Glenn M. Stuart

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a single member of the Law Society Tribunal, Appeal Division, which struck his appeal book for including fresh evidence without leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, emphasizing that courts should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant was directed to exhaust his internal remedies by bringing a motion to admit fresh evidence before the panel hearing his appeal.

The moving party, a lawyer whose license was revoked for professional misconduct involving mortgage fraud, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to explain the delay in seeking leave to appeal and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The Toronto Police Services Board appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to Moses and Princess Water for injuries and trauma sustained during the execution of a search warrant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding Moses, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding police used excessive force.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding Princess, setting aside her damages award because the trial judge failed to find the police liable for any cause of action against her.

The cross-appeals by Moses and Princess alleging unlawful detention and arrest were dismissed, as the police actions were deemed necessary to secure the premises during the search.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which had set aside a Hearing Panel's dismissal of professional misconduct complaints related to mortgage transactions.

The Appeal Panel found the Hearing Panel erred in law by incorrectly defining fraud and by concluding a lawyer need not disclose material facts if they reasonably believe the lender already knows them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that a lawyer has a strict duty to disclose all material facts to a lender client, and that the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded the Hearing Panel's legal errors rendered its factual findings unsafe.