Gisele Chretien

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent paralegal's licence, alleging misappropriation of trust funds and breach of integrity.

The investigator identified over $100,000 in unexplained transfers from the respondent's trust accounts to his general account, supported by invoices that the clients claimed they never received.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent may have misappropriated or misapplied monies held in trust.

Given the serious integrity issues, the Tribunal concluded that restrictions would be insufficient to protect the public and ordered an immediate interlocutory suspension.

The applicant applied for a licence to practise law and wrote the solicitor exam in November 2021.

The Law Society investigated allegations of widespread cheating on the exam and found that the applicant possessed and used unauthorized cheating materials.

During the investigation, the applicant repeatedly made false and misleading representations denying his involvement.

He later admitted to using the cheating materials and failing to be forthright.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made deliberately false and misleading representations, breaching s 8(2) of By-Law 4, and therefore deemed him not to have met the requirements for a licence, including the good character requirement.

The application was dismissed.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence amid allegations of misappropriating approximately $256,000 from an incapacitated client while acting as power of attorney.

The lawyer admitted to borrowing money from the client in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct and misleading the client's family and bank.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public.

It initially granted an interim restriction allowing the lawyer to complete one scheduled trial, followed by a full interlocutory suspension.

The Law Society of Ontario alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly assisting in mortgage fraud across six real estate transactions.

The respondent acted for both the borrowers and the first mortgagee bank, while simultaneously acting for private lenders registering second mortgages on the same properties, contrary to the bank's express instructions.

The respondent admitted to failing to supervise his practice, acting in a conflict of interest, and commissioning false statutory declarations, but denied knowing assistance.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the respondent was willfully blind to the obvious red flags of fraud, including the flow of secondary financing funds through his own trust account prior to the first mortgage advances.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent knowingly assisted in the dishonest conduct of his clients and made findings of professional misconduct.

Following the revocation of the respondent's licence to practise law, the Law Society sought $15,000 in costs.

The respondent did not provide submissions.

Applying the framework from Khan, the panel found the case was not particularly complex and there was no evidence of financial hardship or conduct lengthening the proceedings.

The requested amount fell within the established range for a one-day hearing.

The panel awarded the Law Society $15,000 in costs.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct, including money laundering, advance fee fraud, and misleading clients and the Law Society.

Following a finding of misconduct, a penalty hearing was held.

The Tribunal denied the lawyer's last-minute request for an adjournment.

Applying the Bolton principle, the Tribunal concluded that the lawyer's egregious dishonesty compelled the immediate revocation of his licence.

The lawyer was also ordered to pay $60,000 in costs to the Law Society and to reimburse the Compensation Fund for any related claims paid.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension or practice restrictions against the respondent lawyer, who practices primarily in family law.

The Law Society received multiple complaints alleging conflict of interest, breach of client confidentiality, and failure to provide competent legal services.

The Tribunal found strong evidence that the lawyer breached client confidentiality to the detriment of her clients, possibly with retaliatory motives, and acted in a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe her conduct presented a significant risk of harm to the public and the public interest.

However, balancing the interests, the Tribunal determined that an interlocutory suspension was not required and that public protection could be achieved through an order requiring strict supervision of the lawyer's practice by another approved lawyer pending a hearing on the merits.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent paralegal's licence amid allegations of misappropriating trust funds.

The respondent sought an adjournment due to the late delivery of a voluminous supplemental affidavit containing new allegations.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it necessary for fairness.

The Tribunal declined to order an interim interlocutory suspension pending the return of the motion, as the respondent had already provided an undertaking not to provide legal services, which sufficiently mitigated any risk of harm to the public or the administration of justice.

The Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent paralegal engaged in professional misconduct by failing to co-operate in two investigations regarding complaints of misappropriation and failure to serve.

The paralegal did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the paralegal committed professional misconduct by failing to respond to communications and produce requested documentation.

Given the paralegal's history of similar misconduct and failure to participate in the regulatory process, the Tribunal found him ungovernable.

The paralegal's licence was revoked and he was ordered to pay $5,055 in costs.