Cynthia Pay

Justice for Children and Youth (JFCY) brought a motion for leave to intervene in the Law Society of Ontario's application for judicial review of a decision finding the respondent to be of good character but imposing a condition that he not meet alone with minor children.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing JFCY lacked a unique perspective, would augment the record, and was in a conflict of interest.

The court granted JFCY leave to intervene on the issues of whether the condition is consistent with Charter values or international law, and whether the Law Society's duty to regulate in the public interest includes protecting children.

The court found no conflict of interest and restricted JFCY from augmenting the evidentiary record or taking a position on the disposition.

The responding party sought judicial review of a professional discipline appeal division decision finding the moving party to be of good character despite past sexual misconduct.

The moving party brought a motion for a declaration that the tribunal's anonymization order applied to the court proceedings, or alternatively, for a new anonymization order.

The court held that the tribunal's order did not apply and a separate court order was required.

Applying the test for exceptions to the open court principle, the court granted a temporary anonymization order protecting the identities of the moving party, his former spouse, and their children until the end of the judicial review hearing, finding that the risk of psychological harm to the children outweighed the temporary impact on the open court principle.

The applicant, whose licence to practice law was revoked in 2012 for ungovernability, sought judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision affirming the denial of his re-licensing application.

The Hearing Division had found the applicant was not of good character due to his failure to disclose outstanding civil judgments, criminal convictions, and prior discipline, as well as a lack of remorse and rehabilitative efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision reasonable and concluding there was no procedural unfairness in the tribunal proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of interim decisions made by the Law Society of Ontario and the Law Society Tribunal regarding scheduling and a recusal request in an ongoing disciplinary proceeding.

The court dismissed the applications summarily under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the applications were patently premature, as the administrative proceedings had not yet concluded and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying fragmentation of the process.