Amanda Pinto

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 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 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.

Following the refusal of the applicant's application for a paralegal licence, the Law Society sought costs of $5,000.

The applicant consented to the quantum but requested a one-year period to pay, citing his responsibilities as a single parent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no documentary evidence of financial hardship and noted his senior leadership position within a police organization.

Balancing fairness to the professions with the applicant's circumstances, the Tribunal granted a limited extension of two months to pay the costs.