Michael E. Thurston

The Law Society brought a motion for interlocutory suspensions of two lawyers, Ms. Nejal and Ms. Laguisan, due to irregularities in their firm's mixed trust account, specifically the failure to pay out mortgages on closing.

Ms. Nejal, the firm owner, was found to have failed to maintain books and records and there was strong evidence suggesting a lack of integrity and possible complicity in the mishandling of funds.

The Tribunal ordered an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Nejal's licence.

Ms. Laguisan, a newly-called associate who was left in charge during Ms. Nejal's prior suspension, was found to have been unaware of the delayed payouts and there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The motion for an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Laguisan's licence was dismissed.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to respond promptly and completely to requests for information and documents during an investigation.

The lawyer acknowledged the failure and the parties presented a joint submission on penalty.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding that the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest.

The lawyer's licence was suspended immediately pending compliance, to be followed by a one-month fixed suspension, and she was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a 16-year-old complainant on March 2-3, 2012.

The trial examined whether the accused engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with the complainant who was severely intoxicated.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant, her friend, and a witness who observed the accused touching the complainant inappropriately while she was unconscious on the kitchen floor.

The court found that the accused engaged in sexual contact with the complainant both in the kitchen and later in his bedroom, when she was incapable of consenting due to extreme intoxication.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The father and paternal grandparents appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of four children without access.

The children had been apprehended due to the parents' substance abuse and domestic violence, and the grandparents were unable to care for them due to their high needs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the parents and grandparents were incapable of providing adequate care and that an access order would impair the children's opportunities for a permanent placement.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from the insurer until they were terminated on the basis that he no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The applicant, who was self-employed as a grocery store owner, sought ongoing weekly income benefits and the cost of occupational retraining.

The arbitrator found that the applicant remained substantially unable to perform his essential tasks until he completed a physical reconditioning program, extending his entitlement to benefits.

The arbitrator also determined the quantum of benefits by applying an 'avoidable expenses' approach to calculate the applicant's pre-accident gross weekly income.

The claim for occupational retraining was dismissed as the applicant was found capable of returning to his pre-accident occupation with reasonable modifications.