The appellant lawyer was found guilty of professional misconduct by a Law Society Hearing Panel for failing to advise lender clients of material facts in real estate transactions, but was cleared of mortgage fraud.
The Law Society appealed to the Appeal Panel, which found the Hearing Panel erred in law in its definition of mortgage fraud and ordered a new hearing.
The lawyer appealed to the Divisional Court.
The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded that the Hearing Panel erred by focusing on the lawyer's subjective belief about the honesty of his conduct rather than objectively assessing whether his failure to disclose constituted dishonest conduct under the Théroux test for fraud.
A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal.
