J. Akbarali

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal regarding a finding of professional misconduct, the court determined the issue of costs.

The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding involved matters of public interest and novel issues.

The court rejected this argument, noting that while the case clarified the law, the appellant was unsuccessful and should bear the costs.

The court awarded costs of $30,000 to the respondent, which included a reduction to reflect the respondent's lack of success on the cross-appeal.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct for incivility during a criminal trial.

The Appeal Panel had reduced his penalty to a one-month suspension and $200,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Law Society has jurisdiction to discipline lawyers for in-court conduct without intruding on judicial independence.

The Court articulated the test for when incivility becomes professional misconduct, requiring that the conduct undermines or has the potential to undermine the proper administration of justice.

The Court found the Appeal Panel's application of the test and the resulting penalty and costs orders to be reasonable.

The Law Society's cross-appeal regarding the evidentiary use of prior judicial comments was also dismissed.

Two legal associations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning professional misconduct and the role of advocates.

The appeal raised issues regarding when zealous advocacy crosses into actionable misconduct and the use of prior court decisions in disciplinary proceedings.

The court granted both motions, finding that the proposed interveners, as recognized organizations of advocates, would provide useful perspectives on the implications of the issues raised without duplicating the parties' submissions.