LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: May 29, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 19H-139

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario

Applicant

• and -

Charlene Dorothy Desrochers

Respondent

Before: Lubomir Poliacik (chair), Jay Sengupta, John F. Spekkens

Heard: September 25, 26, & 29, 2025, by videoconference

Appearances:

Daniel Iny and Shannon McDunnough, for the applicant

Respondent, self-represented

Summary:

DESROCHERS – Motion – Abuse of Process – Procedural Fairness – The Lawyer brought an abuse of process motion to dismiss conduct and capacity applications issued against her – She alleged bias and discrimination against individuals, the Law Society, and the Tribunal, and infringement of her s 2 Charter right to freedom of religion – She alleged the Law Society tampered with witnesses and otherwise acted inappropriately – The panel concluded that the Lawyer had not made out any of the allegations – She failed to establish that she experienced differential treatment or an adverse impact with respect to her treatment in the investigation stage or in the initiation and conduct of the proceedings or that her race or religion was a factor in any adverse impact – The motion to dismiss the proceedings as an abuse of process was dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION

1Lubomir Poliacik (for the panel):– This abuse of process motion is brought by Ms. Desrochers within two Law Society applications: a conduct application that was previously withdrawn by the Law Society, and a capacity application.

2In her amended notice of motion, Ms. Desrochers seeks the following:

1. An order dismissing the Law Society of Ontario’s (LSO) Notices of Applications (File No. 19H-139 & 18H-091) issued against the Respondent in its entirety as an abuse of process, tunnel vision, institutional bias, prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, bias (perceived and reasonable), perjury, tampering with evidence and expert witnesses, racism, discrimination based on religion and disability, and procedural unfairness in the investigation and prosecution of the Respondent.

3Ms. Desrochers’ notice of motion also sought other relief, including orders pertaining to the scheduling of this and other motions, recusal of the Chair and the admissibility of certain evidence. Those issues have been dealt with prior to this hearing in pre-hearing conferences and in other motions. Only the abuse of process claim remains to be determined by this panel.

THE HEARING, MATERIALS AND EVIDENCE ON THIS MOTION

4The grounds relied on by Ms. Desrochers in her notice of motion are set out in over 185 paragraphs. The grounds include (i) a general allegation that the Law Society is “running a racist, financially and mentally abusive, and procedurally unfair disciplinary capacity process”, (ii) misconduct by Law Society investigators, (iii) misconduct by past and current Law Society prosecutors, and (iv) misconduct by Tribunal members, including the Chair. The grounds include allegations of specific facts, factual characterizations, allegations of mixed fact and law, and argument.

5The hearing of the motion proceeded over three days in September 2025. In support of her motion, Ms. Desrochers delivered the affidavits of six witnesses. In addition, she delivered two of her own affidavits which comprise, including the exhibits, some 5,400 pages. She also delivered a 36-page factum of 156 paragraphs.

6In addition to the filed materials, Ms. Desrochers provided further evidence by way of cross-examination of the Law Society’s investigator, the oral testimony of another former Law Society investigator, and her own oral testimony at the motion hearing.

7The Law Society delivered a motion record of some 900 pages, a factum and transcripts of portions of the capacity hearing, parts of which took place prior to the hearing of this motion.

8The cross-examination of Ms. Desrochers was concluded by the end of the final scheduled day of the motion hearing, though her re-examination evidence was still not heard, nor were the parties’ submissions.

9We directed that Ms. Desrochers’ re-examination evidence be delivered by affidavit and the parties’ submissions be made in writing.

10Ms. Desrochers then delivered her re-examination affidavit of 233 pages, inclusive of exhibits, and written submissions of 52 pages. The Law Society delivered its responding closing submissions.

