Louise Hurteau

The respondent lawyer was previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly participating in mortgage fraud that targeted vulnerable seniors.

At the penalty hearing, the respondent argued that caregiver burnout constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the presumptive penalty of license revocation.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding no causal connection between her personal circumstances and the misconduct.

The respondent's license was revoked immediately, and she was ordered to pay $100,000 in costs to the Law Society.

The applicant Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent licensee engaged in conduct unbecoming by committing the criminal offence of assault against his former spouse, and professional misconduct by failing to report the charge.

The licensee admitted the allegations and the parties proceeded on an agreed statement of facts.

The tribunal found that intimate partner violence is inherently incompatible with the professional responsibilities of trust and integrity, warranting a suspension.

Acknowledging the licensee's significant rehabilitative efforts and lack of prior discipline, the tribunal ordered a two-month suspension and costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld the hearing panel's finding of serious professional misconduct, including misleading a client, improper billing of Legal Aid Ontario, and gross negligence in billing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Tribunal's decision.

The penalty of license revocation and costs of $55,000 were found to be reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the respondent.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's finding of professional misconduct and the penalty of revocation of his licence.

The misconduct involved overcharging a family law client, failing to explain irrevocable directions, and failing to keep the client informed.

On appeal, the appellant raised new issues regarding the burden of proof and the sufficiency of the Hearing Panel's reasons.

The Divisional Court allowed the new issues to be raised but dismissed them on the merits, finding that the Hearing Panel did not reverse the burden of proof and that its reasons were sufficient under the Newfoundland Nurses standard.

The court also upheld the global assessment of the lawyer's fees without expert evidence and confirmed the penalty of revocation.

The applicant lawyer moved for a stay of professional misconduct proceedings before the Law Society of Upper Canada pending his application for judicial review.

The judicial review application alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one of the Hearing Panel members.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court also noted the applicant's delay in perfecting the judicial review application.

The appellant appealed an order prohibiting him from acting as a lawyer.

He argued the application should have been converted into an action due to complex facts and credibility issues, and that the judge made factual errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the judge applied the correct principles in refusing to order a trial and made no palpable and overriding errors in his factual findings.

The complainant, an Orthodox Jew, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed when her employer required her to seek weekly approval to leave work early on Fridays during the winter to observe the Sabbath.

The employer had previously allowed her to use accumulated overtime to leave early.

When a new supervisor required formal approval and scheduled a meeting to discuss her needs, the complainant became upset and failed to adequately communicate the specific time requirements for her religious observances, such as candle lighting.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer took reasonable steps to accommodate and communicate, but the complainant failed in her duty to facilitate the accommodation by not explaining her needs.