Tribunal found professional misconduct as alleged and admitted.

The Licensee's licence to practise law was revoked, and she was ordered to repay the Compensation Fund and pay costs to the Law Society.