Joshua D. Elcombe

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld the hearing panel's finding of serious professional misconduct, including misleading a client, improper billing of Legal Aid Ontario, and gross negligence in billing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Tribunal's decision.

The penalty of license revocation and costs of $55,000 were found to be reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the respondent.

The appellant lawyer, acting as an executor, advanced an unsecured loan from estate assets to an employee to placate a client.

The Law Society Hearing Panel found this to be conduct unbecoming a lawyer and a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Appeal Panel affirmed the decision.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the panels failed to properly apply the prudent investor test under section 27 of the Trustee Act.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the standard of review was reasonableness and the panels correctly concluded the investment was imprudent as it was motivated by personal interests rather than an overall investment strategy.

The applicant, a lawyer facing misconduct allegations, applied for judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel's interlocutory decision dismissing his jurisdictional challenge.

The Law Society argued the application was premature.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the statutory appeal mechanism provided an adequate alternative remedy and that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying early intervention and fragmentation of the administrative process.

The application was quashed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which dismissed his appeal from a Hearing Panel decision denying his paralegal licence application for failing to meet the good character requirement.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and challenged findings of credibility and untruthfulness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Panel's decision reasonable, the hearing fair, and the findings amply supported by the evidence.