Dr. Saadia Akram-Pall

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a Law Society Tribunal decision finding he committed professional misconduct during two criminal trials by engaging in uncivil behaviour, failing to competently represent his client, and failing to act with integrity.

The Hearing Panel imposed a three-month suspension and ordered $225,000 in costs.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Hearing Panel erred in its application of the test for incivility, improperly admitted expert evidence on the standard of competence, and imposed an unfit penalty and costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The majority upheld the findings of misconduct, concluding the appellant's baseless allegations of racial bias and impropriety against trial judges and Crown counsel crossed the line of resolute advocacy.

The court also upheld the penalty and the costs award, finding the Hearing Panel properly considered the appellant's financial circumstances and his conduct in unnecessarily lengthening the disciplinary proceedings.

One judge dissented in part, concluding the costs award was disproportionate and effectively punitive.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed exceptions to the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including reports from the respondent's section 44 assessors, supported that the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The applicant failed to prove any pre-existing condition, chronic pain with functional impairment, or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services were denied, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a pre-existing condition of diabetes, psychological impairments, a concussion, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries fell outside the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and medical/rehabilitation expenses following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant did not meet the test for pre-104 week IRBs (substantial inability to perform essential tasks of employment) or post-104 week IRBs (complete inability to engage in suitable employment), noting she had returned to work for a period, completed nursing programs, and cared for four children.

Claims for the cost of a Disability Certificate and a Psycho-Vocational Assessment were also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory requirements for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.