LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: May 26, 2026
Tribunal File No.: 25H-167
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
Donald Eardley Mcewen Bodkin
Respondent
Before: Cheryl Siran (chair)*, Howard Levitt, François Turpin
Heard: March 5, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances:
Apiramy Suntharalingam, for the applicant
Respondent, not present or represented
*–Cheryl Siran did not participate in the deliberation or writing of these reasons, given her appointment to the bench.
Summary:
BODKIN – Failure to Comply with Order – Failure to Comply with Guidelines – The hearing proceeded in the absence of the Lawyer – The Law Society alleged that the Lawyer failed to fully comply with the order of the Tribunal by failing to file his Practice Disposition Information Report to demonstrate compliance with the obligations imposed on suspended licensees while he was suspended pursuant to an earlier Tribunal order – The Lawyer was suspended indefinitely until he complied – The panel expressed concern on the practical effect of the order on an already non-compliant licensee – The Lawyer was ordered to pay costs of $2,210 to the Law Society.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1Howard Levitt (for the panel):– The Law Society applies under s 45(1) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8 (the Act), for a determination of whether Donald Eardley Mcewen Bodkin failed to comply with an order under Part II of the Act.
2The order in question is the May 16, 2025 order of the Hearing Division in file no. 25H-030. In that order, the Tribunal suspended the respondent’s licence immediately and indefinitely until, to the satisfaction of the Law Society’s Executive Director, Professional Regulation or their designate, he provided a complete response to outstanding Law Society investigative requests. The Tribunal also imposed a further two-month suspension to follow, required the respondent to comply fully with the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise (the Guidelines), and ordered him to pay costs of $7,075.50 on or before October 14, 2025.
3The present application alleges that the respondent failed to comply with that order by failing to comply fully with the Guidelines and the corresponding requirements outlined in Part II of By-Law 7.1 and Part II.1 of By-Law 9, including by failing to provide the required Practice Disposition Information Report.
4The respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
5Having reviewed the evidence and heard the Law Society’s submissions, we determined that the allegation had been established. We ordered that the respondent’s licence be suspended indefinitely until he provides the completed Practice Disposition Information Report and demonstrates compliance with the Guidelines and the corresponding requirements of By-Law 7.1 and By-Law 9. We further ordered that his licence be suspended for one month following the end of that suspension and the end of any and all current suspensions. We also ordered costs. These are our reasons.
SERVICE AND PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE
6The respondent did not attend the first proceeding management conference (PMC) on January 5, 2026. In the endorsement issued following that appearance, the Chair noted that the respondent had not engaged and cautioned him that the hearing might proceed in his absence. The endorsement also advised him to request a PMC if he wished to respond to the application.
7The evidence also establishes that on February 26, 2026, the respondent spoke with John Rae of the Law Society’s Regulatory Compliance Department and expressly acknowledged that he was aware that the hearing was proceeding the following Thursday.
8We were satisfied that the respondent had notice of the proceeding and of the hearing date. We therefore proceeded in his absence.
EVIDENCE
The requirements
9The Law Society relied upon the affidavit of Mr. Rae affirmed February 6, 2026, the supplementary affidavit of Mr. Rae affirmed March 2, 2026, and the Law Society’s bill of costs. Mr. Rae was not cross-examined. The respondent filed no evidence.
10Mr. Rae is employed in the Regulatory Compliance Department. His duties include monitoring licensees’ compliance with orders and undertakings obtained by the Law Society, including ensuring that suspended licensees fulfil their obligations under the Guidelines and By-Laws while suspended.
11Mr. Rae explains that the Guidelines require suspended licensees to cease the practice of law and comply with a number of directions, including removing signage and other information that may give the impression that they are able to practise law, ensuring proper telephone and email notifications, and complying with notice requirements and obligations concerning money and property.
12Part II of By-Law 7.1 sets out obligations resulting from suspension. Section 18 requires that, no later than 30 days after the suspension begins, a suspended licensee file a report confirming and providing details of compliance. This report is now referred to as the Practice Disposition Information Report.
13Part II.1 of By-Law 9 governs the handling of money by a licensee whose licence is suspended. Section 2.3 similarly requires steps to be taken concerning the withdrawal and disposition of trust money and the closing of trust accounts and requires reporting of that compliance to the Law Society within 30 days.