11Ms. Desrochers delivered her reply submissions on February 5, 2026. In addition to the formal submissions, Ms. Desrochers sent numerous emails to the attention of the panel prior to, during and following the hearing of the motion and the delivery of her reply submissions. These emails included additional information, further documents and case law she asked us to consider in our decision. We have reviewed the contents of Ms. Desrochers’ emails as part of her submissions, but they are not part of the evidentiary record in this motion.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS

12In 2017, the Law Society brought a conduct application against Ms. Desrochers. The notice of application alleged that Ms. Desrochers, between October 2016 and early January 2017, made intemperate and uncivil public statements regarding various levels of courts and judges and that Ms. Desrochers failed to co-operate with a Law Society investigation by failing to attend for an investigatory interview.

13In 2018, the Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension. Ms. Desrochers did not participate in the scheduled motion hearing and her licence was suspended on an interim interlocutory basis. The motion was adjourned and has not yet been heard: Law Society of Ontario v Desrochers, 2018 ONLSTH 148. The interim interlocutory order suspending her licence remains in effect.

14In the reasons for its decision, the interlocutory motion panel examined the history of the proceedings up to 2018 and the reasons provided by Ms. Desrochers for not participating in the hearing of the motion. This provides important context for some of the issues raised by Ms. Desrochers in this abuse of process motion:

12In early May 2018, Ms. Desrochers changed her status with the Law Society from “Sole Practitioner” to “Retired/Not Working.” This change was effective March 29, 2018. In a brief medical note dated the same day (March 29), Dr. Douglas Green, a psychiatrist with the Shared Mental Health Care Program at the Ottawa Hospital, advised that, for medical reasons, he would recommend that the Law Society Tribunal matters be put on hold, and that Ms. Desrochers suspend her legal practice while she addressed her health issues.

13Since that time, Dr. Green has provided four further brief medical notes indicating that Ms. Desrochers’ medical condition remains unchanged, and that, in his opinion, she is unable to participate in the Law Society Tribunal matter or work as a lawyer. In his most recent letter dated August 2, 2018, Dr. Green advised as follows:

I have been asked by Ms. Desrochers to write a letter regarding her participation in the August 16, 2018 hearing to suspend her license to practice law temporarily.

It is my medical opinion that participation in this hearing would substantially undermine her mental health and recovery and I would advise against it.

15In early April 2018, Ms. Desrochers submitted an application for exemption from the requirement to pay the annual fee and to submit a Lawyer Annual Report. Ms. Desrochers subsequently filed her annual report, but for a number of reasons, including an issue regarding outstanding fees, her application for exemption remains on hold and unprocessed. For similar reasons, the signed but unwitnessed Undertaking & Declaration in which Ms. Desrochers agreed not to practise law without first informing the Law Society of her intention to practise, is not acceptable to, or recognized by, the Law Society, as a valid undertaking not to practise.

16As a result of her failure to pay her outstanding annual fees, Ms. Desrochers’ licence to practise has been administratively suspended since June 12, 2018.

17On July 13, 2018, the Proceedings Authorization Committee (“PAC”) authorized the Law Society to bring a motion for an interlocutory order suspending Ms. Desrochers’ licence on the basis of the medical documentation provided by Ms. Desrochers.

15In December 2019, the Law Society brought a capacity application. Many case management appearances followed. Ms. Desrochers unsuccessfully sought an order for the Law Society to pay for her counsel of choice: Law Society of Ontario v Desrochers, 2022 ONLSTH 108.

16The Law Society brought a motion for a medical assessment. An assessment order was made in October 2023: Law Society of Ontario v Desrochers, 2023 ONLSTH 138. An assessment ultimately took place in mid-2024 and the assessment report was released in late 2024.

17In light of the assessor’s conclusion that Ms. Desrochers had been incapacitated during the period of the alleged misconduct, in November 2024 the Law Society withdrew the conduct application and is now proceeding with the capacity application only.

18It is in this context that in March 2025 Ms. Desrochers brought this motion to dismiss these proceedings for abuse of process.

ABUSE OF PROCESS PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED

19We first review the principles to be applied in this abuse of process motion as they provide the lens through which the evidence is examined in these reasons.

