Pam Hrick

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 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 Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence amid allegations of misappropriating approximately $256,000 from an incapacitated client while acting as power of attorney.

The lawyer admitted to borrowing money from the client in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct and misleading the client's family and bank.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public.

It initially granted an interim restriction allowing the lawyer to complete one scheduled trial, followed by a full interlocutory suspension.

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 appellant lawyer appealed a penalty decision that revoked his licence and ordered him to pay $44,135 in costs after a hearing panel found he had misappropriated trust funds and breached Legal Aid Ontario rules by privately billing a client while on a certificate.

The Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the hearing panel's application of the presumptive penalty of revocation for misappropriation.

The panel also found no procedural unfairness and upheld the costs order.

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 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.