Karen Hulan

The appellant lawyer appealed an interlocutory order suspending his licence to practise law.

The suspension was based on serious findings by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories that he had knowingly breached a Mareva order and misappropriated trust funds.

On appeal, the lawyer brought motions to admit fresh evidence and stay the suspension, and raised numerous grounds alleging procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and improper conduct by Law Society counsel.

The Appeal Division dismissed the motions, finding the fresh evidence test was not met and a stay was unwarranted.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal concluding the hearing was fair, the panel's interventions were appropriate case management, and the reasons for suspension were justifiable and intelligible.

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The applicant, a former paralegal whose licence was revoked in 2018 for professional misconduct including filing forged documents and practicing while suspended, applied for re-licensing.

The Law Society referred the application to the Tribunal to determine if she met the good character requirement.

The Tribunal applied the Armstrong factors and found that the applicant lacked meaningful insight into her past misconduct and failed to demonstrate true remorse or rehabilitation.

The application for re-licensing was dismissed.

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 a professional misconduct application against the respondent lawyer regarding his involvement in a syndicated mortgage transaction.

The respondent argued he acted solely as a bare trustee and mortgage administrator, not as the lenders' lawyer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was the lenders' lawyer and failed to serve them to the standard of a competent lawyer.

Specifically, he failed to meet with clients, advise them of material facts such as the appraised value of the property, comply with the loan agreement, and secure their interests before releasing funds.

The Tribunal also found he failed to comply with By-Law 9 by accepting incomplete and inaccurate disclosure forms.

A penalty hearing was ordered.

The Law Society brought a discipline application against the respondent lawyer after he pled guilty to criminal charges of assault, mischief, and forcible confinement against his former intimate partner.

The lawyer admitted the underlying conduct and that it constituted conduct unbecoming a licensee.

The Tribunal considered the serious nature of intimate partner violence, the lawyer's lack of prior discipline, and his participation in a Partner Assault Response program.

Emphasizing the need for general deterrence and maintaining public confidence in the legal profession, the Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension and $4,000 in costs.

The Law Society alleged that the Licensee engaged in professional misconduct by failing to act with honour and integrity, practising while suspended, and failing to co-operate with investigations.

The Licensee admitted to lying to three clients about the status of their matters, fabricating correspondence and court documents, and charging for work that was not done.

The Tribunal found professional misconduct as alleged and admitted.

The Licensee's licence to practise law was revoked, and she was ordered to repay the Compensation Fund and pay costs to the Law Society.