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 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 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 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 Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct including the sexual abuse of three students.

The Member had engaged in inappropriate online sexual communications with the students and was criminally convicted of luring a child to commit sexual exploitation.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act for sexual abuse, the Committee ordered that the Member be reprimanded and directed the Registrar to revoke her certificate of qualification and registration.

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.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging a failure to accommodate her workplace restrictions.

The respondent employer and union requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had already been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the Tribunal's normal approach in such circumstances.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), an intervenor in a case challenging the constitutionality of section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, requested an extension of time to file an expert report in reply to the respondent's expert report on labour relations.

The respondent and the Attorney General opposed the request, citing prejudice and delay.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding that the contents of the respondent's expert report could not have been fully anticipated and that procedural fairness favoured allowing the OHRC to provide rebuttal evidence regarding section 1 of the Charter.

The Tribunal concluded that the extension would not cause undue prejudice as the opposing parties would still have sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination.

The applicant alleged age discrimination under the Human Rights Code after his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found unconstitutional.

Two teachers' unions, OECTA and ETFO, sought intervenor status to address the constitutional issues.

The respondent and the Attorney General requested limitations on their participation, including a requirement to act jointly.

The Tribunal granted the unions full intervenor status without the requested limitations, finding that their perspectives on the administration of benefits and the impact on older workers would assist the Tribunal in this significant constitutional challenge.

The applicant alleged that the respondent school board breached the Human Rights Code on the basis of age when his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found to be unconstitutional.

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) requested to intervene in the constitutional challenge.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that OCUFA has a significant interest in the issues and will make a special contribution to the case given its longstanding advocacy regarding mandatory retirement and the rights of faculty working past age 65.

The applicant sought to add two individuals as personal respondents to her human rights application alleging pregnancy discrimination.

The corporate respondent opposed the request, confirming it would accept liability if discrimination was found and had the ability to pay any compensation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code, a corporation is deemed liable for the acts of its employees, and there were no compelling reasons such as allegations of harassment or inability to pay to justify adding the individuals.