20The doctrine of abuse of process engages the authority of a court or tribunal “to prevent the misuse of its procedure, in a way that would be manifestly unfair to a party to the litigation before it or would in some other way bring the administration of justice into disrepute”.¹

21In determining the proper remedy where abuse of process has been established, a balancing of competing interests is required between the public interest in the enforcement of the legislation and the impact of the alleged abuse of process.² In Law Society Tribunal proceedings, the protection of the public and the public interest mandated by the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8 (the Act), must be taken into account.

22A stay should be granted only in the “clearest of cases”, when the abuse falls at the high end of the spectrum of seriousness.³

Abuse of process alleged by Ms. Desrochers

Bias and discrimination

23Ms. Desrochers’ abuse of process allegations are multifaceted, but are largely framed in terms of bias and discrimination. Bias and discriminatory conduct is alleged against many parties involved in these proceedings, including the Law Society investigators, counsel, the medical practitioners who provided reports about Ms. Desrochers’ health, and Tribunal members, as well as the Law Society of Ontario itself.

24Procedural fairness requires that decisions be made free from a reasonable apprehension of bias. The test for reasonable apprehension of bias established in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence is summarized in James v Law Society of Ontario, 2018 ONLSTA 6 at para 9:

1. The test for a reasonable apprehension of bias is what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would that person think that it is more likely than not that the decision maker, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly?

2. There is a strong presumption of judicial impartiality that is not easily displaced.

3. The onus of demonstrating real or perceived bias is on the party alleging bias. This burden is a high one, and it requires cogent evidence.

4. The specific issues raised by the applicant in support of his recusal motion are to be construed in light of the entire proceedings – regard must be had to the cumulative effect of all of the relevant factors.

5. The fact that an adjudicator has ruled adversely on an interlocutory motion or in a previous case on the credibility of either a defence witness or the accused does not necessarily result in a reasonable apprehension of bias. Something more is required showing a predisposition by the adjudicator with respect to the accused’s credibility, such as to amount to a pre-judgement of the result of the second hearing.

6. Adjudicators should not accede too readily to allegations of actual or perceived bias. Although it is important that justice be seen to be done, it is equally important that adjudicators discharge their duty to sit and do not, by acceding too readily to the applicant’s suggestions, encourage parties to believe that, by seeking the disqualification of an adjudicator, they will have their case tried by someone thought to be more likely to decide the case in their favour.

25Ms. Desrochers alleges that the various participants in these proceedings engaged in conduct which constitutes discrimination towards her, based on her race, creed and sex, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).

26To make a claim for discrimination under the Code, one must establish a prima facie case of discrimination on a balance of probabilities. The onus for proving prima facie discrimination is on the person claiming that there was discrimination. To establish prima facie discrimination, the person claiming the discrimination must show that:

a) they have a characteristic protected from discrimination under the Code [i.e., an enumerated ground];

b) they experienced negative treatment or an adverse impact with respect to a social sphere specified in the Code [such as a service or membership in a profession]; and

c) the protected characteristic/enumerated ground was a factor in the adverse impact.⁴

27While discrimination can be direct, it can also include “indirect discrimination” (or “adverse effect discrimination”), where an otherwise-neutral policy or requirement has an adverse impact on certain groups because of an enumerated ground. It is not necessary to prove a specific intent to discriminate in order to establish prima facie discrimination.⁵

28It is not until prima facie discrimination is proven that the onus shifts to the responding party to provide a credible, non-discriminatory explanation or to justify the conduct or practice in accordance with certain exemptions in the Code.⁶

29The test to be applied in determining whether racial, religious or sex discrimination has been established is whether the licensee’s race, religion or sex was a factor in the investigation, the authorization, the initiation or continuation of the proceeding or in the hearing, whether through racial bias or stereotypical negative assumptions about the licensee’s race or religion.⁷

Charter

30Ms. Desrochers is also alleging that the Law Society, Law Society investigators, Law Society Counsel, Dr. Chaimowitz, Dr. Booth, Dr. Green, and/or Tribunal adjudicators infringed her s 2 right to freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).

