Joshua Elcombe

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty and costs hearing after finding the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct.

The lawyer had acted dishonestly in family law litigation by using a disputed foreign divorce to remove a matrimonial home designation, assisting his client in defeating court orders, and misleading the court and opposing counsel.

The Tribunal determined that while presumptive revocation did not apply, the ordinary penalty analysis required revocation due to the serious and calculated nature of the dishonesty, which undermined public confidence in the profession.

The Tribunal declined to impose an additional fine but ordered the lawyer to pay $50,000 in costs.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a professional misconduct application against the respondent lawyer regarding his representation of three immigration clients.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to serve his clients to the standard of a competent lawyer, deposited trust funds into his general account before they were earned, falsified a client's signature on an application, and misled both clients and successor counsel.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's explanations, finding his credibility significantly impeached by his admitted falsification of documents.

All allegations of professional misconduct were established, and a penalty hearing was directed to be scheduled.

The Law Society sought costs of $16,000 following the dismissal of the lawyer's appeal against findings of professional misconduct and the dismissal of the Law Society's cross-appeal on penalty.

The lawyer argued the costs were unreasonable and sought a reduction to $10,000, contending the cross-appeal was unwarranted.

The Tribunal found the Law Society's costs claim reasonable, noting it had already discounted its actual costs to reflect the unsuccessful cross-appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the lawyer to pay $16,000 in costs within 90 days.

The respondent lawyer brought a motion for further disclosure of all communications between the Law Society and its external investigative counsel.

The Law Society argued the communications were irrelevant or protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that not all communications were potentially relevant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the external counsel was retained to conduct a regulatory investigation, not to provide legal advice, meaning the communications were not generally protected by solicitor-client privilege, though specific communications involving legal advice would remain privileged.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application against the respondent lawyer alleging professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a licensee, including misappropriation of estate and trust funds, failure to serve clients, and failure to cooperate with investigations.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and was deemed to have admitted the allegations.

The Tribunal found the allegations established.

Given the serious nature of the misappropriation and the absence of exceptional mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal ordered the immediate revocation of the respondent's licence, restitution to a client, and costs to the Law Society.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a professional misconduct application against the respondent lawyer regarding his involvement in a syndicated mortgage transaction.

The respondent argued he acted solely as a bare trustee and mortgage administrator, not as the lenders' lawyer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was the lenders' lawyer and failed to serve them to the standard of a competent lawyer.

Specifically, he failed to meet with clients, advise them of material facts such as the appraised value of the property, comply with the loan agreement, and secure their interests before releasing funds.

The Tribunal also found he failed to comply with By-Law 9 by accepting incomplete and inaccurate disclosure forms.

A penalty hearing was ordered.

The Law Society sought an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The lawyer had experienced difficulties with substance abuse and mental health, leading to failures to serve clients, potential misappropriation of trust funds, and misleading the Law Society investigator.

The lawyer argued that his health had improved and proposed practice restrictions instead of a suspension.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice if an order was not made.

Given the lawyer's lack of candour and the absence of expert medical evidence supporting a treatment and monitoring plan, the Tribunal concluded that practice restrictions would not sufficiently mitigate the risk and ordered an interlocutory suspension.

The Lawyer appealed a finding of professional misconduct and a nine-month suspension for acting without instructions to prevent her client's family from removing him from life support, filing a misleading affidavit, and acting in a conflict of interest.

The Law Society cross-appealed, seeking revocation of the Lawyer's licence.

The Appeal Division dismissed both appeals, finding that the hearing panel did not err in its application of the Groia test or the CUPE abuse of process doctrine, and that the nine-month suspension was an appropriate penalty given the seriousness of the misconduct.

The moving party sought to stay an upcoming Law Society Tribunal hearing pending her application for judicial review.

She argued the Law Society committed an abuse of process by improperly obtaining documents from her bank.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the judicial review application was premature as the administrative process had not yet run its course.

The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the scheduled hearing to avoid further delay and fragmentation of the proceedings.

The moving party brought a motion before the Divisional Court.

The motion was dismissed for oral reasons dictated in court, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the application by agreement of the parties.

The moving party, Glenn Bogue, brought three panel review motions before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, seeking review of single judge orders.

Two motions related to his appeal of a Law Society of Ontario license suspension, and the third concerned litigation over his mother's property.

The court dismissed all motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.02, finding that the moving party repeatedly failed to advance his appeals and misused the panel review procedure.

Additionally, the court revoked his existing fee waivers pursuant to section 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act.

The self-represented litigant, Glenn Bogue, a suspended lawyer, filed multiple procedural panel review motions in the Court of Appeal concerning his appeal from a Law Society of Ontario suspension and a separate power of attorney litigation.

The court found these motions to be an improper use of the panel review procedure under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, as they diverted judicial resources from the merits of the appeals and constituted an "endless cycle of appeals within an appeal" on procedural issues.

The judge issued directions to the Registrar to initiate a Rule 2.1.02 process to dismiss these unperfected procedural motions, review Mr. Bogue's existing fee waivers under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act, and temporarily restrict further filings from him until the panel review matters are resolved.

The applicant brought an application under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act to permit the disclosure of the respondent's psychiatric records for a capacity hearing before the Law Society Tribunal.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the records were not essential to the hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the records were highly relevant and important to determining the respondent's capacity to practice law, and that the respondent's privacy interests were diminished due to his membership in a regulated profession.

The Law Society of Ontario applied under s. 49.13 of the Law Society Act for an order to disclose confidential financial records of Rasik Behari Mehta to the Ontario Securities Commission's Joint Serious Offences Team (JSOT) for an investigation into alleged frauds by David Singh.

The court considered whether the s. 49.13(2) restrictions on disclosure applied, finding that the financial records were not "oral or written statements" and were not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Applying a three-part test from Deloitte & Touche LLP, the court balanced the public interest in disclosure against confidentiality concerns, concluding that the public interest in investigating and prosecuting serious fraud outweighed any remaining confidentiality issues.

The application was granted.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which had set aside a Hearing Panel's 18-month suspension and substituted a penalty of licence revocation for professional misconduct.

The Appeal Panel had also overturned the dismissal of two particulars of misconduct, finding the appellant had misled investigators and filed false reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appeal Panel's decisions on both the penalty and the findings of misconduct were reasonable and entitled to a high degree of deference.

The moving party, a disbarred lawyer, brought a motion for a stay of the enforcement of an order made by an Appeal Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada pending her appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Appeal Panel had ordered her disbarment for professional misconduct involving the misappropriation of client funds.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience and the need to protect the reputation of the legal profession weighed against granting a stay.

The motion was dismissed.