François Turpin

The Law Society applied for a determination that the respondent lawyer failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order requiring him to follow the Guidelines for suspended lawyers.

The respondent failed to file a Practice Disposition Information Report, failed to close his trust account, and maintained law office signage and communications.

The Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the order and suspended his licence indefinitely until he demonstrates full compliance, to be followed by a one-month definite suspension.

The respondent was also ordered to pay costs of $2,210.

The Law Society of Ontario alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to serve a vulnerable refugee client to the standard of a competent lawyer, failing to advise her of the option to apply for Legal Aid for her appeal, sexually harassing her, and misleading a Law Society investigator.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the lawyer failed to meet the standard of competence by inadequately addressing the internal flight alternative in her refugee claim and by filing contradictory medical documents without proper preparation.

The Tribunal also found that the lawyer failed to advise the client of her right to apply for Legal Aid and failed to be honest with the investigator regarding the client's prior Legal Aid certificate.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the sexual harassment allegation, finding that the Law Society did not meet its onus of proof due to credibility issues with the complainant's uncorroborated evidence.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

The Law Society brought a capacity application alleging the respondent lawyer was incapacitated between 2014 and 2019 due to a mental illness.

The respondent, an Indigenous woman and registered nurse, contested the application, arguing she was never incapacitated, her religious expressions were misinterpreted as delusions, and the psychiatric assessments were tainted by systemic racism.

The Tribunal accepted the expert psychiatric evidence that the respondent suffered from a lifelong mental illness that rendered her incapacitated during the relevant period, but found she has been in remission since 2019 due to adherence to a treatment plan.

The Tribunal ordered a three-year return-to-practice plan under s. 40 of the Law Society Act, requiring the respondent to remain under the care of a treating regulated professional and provide annual compliance reports, finding this to be the least restrictive accommodation necessary to protect the public.

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 brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent's paralegal licence.

The respondent allegedly represented clients in criminal matters outside her permitted scope of practice, repeatedly misled the court by claiming she was acting as an agent for a lawyer who was entirely uninvolved, and fabricated excuses for delays.

Finding reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice, and noting the respondent's consent, the Tribunal ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of her licence.

The Law Society sought an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The lawyer had experienced difficulties with substance abuse and mental health, leading to failures to serve clients, potential misappropriation of trust funds, and misleading the Law Society investigator.

The lawyer argued that his health had improved and proposed practice restrictions instead of a suspension.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice if an order was not made.

Given the lawyer's lack of candour and the absence of expert medical evidence supporting a treatment and monitoring plan, the Tribunal concluded that practice restrictions would not sufficiently mitigate the risk and ordered an interlocutory suspension.