Stephen Rotstein

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 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.

Following the revocation of the respondent's licence to practise law, the Law Society sought $15,000 in costs.

The respondent did not provide submissions.

Applying the framework from Khan, the panel found the case was not particularly complex and there was no evidence of financial hardship or conduct lengthening the proceedings.

The requested amount fell within the established range for a one-day hearing.

The panel awarded the Law Society $15,000 in costs.

The Law Society brought an application against the respondent lawyer alleging professional misconduct, including sexual harassment of clients and non-clients, breach of client confidentiality, failure to report criminal charges, failure to release a client file, and failure to co-operate with investigations.

The respondent, who was incarcerated and did not attend the hearing, was deemed to have admitted the facts.

The Tribunal found that the respondent egregiously abused his position of authority to take advantage of vulnerable clients and engaged in a lengthy pattern of misconduct.

The Tribunal revoked the respondent's licence to practise law and ordered him to pay $100,000 in costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that the respondent's denial notices were non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, and therefore the treatment plans were payable under s. 38(11).

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial notices were compliant and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.