Paul Le Vay

The Lawyer appealed a Hearing Division decision permitting him to surrender his licence for professional misconduct involving the misappropriation of trust funds.

He argued the panel misapplied the exceptional circumstances test and should have imposed a suspension.

The Law Society cross-appealed, arguing the panel erred in not revoking the licence.

The Appeal Division dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error.

The panel properly considered the Lawyer's experience of anti-Black racism and other mitigating factors, concluding they justified permission to resign but not a suspension.

The Law Society of Ontario alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to serve a vulnerable refugee client to the standard of a competent lawyer, failing to advise her of the option to apply for Legal Aid for her appeal, sexually harassing her, and misleading a Law Society investigator.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the lawyer failed to meet the standard of competence by inadequately addressing the internal flight alternative in her refugee claim and by filing contradictory medical documents without proper preparation.

The Tribunal also found that the lawyer failed to advise the client of her right to apply for Legal Aid and failed to be honest with the investigator regarding the client's prior Legal Aid certificate.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the sexual harassment allegation, finding that the Law Society did not meet its onus of proof due to credibility issues with the complainant's uncorroborated evidence.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

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 brought a motion to admit the reasons and findings of fact from a Court of Appeal decision (R v Cowan) as proof of those facts in a conduct application against the respondent lawyer, and to preclude the lawyer from re-litigating those facts.

The Tribunal found that while the decision was admissible, its findings of fact should be accorded only limited weight because the lawyer was merely a witness in the prior proceeding, which focused on trial fairness rather than his professional conduct.

The Tribunal also held that the doctrine of abuse of process did not preclude the lawyer from leading evidence to contest the findings of fact.

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 Law Society of Ontario brought a professional misconduct application against the respondent lawyer regarding his involvement in a syndicated mortgage transaction.

The respondent argued he acted solely as a bare trustee and mortgage administrator, not as the lenders' lawyer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was the lenders' lawyer and failed to serve them to the standard of a competent lawyer.

Specifically, he failed to meet with clients, advise them of material facts such as the appraised value of the property, comply with the loan agreement, and secure their interests before releasing funds.

The Tribunal also found he failed to comply with By-Law 9 by accepting incomplete and inaccurate disclosure forms.

A penalty hearing was ordered.

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.