The proceeding itself is alleged to be an abuse of process

31An entire proceeding could be an abuse of process if it was commenced for an improper purpose. In this motion, Ms. Desrochers submits that the Law Society commenced and is proceeding with the capacity application, if not wholly then at least in part, because Ms. Desrochers is an Indigenous woman and a Christian.

32This aspect of Ms. Desrochers’ claim of abuse of process is not related directly to procedural fairness. Rather, it falls in the “residual category,” where there is misuse of procedure that brings the administration of justice into disrepute. This is rare and can only happen in “the clearest of cases” where the conduct “shocks the conscience of the community.”⁸

Investigative and prosecutorial misconduct

33Where issues of abuse of process stemming from investigation and prosecution decisions can arise, strong deference is given to such discretionary decisions, as adjudicators have limited insight into regulatory decisions.

34In Power, Justice L’Heureux-Dubé wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada that:

The Attorney General’s role in this regard is not only to protect the public, but also to honour and express the community’s sense of justice. Accordingly, courts should be careful before they attempt to “second‑guess” the prosecutor’s motives when he or she makes a decision. Where there is conspicuous evidence of improper motives or of bad faith or of an act so wrong that it violates the conscience of the community, such that it would genuinely be unfair and indecent to proceed, then, and only then, should courts intervene to prevent an abuse of process which could bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Cases of this nature will be extremely rare.

35For prosecutorial conduct to constitute an abuse of process, the conduct must be egregious and seriously compromise trial fairness and/or the integrity of the justice system.⁹

36A proper evidentiary foundation is required before the prosecutor may be required to provide reasons justifying their decisions and there must be a “proper evidentiary foundation” before the abuse of process claim should proceed.¹⁰

37While the Law Society and the Attorney General play different roles in our legal system, the Law Society has an important public role as regulator of legal services and has duties to maintain and advance the cause of justice and the rule of law and to protect the public interest: Act, s 4.2. The Tribunal has recognized that it is not for Tribunal panels to interfere with investigative and prosecutorial discretion without a proper basis to do so: Law Society of Upper Canada v Natale, 2011 ONLSHP 192 at paras 7 and 9, and Law Society of Upper Canada v DeMerchant, 2017 ONLSTA 5 at paras 22-24.

Inordinate delay

38There are two ways in which delay may result in an abuse of process: where delay will impact hearing fairness, or where inordinate delay has caused significant prejudice to a party and the delay is manifestly unfair to the party or the administration of justice is brought into disrepute by the delay: Law Society of Saskatchewan v Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29 at paras 41-42 and 72. Where abuse of process is found, it is a separate question whether a stay should be ordered as other remedies may be appropriate: Abrametz at para 89.¹¹

39In Blencoe the Supreme Court held:

122The determination of whether a delay has become inordinate depends on the nature of the case and its complexity, the facts and issues, the purpose and nature of the proceedings, whether the respondent contributed to the delay or waived the delay, and other circumstances of the case.

(Emphasis added)

MS. DESROCHERS’ EVIDENCE

The affidavits of third-party witnesses

40Ms. Desrochers submitted, in addition to her own affidavits, the affidavits of six individuals. These individuals were not cross-examined and did not testify orally before us. The copies of some of the affidavits filed are not properly sworn or affirmed, apparently due to logistical difficulties. They were nevertheless entered into evidence by Ms. Desrochers, without objection from the Law Society, subject to the Law Society’s submission that the affidavits, in part, deal with Ms. Desrochers’ capacity, an issue which is not before this panel and should be given limited weight in the panel’s consideration of the evidence.

Brenda Desrochers

41Brenda Desrochers is the respondent’s sister. She states in her affidavit that she is a Cree woman and self-identifies as Indigenous. Brenda Desrochers is a high school teacher.

