7 total
The Court of Appeal reinstated a disciplinary hearing panel's finding that a real estate lawyer committed professional misconduct but not mortgage fraud.
A disciplinary appeal concerning allegations of professional misconduct and participation in mortgage fraud by a real estate lawyer.
The Law Society alleged that the lawyer failed to disclose credits to lenders in eight real estate transactions, thereby assisting in mortgage fraud.
The Hearing Panel found no fraud but found the lawyer fell below the standard of competent practice in seven transactions, imposing a two-month suspension.
The Appeal Panel reversed, finding the Hearing Panel applied an incorrect legal test for mortgage fraud and ordered a new hearing.
The Divisional Court upheld this decision by majority.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the Appeal Panel's articulation of the legal test was reasonable, ordering a new hearing was unreasonable given the Hearing Panel's clear factual findings that the lawyer lacked the requisite mental element for fraud.
Lawyer's appeal of Law Society Appeal Panel decision ordering a new hearing on mortgage fraud allegations dismissed.
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.
Tribunal denies preliminary requests to dismiss allegations for delay and to remove personal respondent.
The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss parts of the human rights application due to delay and to remove the personal respondent.
The applicant alleged a series of discriminatory incidents and failure to accommodate his disability over several years.
The Tribunal held that determining whether the incidents constituted a series under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code required hearing evidence, and deferred the delay issue to the hearing adjudicator.
The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondent, finding it premature prior to the disclosure of documents and witness statements.
The respondents' requests were denied.
Court refused premature constitutional challenge to ongoing professional discipline investigation.
Lawyers under investigation by their professional regulator sought constitutional declarations and procedural protections concerning potential disclosure of client confidential information during disciplinary proceedings.
They argued provisions of the governing statute violated ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter by failing to adequately protect solicitor‑client privilege and requested public interest standing to advance broader constitutional relief.
The court held the application was premature because the administrative process before the regulator’s tribunal had not yet been completed.
The tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the constitutional arguments and grant most requested remedies, with courts reviewing the matter only after the administrative process concluded.
The application was dismissed and public interest standing refused.
Motion to remove opposing counsel dismissed for failure to prove confidential information.
The defendants brought a motion seeking to remove opposing counsel on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest arising from prior interactions with one of the defendants during the lawyer’s previous employment at another firm.
The defendants alleged that confidential information was disclosed during a business lunch and argued that the lawyer should therefore be disqualified.
Applying the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court held that the defendants failed to establish that material confidential information relevant to the action had been imparted.
The court further found that any information discussed was either not confidential, not shown to be relevant, or had already been disclosed in the litigation record.
The motion to remove counsel was dismissed and costs were awarded against the moving parties.
Urgent injunction to allow student to attend school prom dismissed; prom attendance is a privilege.
The applicant sought an urgent injunction to allow a student to attend a school prom after the principal denied him the privilege following a 10-day suspension.
The applicant argued the denial was an uncommunicated extension of the suspension and thus reviewable.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that attending a prom is a privilege, not a legal right, and the principal's decision was not a statutory power of decision capable of judicial review.
Even if reviewable, the court found the principal's decision was reasonable.
Paralegal contingency fee agreements are champertous and invalid, but recovery in quantum meruit is permitted.
The appellant retained the respondent paralegal firm to assist with a WSIB claim under a contingency fee agreement.
After the claim was approved, the appellant sought to terminate the retainer, arguing it was unenforceable.
The Small Claims Court and Divisional Court upheld the agreement.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that contingency fee agreements between paralegals and clients are per se champertous and invalid because paralegals lack the regulatory oversight that justifies permitting such agreements for lawyers.
However, the Court found that an absolute bar on quantum meruit recovery for illegal contracts would cause an unacceptable injustice here, as the paralegal provided services in good faith.
The Court awarded the respondent $1,300 in quantum meruit.
