Eric Whist

The appellant lawyer appealed an interlocutory order suspending his licence to practise law.

The suspension was based on serious findings by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories that he had knowingly breached a Mareva order and misappropriated trust funds.

On appeal, the lawyer brought motions to admit fresh evidence and stay the suspension, and raised numerous grounds alleging procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and improper conduct by Law Society counsel.

The Appeal Division dismissed the motions, finding the fresh evidence test was not met and a stay was unwarranted.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal concluding the hearing was fair, the panel's interventions were appropriate case management, and the reasons for suspension were justifiable and intelligible.

The Lawyer unsuccessfully appealed a decision finding professional misconduct and revoking his licence to practise law.

The Law Society sought costs of $6,265 for the appeal.

The Lawyer did not file responding submissions.

The Tribunal found the requested amount was well below the general range for appeals and was appropriate given the unmeritorious issues raised by the Lawyer.

Costs of $6,265 were awarded to the Law Society.

The Lawyer appealed a Hearing Division decision permitting him to surrender his licence for professional misconduct involving the misappropriation of trust funds.

He argued the panel misapplied the exceptional circumstances test and should have imposed a suspension.

The Law Society cross-appealed, arguing the panel erred in not revoking the licence.

The Appeal Division dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error.

The panel properly considered the Lawyer's experience of anti-Black racism and other mitigating factors, concluding they justified permission to resign but not a suspension.

The respondent lawyer was previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly participating in mortgage fraud that targeted vulnerable seniors.

At the penalty hearing, the respondent argued that caregiver burnout constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the presumptive penalty of license revocation.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding no causal connection between her personal circumstances and the misconduct.

The respondent's license was revoked immediately, and she was ordered to pay $100,000 in costs to the Law Society.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal and stay motion regarding the revocation of his license, the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The Law Society sought $12,000, which was below the typical range of $15,000 to $30,000 for an appeal.

The appellant requested costs be fixed at $6,000 payable over four years, citing financial hardship but providing no evidence.

The Tribunal considered the unique nature of the appeal, which provided an opportunity to clarify the Law Society's role in assessing applications following the compromised online licensing examination.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $9,000 in costs, payable in two installments.

The appellant lawyer appealed a hearing panel decision revoking his licence to practise law for professional misconduct.

He brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, which was quashed for failure to file a factum, though the panel noted the evidence was already in the record.

The appellant argued that his consent to an agreed statement of facts was invalid because LSO discipline counsel allegedly suppressed evidence and misrepresented facts.

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence in question had been fully disclosed to the appellant's counsel well before the hearing, and that the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and evidence tampering were entirely unfounded.

Following a finding that the paralegal was incapacitated due to a substance use disorder and borderline personality disorder, the Law Society Tribunal determined the terms of a capacity order.

The Tribunal rejected the paralegal's arguments against employment restrictions, finding that protection of the public required him to provide legal services only as an employee under supervision.

The Tribunal also mandated ongoing treatment, including dialectical behaviour therapy, and unannounced substance use testing, while accommodating his disability to the point of undue hardship.

The appellant, a licensed paralegal, appealed a Hearing Division decision that revoked his licence and ordered him to pay $10,000 in costs.

The hearing panel found that the appellant had impersonated another licensed paralegal prior to obtaining his own licence and continued the deception after becoming licensed, failing to serve his client and abandoning the client's matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

On appeal, the appellant argued the hearing panel made palpable and overriding errors of fact, improperly considered pre-licensing conduct, and failed to properly apply the Aguirre factors for penalty.

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors, and held that the pre-licensing conduct was properly considered as part of a continuous course of conduct.

The penalty of revocation was affirmed as not clearly unfit given the serious findings of proven dishonesty and lack of integrity.