Margaret Leighton

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 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.

The Lawyer unsuccessfully appealed a decision finding professional misconduct and revoking his licence to practise law.

The Law Society sought costs of $6,265 for the appeal.

The Lawyer did not file responding submissions.

The Tribunal found the requested amount was well below the general range for appeals and was appropriate given the unmeritorious issues raised by the Lawyer.

Costs of $6,265 were awarded to the Law Society.

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 respondent lawyer was previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly participating in mortgage fraud that targeted vulnerable seniors.

At the penalty hearing, the respondent argued that caregiver burnout constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the presumptive penalty of license revocation.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding no causal connection between her personal circumstances and the misconduct.

The respondent's license was revoked immediately, and she was ordered to pay $100,000 in costs to the Law Society.

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 lawyer appealed a hearing panel decision revoking his licence to practise law for professional misconduct.

He brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, which was quashed for failure to file a factum, though the panel noted the evidence was already in the record.

The appellant argued that his consent to an agreed statement of facts was invalid because LSO discipline counsel allegedly suppressed evidence and misrepresented facts.

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence in question had been fully disclosed to the appellant's counsel well before the hearing, and that the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and evidence tampering were entirely unfounded.

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.