James Maurice Melnick

The Law Society of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Law Society Tribunal finding that the applicant, who had a history of child sexual abuse, was of good character and could be licensed to practice law with a condition that he not be alone with minors.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the overarching public interest and public trust in the legal profession.

The Court also found the licensing condition internally inconsistent with a finding of good character.

The matter was remitted to the Hearing Division for a fresh assessment.

Additionally, the Court granted the applicant's motion for an anonymization and non-publication order to protect the identity of his daughter, a victim of his past abuse.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Law Society of Ontario’s appeal regarding the respondent’s application for licensure as a paralegal.

The court found that the tribunals below properly considered the respondent’s criminal offence and professional misconduct, and that there was no error in their assessment of her rehabilitation and good character.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal appeal division decision upholding a finding that the respondent was of good character and could be licensed to practice law, subject to a condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors.

The respondent had committed historical acts of sexual abuse against minors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal reasonably applied the Armstrong factors to assess good character, adequately considered the public interest and the protection of children, and reasonably imposed the licensing condition based on the respondent's voluntary undertaking.

The court also continued the anonymization order protecting the respondent's identity to safeguard the privacy interests of his children.

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 Law Society of Ontario sought judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal decision granting a paralegal licence to the respondent, who was serving a conditional sentence for child luring.

The LSO argued that an applicant serving a criminal sentence cannot be of good character.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable as there is no absolute statutory or jurisprudential bar to finding good character while serving a sentence.

The court also rejected the LSO's argument that the hearing division's delay in releasing its decision amounted to procedural unfairness or bias.

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 Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for a stay of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision finding the respondent to be of good character and directing that he be licensed to practise law.

The Law Society argued that licensing the respondent before its judicial review application was heard would irreparably harm the public interest, given his past sexual misconduct.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding that the Law Society raised a serious issue, that the public interest would be irreparably harmed if an applicant who did not meet the good character requirement was licensed, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with an elevated blood alcohol content, as well as provincial offences related to leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident.

The accused was found unconscious in the driver's seat of a damaged vehicle parked in a private driveway.

Police discovered open alcohol in the vehicle and obtained breath samples showing blood alcohol levels of 171 and 164 mg/100mL.

The accused challenged the charges on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b).

The court found that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle, that any Charter breaches were minimal and justified by exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was admissible.

The accused was convicted on all charges.