Court File and Parties
CITATION: Kay v. LSUC, 2010 ONSC 1022
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 323/08
DATE: 20100211
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
DAMBROT, SWINTON AND SACHS JJ.
BETWEEN:
JAMES ALEXANDER KAY
Appellant
– and –
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Respondent
In Person
Suzanne Jarvie, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: February 11, 2010
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SWINTON J. (orally)
[1] The motion to admit fresh evidence is dismissed.
[2] The transcript of Mr. Kay’s examination in a civil suit against his former counsel is not relevant to any issue raised on this appeal. At most, it goes to ineffective representation by counsel, a ground of appeal struck by Bellamy J.
[3] His affidavit is not relevant to the extent that it deals with the joint submission. The portions dealing with the impact of the discipline and his conduct since the decisions under appeal is not determinative of the issue of the reasonableness of the Appeal Panel’s decision to uphold the penalty.
SWINTON J.
DAMBROT J.
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 11, 2010
Date of Release: February 26, 2010
CITATION: Kay v. LSUC, 2010 ONSC 1022
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 323/08
DATE: 20100211
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
DAMBROT, SWINTON AND SACHS JJ.
BETWEEN:
JAMES ALEXANDER KAY
Appellant
– and –
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 11, 2010
Date of Release: February 26, 2010