Joshua Elcombe

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 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, 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.