Court File and Parties
CITATION: Tollis v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2012 ONSC 4144
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 9/12
DATE: 20120711
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LAX, SWINTON AND NORDHEIMER JJ.
BETWEEN:
ALDO TOLLIS Appellant
– and –
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA Respondent
COUNSEL:
Joyce Theresa Choi-Pik Chan, for the Appellant
Amanda Worley and Deborah McPhadden, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: July 11, 2012
Oral Reasons for Judgment
NORDHEIMER J. (ORALLY)
[1] The appellant, Aldo Tollis, is a lawyer. He seeks to appeal a decision of an Appeal Panel of the Law Society that dismissed an appeal from the decision of an Appeals Management Tribunal refusing to extend the time for Mr. Tollis to appeal a decision of a Hearing Panel made on May 26, 2008. The Hearing Panel had, based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, found Mr. Tollis guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a fourteen month suspension as a consequence – a sentence that he has since served.
[2] Despite the volumes of material filed on this appeal, the issue before us is quite narrow. It is whether this court should interfere with the decisions below that declined to give Mr. Tollis an extension of time to appeal his professional misconduct determination.
[3] In our view, the standard of review applicable to this appeal is reasonableness. The orders below represent the exercise of a discretion by specialized panels operating within their sphere of expertise. The exercise of that discretion is entitled to deference by this court. Accordingly, we should not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is demonstrated to be unreasonable.
[4] In this case, we have concluded that the decision of the Appeal Panel was reasonable. Indeed, we would say that it was virtually inevitable given the prevailing circumstances. Both the Appeal Panel and the Tribunal gave detailed and thorough reasons for their conclusions. They both had reference to the criteria for granting an extension of time to appeal as set out, among other places, in the decision of Law Society of Upper Canada v. Barna, [2005] L.S.D.D. No. 49. The appellant accepts that these are the correct criteria to be applied.
[5] With respect to those criteria, both the Appeal Panel and the Tribunal correctly concluded that there was no evidence that Mr. Tollis had a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period; there was no reasonable explanation for the failure to comply with the appeal period; the Law Society had suffered prejudice from the delay as at least one key witness was no longer able to give evidence and, most importantly, there was no merit to the appeal.
[6] On this latter point, we conclude, as did the Appeal Panel and the Tribunal, that the assertions by Mr. Tollis of an issue with respect to his mental condition, at the time that the Agreed Statement of Facts was executed and the hearing held, are highly suspect as are the two versions of the May 2008 letter from his doctor. Mr. Tollis never produced his doctor to be examined on these issues despite their apparent importance to his ultimate position. Indeed, the appellant now acknowledges that there is no medical evidence that Mr. Tollis was not capable of understanding the Agreement Statement of Facts or appreciating its effect.
[7] Mr. Tollis’ companion assertion that he was not properly represented during the proceedings is, on the record, simply untenable.
[8] We also agree with the conclusion of the Appeal Panel that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award costs for the reasons given by the Appeal Panel.
[9] Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
LAX J.
Costs
[10] I have endorsed Volume I of the Appeal Book and Compendium, “For reasons delivered orally by Nordheimer J. on behalf of the panel, the appeal is dismissed with costs of $10,000.00.”
NORDHEIMER J.
LAX J.
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: July 11, 2012
Date of Release: July 16, 2012
CITATION: Tollis v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2012 ONSC 4144
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 9/12
DATE: 20120711
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LAX, SWINTON AND NORDHEIMER JJ.
BETWEEN:
ALDO TOLLIS Appellant
– and –
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: July 11, 2012
Date of Release: July 16, 2012```