Geneviève Painchaud

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a decision revoking his licence to practise law, the Law Society sought costs of $2,500.

The appellant, who was self-represented, requested that no costs or a reduced amount be ordered, noting the appeal was heard in writing at his request.

The Tribunal found the written hearing was efficient and reduced the Law Society's costs, but noted the appellant's grounds of appeal were unmeritorious.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay costs of $2,200 to the Law Society, reflecting a $300 reduction due to the Law Society's unnecessary opposition to a written hearing.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Division order revoking his licence and ordering $26,000 in costs for professional misconduct involving knowing assistance in mortgage fraud.

The appellant argued the hearing panel erred in finding knowing assistance without actual knowledge, that the investigation was flawed, and that the penalty and costs were disproportionate.

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the hearing panel's conclusion that the appellant knowingly assisted in fraud based on circumstantial evidence and ignored red flags.

The presumptive penalty of revocation was appropriate as no exceptional circumstances were established, and the costs award was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a 'howling' noise in a shower.

Prior to the conciliation inspection, the appellant hired a plumber to install pressure reducing valves to mitigate the noise without authorization from the builder or Tarion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's unilateral alteration of the plumbing system deprived Tarion of the ability to accurately assess the original condition, thereby voiding the warranty under s. 13(2)(g) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Law Society appealed a hearing panel decision finding that the applicant did not cheat on her licensing exam and was of good character despite making an inaccurate statement during the investigation.

The Appeal Division allowed the appeal, finding the hearing panel erred in law by misinterpreting section 8(2) of By-Law 4 to require an intent to deceive, failing to consider the circumstantial evidence of cheating as a whole, improperly assessing credibility, and applying an elevated standard of proof.

The Appeal Division substituted its own decision, concluding the applicant knowingly made a false representation in connection with her application and therefore deemed her not to meet the requirements for licensing.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for several items in their new home, including countertops, doors, a window, and exterior stucco.

The appellants argued that the builder made an unauthorized substitution by installing quartz countertops instead of granite, and alleged various other construction defects.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to prove any breach of warranty.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants received the exact countertop colour they selected, and provided no documentary evidence to support their other claims of defects.

The appellant appealed the retroactive revocation of his licence to practise law.

He had previously been licensed, suspended, and ultimately disbarred in Alberta, but failed to disclose this on his lawyer licensing application in Ontario.

The hearing panel determined that he had made deliberately false or misleading representations and retroactively revoked his licence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the panel erred in applying binding precedent, ignoring mental health evidence, and misapplying the standard for misrepresentation.

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the hearing panel's findings or analysis.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application against the respondent lawyer alleging professional misconduct, including misappropriation of trust funds, using trust accounts for non-legal purposes, assisting in fraudulent conduct, breaching an undertaking, and failing to cooperate with investigations.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the respondent misappropriated approximately $3.5 million, used her trust accounts to facilitate millions of dollars in transactions unrelated to legal services, and failed to respond to multiple investigations.

The panel concluded that all allegations of professional misconduct were proven and directed that a penalty hearing be scheduled.

The appellant corporation appealed the impoundment of its motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

At the hearing, the parties discussed alternative options to resolve the issue, as the vehicle was being rented out at the time.

The appellant subsequently withdrew the application, and the Tribunal closed the file.

Following a finding of professional misconduct regarding syndicated mortgage transactions, the Law Society Tribunal considered the issue of costs.

The Law Society sought $60,000 in costs, while the respondent lawyer argued for $25,000.

The Tribunal reviewed the principles of costs awards in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that while the profession should not bear all costs, reductions are appropriate to recognize cooperative conduct that shortens proceedings.

Given the lawyer's extensive cooperation, including agreeing to a comprehensive agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal reduced the costs award to $25,000.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer committed professional misconduct by falsifying a client's signature on appeal documents, improperly commissioning an affidavit in the client's absence, and filing documents without verifying their contents.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission for a three-month suspension and $5,390 in costs, finding that the proposed penalty was consistent with jurisprudence and did not meet the high public interest threshold for rejection.

The Law Society brought a motion for interlocutory suspensions of two lawyers, Ms. Nejal and Ms. Laguisan, due to irregularities in their firm's mixed trust account, specifically the failure to pay out mortgages on closing.

Ms. Nejal, the firm owner, was found to have failed to maintain books and records and there was strong evidence suggesting a lack of integrity and possible complicity in the mishandling of funds.

The Tribunal ordered an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Nejal's licence.

Ms. Laguisan, a newly-called associate who was left in charge during Ms. Nejal's prior suspension, was found to have been unaware of the delayed payouts and there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The motion for an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Laguisan's licence was dismissed.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to be on guard against being the dupe of an unscrupulous client and by using his trust account for purposes unrelated to the provision of legal services.

The respondent fell victim to a fraud involving the fictitious sale of farm equipment and a fake cashier's cheque, resulting in a significant trust shortfall.

The Tribunal found both allegations established, noting that the respondent negligently ignored numerous red flags and that an honest but mistaken belief in the transaction's legitimacy is not a defence to the improper use of a trust account.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing knee condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the pre-existing condition did not preclude recovery within the MIG and that the medical evidence did not establish chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a refund of deposits and delayed occupancy compensation regarding a new condominium townhome.

The appellants argued the builder fundamentally breached the purchase agreement due to multiple occupancy delays and by terminating the agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the delays were permitted unavoidable delays under the agreement and did not constitute a fundamental breach.

Instead, the appellants fundamentally breached the agreement by repeatedly failing to pay the required deposits, entitling the builder to terminate the contract and retain the deposits.

The claim for delayed occupancy compensation was also dismissed as closing did not occur and the delay did not exceed the outside occupancy date.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates.

The Registrar argued the appellant was related to another company with a cancelled CVOR and had an exceptionally high overall violation rate of 82.3%.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found compelling evidence that the appellant was related to the cancelled operator and that its poor safety record provided reason to believe it would not operate commercial vehicles safely.

The Registrar's cancellation and seizure order was confirmed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought accident benefits for psychological impairment and chronic pain, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain resulting from the accident, noting a lack of corroborating medical evidence and relying on the family doctor's records.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG, and his claims for a psychological assessment, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Director's cancellation of its tow operator and vehicle storage operator certificates under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The Director issued the cancellation order based on the appellant's involvement in staged collisions, failure to provide requested documents, and numerous safety violations by its drivers, including stunt driving and soliciting within 200 metres of collisions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, as a corporation, was responsible for the actions of its employees and failed to satisfy the qualifications and requirements of the Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the cancellation order, finding it to be the only appropriate measure to protect the public given the severity of the violations.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, occupational therapy, a home modification assessment, and psychological services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant's credibility was significantly impacted by his failure to disclose a pre-existing right knee impairment to assessors.

Surveillance evidence and inconsistent self-reports further undermined his claims for attendant care and occupational therapy.

The Tribunal also found the applicant had not utilized previously approved psychological treatment, failing to prove the necessity of additional sessions.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for major structural defects in her new home.

The appellant alleged various deficiencies, including grading issues, water infiltration, and foundation cracks.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide objective evidence that any of the alleged defects met the statutory definition of a major structural defect under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for alleged deficiencies in their new home, including a substituted fireplace, front column sizes, sliding doors, and porch cladding.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had used artificial intelligence to generate fake case law in their submissions, leading the Tribunal to disregard their legal arguments.

On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the builder's substitutions and the aesthetic issues raised did not constitute breaches of the statutory warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appeal was dismissed.