Natalia Rodriguez

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 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 Law Society alleged that the respondent paralegal engaged in professional misconduct by fabricating a client's signature on an affidavit, improperly commissioning it in her absence, and misleading the court by relying on it.

The paralegal admitted to the misconduct via an agreed statement of facts.

The Tribunal found the allegations substantiated.

Weighing mitigating factors including the paralegal's lack of discipline history, cooperation, and pro bono representation of the client against the serious nature of the integrity breach, the Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension and $4,000 in costs.

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 brought a conduct application against the respondent lawyer alleging he practised law and held himself out as entitled to practise while suspended, breached a Tribunal order, and failed to co-operate with an investigation.

The hearing proceeded in the lawyer's absence.

The Tribunal found all allegations of professional misconduct established.

The lawyer had provided legal services, including drafting a separation agreement, while subject to two overlapping suspensions.

Applying the Shifman test, the Tribunal found the lawyer to be ungovernable due to his repeated failure to comply with regulatory obligations and orders.

The lawyer's licence was revoked and he was ordered to pay $10,111 in costs.

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 applicant, a lawyer licensed in British Columbia, applied for a licence to practise law in Ontario.

The Law Society referred the application to a hearing, alleging the applicant was not of good character due to a prior finding of professional misconduct in British Columbia relating to the misuse of his trust account, as well as an unauthorized practice investigation in Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the Law Society did not meet its initial burden of establishing that good character was at issue, as the prior misconduct was based on a misapprehension of the rules and did not engage the applicant's integrity or trustworthiness.

The Tribunal further found that, even if the burden had been met, the applicant demonstrated he is presently of good character through his remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and the passage of time.

The application for a licence was allowed.

The Law Society brought a motion for interlocutory suspensions of two lawyers, Ms. Nejal and Ms. Laguisan, due to irregularities in their firm's mixed trust account, specifically the failure to pay out mortgages on closing.

Ms. Nejal, the firm owner, was found to have failed to maintain books and records and there was strong evidence suggesting a lack of integrity and possible complicity in the mishandling of funds.

The Tribunal ordered an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Nejal's licence.

Ms. Laguisan, a newly-called associate who was left in charge during Ms. Nejal's prior suspension, was found to have been unaware of the delayed payouts and there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The motion for an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Laguisan's licence was dismissed.

The appellant, a licensed paralegal, appealed a Hearing Division decision that revoked his licence and ordered him to pay $10,000 in costs.

The hearing panel found that the appellant had impersonated another licensed paralegal prior to obtaining his own licence and continued the deception after becoming licensed, failing to serve his client and abandoning the client's matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

On appeal, the appellant argued the hearing panel made palpable and overriding errors of fact, improperly considered pre-licensing conduct, and failed to properly apply the Aguirre factors for penalty.

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors, and held that the pre-licensing conduct was properly considered as part of a continuous course of conduct.

The penalty of revocation was affirmed as not clearly unfit given the serious findings of proven dishonesty and lack of integrity.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension against three paralegals, alleging their involvement in a scheme to file meritless appeals of Highway Traffic Act guilty pleas.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the paralegals had knowledge of the scheme.

The paralegals subsequently sought costs against the Law Society.

The Tribunal found that the Law Society's motion was unwarranted and doomed to fail, as it proceeded without any evidentiary foundation.

The Tribunal ordered the Law Society to pay costs to the paralegals totaling $53,000.

The Law Society brought a conduct application against the respondent lawyer for engaging in conduct unbecoming a licensee, following his criminal convictions in Colorado for distributing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.

The hearing proceeded on an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Tribunal found that the criminal convictions established conduct unbecoming.

Applying the test for joint submissions, the Tribunal accepted the proposed penalty of an eight-month suspension, noting the mitigating factors considered by the Colorado courts, including the lawyer's mental health and addiction struggles.

The Tribunal also granted a not public order over one document from the foreign court proceedings.

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.