Gerald Chan

The Appellant brought a motion seeking various forms of relief prior to the hearing of his appeal, including a reconsideration of the hearing panel's decision, a transfer to an Indigenous Tribunal, a hearing by a lay member, cross-examinations, payment of transcripts, admission of fresh evidence, and recusal of the adjudicator.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no jurisdictional basis for the transfer, no foundation for the cross-examinations or recusal, and no evidence of impecuniosity for the transcript costs.

The admissibility of fresh evidence was deferred to the hearing of the appeal.

The Law Society sought costs of $16,000 following the dismissal of the lawyer's appeal against findings of professional misconduct and the dismissal of the Law Society's cross-appeal on penalty.

The lawyer argued the costs were unreasonable and sought a reduction to $10,000, contending the cross-appeal was unwarranted.

The Tribunal found the Law Society's costs claim reasonable, noting it had already discounted its actual costs to reflect the unsuccessful cross-appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the lawyer to pay $16,000 in costs within 90 days.

The Lawyer appealed a finding of professional misconduct and a nine-month suspension for acting without instructions to prevent her client's family from removing him from life support, filing a misleading affidavit, and acting in a conflict of interest.

The Law Society cross-appealed, seeking revocation of the Lawyer's licence.

The Appeal Division dismissed both appeals, finding that the hearing panel did not err in its application of the Groia test or the CUPE abuse of process doctrine, and that the nine-month suspension was an appropriate penalty given the seriousness of the misconduct.