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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.