Nisha Dhanoa

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award reinstating an employee who had been dismissed for off-duty conduct.

The employee was charged with domestic assault, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably focused on actual rather than potential reputational harm and failed to properly consider the employee's prior discipline for impaired driving and alcohol consumption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable, as the arbitrator correctly applied the test for off-duty conduct and made factual findings that the conduct did not risk harming the employer's reputation and was not attributable to intoxication.

The appellant lawyer was disciplined by the Law Society for failing to co-operate with an investigation into a mortgage transaction.

He refused to provide documents until the Law Society disclosed an electronic copy of a complaint letter he believed was backdated.

The Hearing Panel found he failed to co-operate, imposing a one-month suspension and costs, which the Appeal Panel upheld.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court upheld the finding of professional misconduct but set aside the penalty and costs.

The court found the Hearing Panel made procedurally unfair findings on issues it had deemed irrelevant, and erred in treating the appellant's lack of remorse as an aggravating factor justifying specific deterrence.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review.

The applicant sought disclosure of a letter, an issue that was already the subject of a pending appeal from a Law Society Appeal Panel decision.

The court granted the motion to quash, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, proceedings should not be fragmented by bringing a judicial review application on the same issue as a pending appeal.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel that reinstated a particular of professional misconduct in a Notice of Application, which had been struck by the Hearing Panel.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding the Appeal Panel's decision defensible as the Notice provided sufficient information for the appellant to know the case to meet.

The court also upheld the Appeal Panel's order requiring the appellant to repay costs he had received from the Law Society, as the foundation for that costs award fell away when the Hearing Panel's decision was overturned.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.