The appellant, a real estate lawyer, appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel which ordered a new hearing on allegations of professional misconduct related to his participation in real estate flip transactions.
The original hearing panel had dismissed the fraud allegations, finding a lack of direct evidence from the lenders or participants.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Appeal Panel that the hearing panel erred in law by failing to consider circumstantial evidence and by incorrectly requiring proof of actual economic loss rather than a mere risk of prejudice to establish fraud.
