Andrea Luey

The Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent lawyer misappropriated $85,230 in trust funds from a client during a mortgage transaction.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct in an agreed statement of facts.

The respondent sought permission to surrender his licence rather than face revocation, but failed to provide expert evidence or establish exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the presumptive penalty of revocation applied, noting that partial repayment of the misappropriated funds did not negate the presumptive penalty.

The respondent's licence was immediately revoked and he was ordered to pay the remaining restitution of $5,322.50.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent's paralegal licence.

The respondent allegedly represented clients in criminal matters outside her permitted scope of practice, repeatedly misled the court by claiming she was acting as an agent for a lawyer who was entirely uninvolved, and fabricated excuses for delays.

Finding reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice, and noting the respondent's consent, the Tribunal ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of her licence.

The Law Society brought a discipline application against the respondent lawyer after he pled guilty to criminal charges of assault, mischief, and forcible confinement against his former intimate partner.

The lawyer admitted the underlying conduct and that it constituted conduct unbecoming a licensee.

The Tribunal considered the serious nature of intimate partner violence, the lawyer's lack of prior discipline, and his participation in a Partner Assault Response program.

Emphasizing the need for general deterrence and maintaining public confidence in the legal profession, the Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension and $4,000 in costs.

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.

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 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 applicant sought a review of the society's decision to refuse her application to adopt three First Nations children who had previously been placed in her care.

The society and the First Nation argued that it was in the children's best interests to remain in a customary care arrangement with a caregiver connected to their extended family and community.

The Board considered the expanded best interests test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including the children's views and wishes, the importance of preserving their cultural identity, and the need for continuity of care.

The Board confirmed the society's decision, finding that remaining in customary care with their current caregiver was in the children's best interests.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to involuntarily transfer a Grade 12 student to a new school under its Fresh Start Policy following his involvement in an assault on another student.

The applicants argued the transfer was an unauthorized disciplinary measure, that they were denied procedural fairness, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the transfer was an administrative measure aimed at protecting the victim's well-being, not a disciplinary sanction.

The court also held that the procedural fairness owed was met and the superintendent's decision was reasonable.

The applicants brought a motion for an interim order staying the school board's decision to transfer a student to another school following a suspension for an assault.

The motion was dismissed because the transfer had already taken place and the relief sought was identical to the relief requested in the pending application for judicial review, which must be decided by a full panel.

The proposed intervenor, Justice for Children and Youth, filed a request to intervene in an application alleging discrimination with respect to educational services.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to intervene, finding that the applicant was already represented by counsel, the allegations involved direct interactions rather than systemic issues, and the issues raised fell squarely within the Tribunal's expertise.