Malcolm M. Mercer

The Law Society Tribunal previously found that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by practising law while suspended and failing to treat the court with courtesy and civility.

The respondent maintained that he was an "unconquered Métis man" and not subject to the authority of the Law Society Act.

Despite being invited to make submissions on penalty, the respondent did not participate.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was ungovernable due to mental illness and that a further suspension would not protect the public interest or maintain public confidence.

The respondent's licence to practise law was revoked.

The Law Society brought a conduct application against a lawyer whose licence was previously suspended due to incapacity arising from mental illness.

The lawyer continued to make numerous court appearances while suspended, acting uncivilly and advancing pseudolegal arguments based on his claim to be an unconquered Métis individual not subject to the Law Society Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the lawyer's recusal motions and found that he engaged in professional misconduct.

The Tribunal established a unified framework for addressing mental illness in conduct applications and concluded that diversion to a capacity proceeding was inappropriate because the lawyer lacked insight into his illness, refused to cooperate, and posed a significant risk to the public.

The appellant paralegal's licence was revoked after a hearing panel found she misappropriated $6,600 from her trust account.

She appealed the revocation and brought a motion for a stay pending appeal.

The Appeal Division dismissed the motion, finding that while the appeal raised a novel but weak issue of law regarding the failure to replenish trust funds, the balance of convenience strongly favoured protecting the public.

The public interest in upholding confidence in the administration of justice and the disciplinary process outweighed the appellant's interests, particularly given her delay in perfecting the appeal.

The appellant, whose licence to practise law was revoked for serious misconduct, brought a motion for a stay of the revocation order and a publication ban pending his appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, there was no irreparable harm since the appellant was already suspended on an interlocutory basis, and the balance of convenience and public interest favoured maintaining the revocation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the motion for a publication ban, applying the Sherman Estate test and concluding that the appellant's privacy interests did not outweigh the fundamental importance of openness in professional regulation.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order suspending or restricting the respondent lawyer's licence pending a conduct application.

The underlying application alleged the lawyer failed to respect human rights laws regarding a former employee and engaged in abusive communications and inappropriate social media postings.

The Tribunal found no evidence of current harm or significant risk of harm to the public or the administration of justice, noting that the passage of time had addressed previous concerns.

The motion was dismissed for lack of statutory authority under section 49.27(2) of the Law Society Act.

In a professional misconduct proceeding against a lawyer involving alleged mortgage fraud, the Law Society sought to disclose documents obtained from investigations of other lawyers.

The respondent lawyer sought unredacted disclosure, arguing the 'innocence at stake' exception to solicitor-client privilege applied.

The Tribunal held that the 'innocence at stake' exception is limited to criminal proceedings and does not apply where a licence to practise a profession is at stake.

The Tribunal reviewed the documents individually, finding the presumption of privilege over certain trust and administrative records was rebutted given the nature of the mortgage transactions, and ordered disclosure of specific documents with directed redactions to protect solicitor-client communications.

The Law Society brought a summary application alleging the respondent lawyer failed to co-operate with an investigation and failed to maintain required books and records.

Following a spot audit, the investigator requested various trust account records, journals, and reconciliations.

The lawyer provided some documents but failed to produce all requested records despite multiple extensions.

The Tribunal found the lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to promptly and completely respond to the Law Society and by failing to maintain the required books and records.

The lawyer's licence was suspended indefinitely until compliance is achieved, followed by an additional one-month suspension, and he was ordered to pay costs.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer failed to maintain required books and records of his law practice, contrary to s. 18 of By-Law 9.

The lawyer did not dispute the non-compliance, which stemmed from his use of a personal bank account as his general account and his failure to treat advance block fees as trust money.

The Tribunal found that the lawyer engaged in professional misconduct.

Recognizing the need for general deterrence and the lawyer's ongoing non-compliance, the Tribunal ordered a one-month definite suspension followed by an indefinite suspension pending compliance, along with $3,500 in costs.

The respondent lawyer brought a motion for further disclosure of all communications between the Law Society and its external investigative counsel.

The Law Society argued the communications were irrelevant or protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that not all communications were potentially relevant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the external counsel was retained to conduct a regulatory investigation, not to provide legal advice, meaning the communications were not generally protected by solicitor-client privilege, though specific communications involving legal advice would remain privileged.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The Law Society adduced unchallenged evidence that the respondent misappropriated settlement funds, failed to account to clients, abandoned his practice, and failed to co-operate with investigations.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public if the respondent was permitted to continue practising.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of the respondent's licence.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty for a lawyer previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including acting in a conflict of interest by having a sexual relationship with a client, making discriminatory comments, participating in a fraudulent vehicle transfer using a false statutory declaration, and acting uncivilly toward police.

The Tribunal found that the fraudulent vehicle transfer attracted presumptive revocation under the Bolton principle, as it involved a client and a false statutory declaration, which compromised public confidence in the profession.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, and alternatively applying the ordinary penalty approach, the Tribunal revoked the lawyer's licence and ordered him to pay $35,000 in costs.

The Law Society brought a summary conduct application alleging the respondent lawyer failed to maintain books and records in compliance with By-Law 9.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached sections 18(10) and 19(1) of By-Law 9 by failing to maintain detailed duplicate deposit slips and a book of duplicate cash receipts.

The respondent was ordered to serve an indefinite suspension pending compliance, followed by a one-month definite suspension, and to pay costs of $3,438.

The Lawyer was previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including misappropriating client trust funds, knowingly assisting in a bad cheque fraud scheme, and failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation.

The Tribunal determined that presumptive revocation applied to both the misappropriation and the knowing assistance in fraud.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from presumptive revocation, rejecting the Lawyer's arguments regarding her interlocutory suspension, clean disciplinary record, and allegations of investigative impropriety.

The Lawyer's licence to practise law was revoked immediately, and she was ordered to pay costs of $175,000.

In a Law Society conduct proceeding, the respondent lawyer brought a motion seeking further disclosure from the Law Society.

The requested disclosure included the contact information of a former investigator and extensive records regarding the Law Society's retainer of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested information was irrelevant to the allegations of misconduct, much of it was protected by solicitor-client privilege, and the requests amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition.

The Law Society sought an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The lawyer had experienced difficulties with substance abuse and mental health, leading to failures to serve clients, potential misappropriation of trust funds, and misleading the Law Society investigator.

The lawyer argued that his health had improved and proposed practice restrictions instead of a suspension.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice if an order was not made.

Given the lawyer's lack of candour and the absence of expert medical evidence supporting a treatment and monitoring plan, the Tribunal concluded that practice restrictions would not sufficiently mitigate the risk and ordered an interlocutory suspension.

In a professional conduct proceeding involving allegations of mortgage fraud, the respondent lawyer brought a motion seeking disclosure of privileged information obtained by the Law Society during investigations of other lawyers involved in the same transactions.

The Tribunal considered whether the Law Society Act clearly and unambiguously authorizes the disclosure of third-party privileged information to a licensee who was not retained in the matter.

The Tribunal deferred making a final decision on the legal question and instead ordered a practical review procedure to determine whether the documents are privileged and whether their disclosure is absolutely necessary for the respondent's defence.