Margaret Waddell

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The respondent's license was revoked immediately, and she was ordered to pay $100,000 in costs to the Law Society.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal and stay motion regarding the revocation of his license, the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The Law Society sought $12,000, which was below the typical range of $15,000 to $30,000 for an appeal.

The appellant requested costs be fixed at $6,000 payable over four years, citing financial hardship but providing no evidence.

The Tribunal considered the unique nature of the appeal, which provided an opportunity to clarify the Law Society's role in assessing applications following the compromised online licensing examination.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $9,000 in costs, payable in two installments.

The Law Society brought a capacity application alleging the respondent lawyer was incapacitated between 2014 and 2019 due to a mental illness.

The respondent, an Indigenous woman and registered nurse, contested the application, arguing she was never incapacitated, her religious expressions were misinterpreted as delusions, and the psychiatric assessments were tainted by systemic racism.

The Tribunal accepted the expert psychiatric evidence that the respondent suffered from a lifelong mental illness that rendered her incapacitated during the relevant period, but found she has been in remission since 2019 due to adherence to a treatment plan.

The Tribunal ordered a three-year return-to-practice plan under s. 40 of the Law Society Act, requiring the respondent to remain under the care of a treating regulated professional and provide annual compliance reports, finding this to be the least restrictive accommodation necessary to protect the public.

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 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.

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.