14Rule 7.6-1.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer whose licence to practise law is suspended shall comply with the requirements of the By-Laws and shall not practise law, represent or hold himself or herself out as a person entitled to practise law, or represent or hold himself or herself out as a person entitled to provide legal services.
The order and compliance
15On May 16, 2025, in file no. 25H-030, the Hearing Division found that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct by failing to co-operate with two Law Society investigations since March 22, 2023, and continuing thereafter.
16In addition to an immediate indefinite suspension and a further two-month suspension, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent “shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise Law while suspended.”
17As a result of that order, the Guidelines, and the By-Laws, the respondent was required to file his Practice Disposition Information Report by June 16, 2025.
18On May 20, 2025, Mr. Rae emailed the respondent and sent him a portal message. The communication enclosed the relevant Guidelines, Rules, and By‑Laws. It advised that the Practice Disposition Information Report was due by June 16, 2025, and that he was required to provide his trust bank statement or printout from the date of suspension until the date of trust account closure, together with the standard notification of suspension to clients. It also reminded him to ensure that online advertisements and social media complied with the Guidelines and that out-of-office notifications be activated on business email and telephone systems.
19On May 22, 2025, Mr. Rae emailed and sent a portal message enclosing the signed May 16, 2025 order.
20On June 17, 2025, after the deadline had passed, Mr. Rae again emailed and sent a portal message to the respondent, reminding him that the report was due. A blank compliance report form was attached.
21On July 3, 2025, Mr. Rae again emailed and sent a portal message to the respondent. He noted that the respondent had not responded to any prior communications and again enclosed a compliance report form and the Guidelines.
22Also on July 3, 2025, Mr. Rae telephoned the respondent at the business telephone number on file. The call was not answered. A pre-recorded voicemail stated that the caller had reached Bodkin Law Office and that, due to social distancing within the court system, office hours were limited. The message gave a fax number and the email address info@bodkinlaw.com. On a further attempt, the voicemail box was full and unable to accept messages.
23On July 12, 2025, Tanya Munro, manager of Regulatory Compliance, attended at the respondent’s office address. The office was locked. Although there were no exterior signs, Ms. Munro observed a sign inside the door reading “Don Bodkin Law Office.”
24On August 6, 2025, Mr. Rae sent a further portal message reminding the respondent that the ordered costs of $7,075.50 were payable on or before October 14, 2025.
25As of February 4, 2026, the respondent had still not completed the Practice Disposition Information Report and had not paid the ordered costs.
26On February 26, 2026, the respondent telephoned Mr. Rae. He stated that he had spoken earlier that day with discipline counsel regarding the scheduled hearing and had been told that he should also contact Mr. Rae.
27During that call, the respondent described health issues related to a cancer diagnosis and treatment. He stated that these issues caused him to “voluntarily” stop practising law in 2024 to recover and deal with family matters.
28He also stated that, despite having ceased practise in 2024, he completed a real estate transaction that had initially been scheduled to close in December 2024 and ultimately closed in January 2025. He further stated that he completed a refinance on another real estate matter.
29The respondent confirmed that his trust account remained open and contained approximately $1,000.
30He also confirmed that he still maintained office space, which he said he shared with an accountant under what he described as a “token” lease negotiated during COVID.
31The respondent stated that he did not become aware of his suspension until June 2025, when a colleague mentioned seeing his name in the Ontario Reports. He further said that he had disengaged from his practice in order to focus on recovery and had not reviewed emails relating to his practice.
32Mr. Rae advised the respondent that he remained indefinitely suspended until he replied to the Law Society’s communications, that he also remained suspended for failing to pay the ordered costs, and that upon conclusion of those suspensions he would then be subject to the two-month definite suspension ordered on May 16, 2025.
33The respondent stated that he wished to return to practice once he received clearance from his medical team and that he would respond to Mr. Rae’s communications once he was “out of the woods.”
34Mr. Rae advised the respondent that the Law Society did not know the status of his active or closed client files and reiterated that his trust account must be disbursed and closed. The respondent replied that he could not say when he would be able to provide the report, stating “maybe the end of next month,” but also that he would not be providing anything until he received medical clearance from his doctor.
