Teresa Donnelly

The Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent lawyer misappropriated $85,230 in trust funds from a client during a mortgage transaction.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct in an agreed statement of facts.

The respondent sought permission to surrender his licence rather than face revocation, but failed to provide expert evidence or establish exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the presumptive penalty of revocation applied, noting that partial repayment of the misappropriated funds did not negate the presumptive penalty.

The respondent's licence was immediately revoked and he was ordered to pay the remaining restitution of $5,322.50.

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 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 Law Society brought a motion for deemed admissions regarding the respondent's refusals in a request to admit.

Shortly before the motion hearing, the Law Society sought to amend its notice of motion to increase the number of refusals in issue from approximately 80 to 280, acknowledging it had made a drafting error.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it materially altered the substance of the motion and increased his jeopardy.

The Tribunal granted leave to amend, finding that while the scale of the amendment was significant, it did not raise a new issue.

To preserve fairness, the Tribunal ordered a timetable for responding materials and vacated the scheduled hearing dates.

The Law Society brought a motion seeking an order deeming the respondent to have admitted the truth of facts in approximately 80 refusals to a request to admit.

The Law Society argued the respondent's categorical refusals failed to comply with Rule 11.3 of the Tribunal Rules.

The respondent argued the requests were improperly drafted and his refusals were compliant.

The Tribunal found that both parties failed to meaningfully engage in the request to admit process.

The motion was adjourned to allow the Law Society to provide an evidentiary foundation for certain requests and the respondent to provide precise reasons for his refusals.

The Law Society commenced conduct proceedings against a paralegal regarding his communications in matters before the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal (OPSDT).

The paralegal brought a motion to exclude the OPSDT materials, arguing they were inadmissible under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA).

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that a Law Society disciplinary proceeding is not a 'civil proceeding' for the purposes of s. 36(3) when scrutinizing the conduct of a legal representative.

The provision does not operate to shield a licensee's behaviour from regulatory oversight by the Law Society.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent's paralegal licence.

The respondent allegedly represented clients in criminal matters outside her permitted scope of practice, repeatedly misled the court by claiming she was acting as an agent for a lawyer who was entirely uninvolved, and fabricated excuses for delays.

Finding reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice, and noting the respondent's consent, the Tribunal ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of her licence.