35The respondent confirmed that he was aware that the hearing was proceeding on March 5, 2026.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
36Section 45(1) of the Act provides, “The Society may apply to the Tribunal for a determination by the Hearing Division of whether a licensee has failed to comply with an order under this part.”
37Section 45(3) of the Act provides, “If the Hearing Division determines that a licensee has failed to comply with an order under this Part, the Division may suspend the licensee’s licence….”
ANALYSIS
38The issue before us is narrow. We are not asked in this proceeding to determine whether the respondent has now cured the investigative defaults that gave rise to the May 16, 2025 conduct order. Rather, we must determine whether he failed to comply with the portion of that order requiring him to comply fully with the Guidelines while suspended.
39In Law Society of Ontario v Bastien, 2026 ONLSTH 6 at paras 23-27, the panel held that suspended lawyers are obligated to comply with the Guidelines and the By-law requirements referred to in them. In that case, the panel stated that “pursuant to By-Law 7.1, Part II, and By-Law 9 Part II.1, and the Act, suspended lawyers are obligated to comply with Guidelines.” We adopt that reasoning.
40The Guidelines state:
1(2) … By-Laws 7.1 (Part II) and 9 (Part II.1) impose on suspended lawyers certain notice requirements, obligations and restrictions on activities, including the handling of money and other property.
41Section 3(1)(a) of the Guidelines requires that, on or before the effective date of the suspension, a suspended lawyer remove any signage or designation indicating that the lawyer is entitled to practise law, including from physical premises, electronic communications, and advertising.
42As in Bastien, at para 26, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the respondent has not adhered to the Tribunal’s Order which included a term requiring compliance with the Guidelines. The panel in Bastien held that “there is no evidence before us to suggest compliance with either the Guidelines … or the By-Laws referred to in the Guidelines.” The same is true here.
43The respondent has not filed the required Practice Disposition Information Report despite repeated communications from the Law Society. He did not respond to emails, portal messages, or telephone communications and did not attend this hearing.
44The evidence further establishes ongoing non-compliance with the obligations imposed on suspended licensees. The respondent confirmed that his trust account remains open and contains approximately $1,000, and the Law Society does not know the status of his client files. He also confirmed that he continues to maintain office space. The Law Society’s evidence indicates that business communications identifying “Bodkin Law Office” remained active following his suspension and that signage identifying a law office remained at the premises.
45In Bastien, at para 28, the panel adopted the reasoning in Law Society of Ontario v Poproski, 2025 ONLSTH 136, where a Law Society witness posited that “the purpose of the compliance report is one of risk management and to protect the public. It serves as one of the means the LSO uses to ensure that the licensee is complying with their obligations during their suspension.” We adopt that reasoning.
46The panel in Bastien further held that “a licensee’s failure to comply with the rules that govern their profession also reflects a disregard for said profession which could extend to the service they provide to vulnerable clients.” We adopt that reasoning.
47In Law Society of Ontario v Mbaegbu, 2021 ONLSTH 148 at para 2, the panel expressed concern about an absence of integrity where a suspended licensee failed to comply with the Guidelines, including “failing to remove his office signage … and represent[ing] or hold[ing] himself out as a person entitled to provide legal services.” While that case involved a paralegal, the same concerns arise here.
48As the panel observed in Bastien at para 30, “the legal profession is one the general public holds in high regard,” and there is “an obvious assumption that legal professionals who hold themselves out for practise are licensed to do so.” Members of the public are entitled to rely on that assumption.
49The public protection concerns in this case are significant. The respondent’s trust account remains open, his office and business communications continue to identify a law practice, and the Law Society is unable to determine the status of his client files or trust monies. In the absence of a Practice Disposition Information Report, the Law Society cannot confirm that the respondent has complied with his obligations while suspended.
50Tribunal jurisprudence has consistently treated these obligations seriously. In Law Society of Ontario v McClean, 2022 ONLSTH 66 at paras 13-18, the panel held that suspended licensees are required to file compliance reports within 30 days and found misconduct where the lawyer failed to comply despite repeated follow-up. Those principles apply here.
51The respondent’s explanation does not alter the result. While he reported health issues and disengagement from practice, he confirmed that he would not provide the required report until he received medical clearance. That is not compliance.
52This matter also bears some resemblance to Law Society of Ontario v Deliscar, 2024 ONLSTH 5, where the panel noted repeated failures to comply with regulatory obligations. While we make no finding of ungovernability, as that was not an issue raised by the Law Society, the case underscores the seriousness of persistent non-compliance with Tribunal orders.
53On the record before us, the respondent had clear notice of his obligations, repeated opportunities to comply, and actual knowledge of this hearing. He nevertheless failed to file the Practice Disposition Information Report and failed to demonstrate compliance with the Guidelines.
54We find that the respondent failed to comply with the May 16, 2025 order of the Hearing Division.
PENALTY
55The Law Society seeks an immediate suspension continuing until the respondent provides the completed Practice Disposition Information Report and demonstrates compliance with the Guidelines and the corresponding requirements in Part II of By-Law 7.1 and Part II.1 of By-Law 9. It also seeks a further one-month suspension.
56While we have concerns that the respondent’s continued non-compliance may persist notwithstanding this order, we are satisfied that the disposition sought by the Law Society is appropriate and consistent with Tribunal jurisprudence. Should the respondent fail to comply, the Law Society retains the ability to bring further proceedings and seek additional sanctions as may be warranted in the circumstances.
57An indefinite suspension until compliance is necessary. The respondent remains in breach of a prior Tribunal order, and the missing information goes directly to public protection. The Law Society still does not know the status of his active or closed files, whether clients have been properly notified, whether all trust funds have been appropriately dealt with, or whether the respondent has ceased holding himself out as entitled to practise.
58We are satisfied that a further definite suspension of one month as requested is also warranted. In Poproski at para 16, the panel observed that where a licensee had eventually brought herself into full compliance before the hearing, a short and sharp suspension was appropriate. Here, the respondent did not bring himself into compliance before the hearing. In McClean at para 33, the panel observed that under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence a licensee who has not fulfilled the Law Society’s requests by the outset of the hearing is normally subject to a one-month definite suspension once compliance has been achieved. That guidance is apt here.
59The respondent’s non-compliance was not technical or momentary. He ignored multiple communications over many months. Even when he finally spoke to Mr. Rae shortly before the hearing, he did not provide the report and expressly stated that he would not provide anything until he received medical clearance. This further supports the need for a suspension until compliance.
60We have concerns that the remedy sought by the Law Society is insufficient. It simply extends what was already ordered and ignored. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to be ignored, and that the respondent will not continue to practise law and potentially endanger the public.
61Although we are bound by precedent and the order the Law Society seeks, it is not obvious to us that a further order with practically the same effect as the existing order is of much practical effect. However, we recognize that the Law Society’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion in choosing a compliance application under s. 45 of the Act rather than a conduct application under s 34 of the Act may well be based on factors that are not in evidence before us. The choice to proceed by way of a compliance application limits the order that we may make.
62We hope that this issue is revisited, and more serious sanctions are imposed in future analogous cases.
COSTS
63The Law Society seeks costs of $2,210. The bill of costs reflects 6.8 hours of discipline counsel time at the applicable tariff rate and no disbursements.
64In McClean at paras 38-40, the panel reiterated that cost awards are not an additional penalty, but are intended to reimburse the Law Society, and ultimately its members, for the expense involved in proving misconduct. We agree.
65We have reviewed the bill of costs and find the amount claimed fair and reasonable. We therefore order costs in the amount of $2,210.
CONCLUSION
66For these reasons, we ordered:
The respondent’s licence to practise law is suspended, starting immediately, and continuing indefinitely thereafter until, to the satisfaction of the Law Society’s Executive Director, Professional Regulation or their designate, the respondent provides a completed Practice Disposition Information Report, as was required pursuant to the May 16, 2025 Order of the Tribunal – Hearing Division, in file 25H-030, and demonstrates compliance with the Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise and the corresponding requirements outlined in Part II of By-Law 7.1 and Part II.1 of By-Law 9.
The respondent’s licence to practise law shall be suspended for a period of one month, to follow immediately upon the latter of:
a. the end of the suspension ordered at paragraph one, above; and
b. the end of any and all current suspensions of the respondent’s licence to practise law.
The respondent shall fully comply with the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise while his licence is suspended.
The respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2,210 on or before March 5, 2027. This deadline may be extended by the Law Society in accordance with the By-Laws. Interest shall accrue on any overdue part of those costs at a rate of 4% per year.