42Brenda Desrochers states that her sister is not incapacitated. This is clearly opinion evidence. No attempt was made to qualify Brenda Desrochers as an expert. More importantly, the issue of Charlene Desrochers’ capacity is not before this panel. We give little weight to this portion of Brenda Desrochers’ evidence.

43Brenda Desrochers further states that she was present during the cross-examination of her sister on her affidavit by the Law Society’s counsel, Daniel Iny, on May 20, 2021, held over Zoom. She states:

8…Daniel Iny asked me to leave the cross-examination before we went on the record and he said that he would address the issue on the record. However, he changed his mind when we were on the record and let me stay.

9Daniel Iny’s demand that I leave the cross-examination was racism, culturally insensitive and showed his lack of knowledge of Indigenous issues.

44There is nothing improper about opposing counsel raising the issue of someone other than the witness and their counsel being present during a cross-examination conducted over Zoom. In any case, the transcript confirms that Mr. Iny stated that he was proceeding on the understanding that the witness will not be communicating with her sister during the course of the cross-examination.

45We do not accept that Mr. Iny’s conduct was racist or insensitive, or that it is an indicator of Mr. Iny’s knowledge, or the lack thereof, of Indigenous issues.

Brian Williams

46Brian Williams is the pastor of the church attended by Ms. Desrochers in Ottawa and acted as Charlene Desrochers’ spiritual advisor.

47Pastor Williams opines that, among other things, “to [his] knowledge Charlene Desrochers possesses a sound mind regarding the believer’s relationship with God” and that she “is highly capable of completing tasks, regardless of how long they may take.” This again is opinion evidence on an issue that is not before us.

Glenn Bogue

48Glenn Bogue is a suspended lawyer who identifies as Indigenous. Mr. Bogue states that the Law Society did not investigate him prior to issuing a conduct application against him:

The LSO investigator assigned to my case said I did not respond to her letters. However, the LSO investigator did not call me or come to my house to notify me of their investigation. The LSO has had my phone number and home address since on or about February 15, 2015.

49Mr. Bogue further states that Dr. Phillip Klassen, the psychiatrist who conducted an assessment of Mr. Bogue pursuant to a Tribunal order, “did not ask me any questions about Indigenous peoples, and volumes 2, 3, and 4 of my books”.

50The point Ms. Desrochers seems to be making by submitting Mr. Bogue’s affidavit is that the Law Society has not treated Mr. Bogue, said to be an Indigenous licensee, fairly. The limited facts set out in Mr. Bogue’s affidavit do not support that allegation.

51Mr. Bogue’s affidavit may also relate to Ms. Desrochers’ submission that the Law Society and the Tribunal are obtaining and relying on assessment reports from psychiatrists unfamiliar with Indigenous peoples and culture. The issue of the choice of Ms. Desrochers’ assessor is addressed below in these reasons.

Lee Ann Lindquist

52Lee Ann Lindquist is Ms. Desrochers’ sister and a nurse. She attests to the fact that in her extensive dealings with her, Ms. Desrochers showed no signs of incapacity. Ms. Lindquist opines that “Dr. Gary Chaimowitz did not assess the impacts of the LSO’s racism on my sister’s mental health, and in my experience as a Nurse Practitioner who conducts health assessments, including mental health, Dr. Gary Chaimowitz should have assessed and taken into consideration the impacts of the LSO’s racism on my sister’s mental health.”

53This is opinion evidence from a witness who was not qualified as an expert. What is more, the issue of Ms. Desrochers’ capacity is not before us; that is for the capacity panel to determine.

Tara Wilson

54Tara Wilson is Ms. Desrochers’ daughter and a medical doctor. Dr. Wilson is doing her residency in emergency medicine.

55Dr. Wilson does not agree with Dr. Chaimowitz’s diagnosis of her mother and states that Dr. Chaimowitz did not assess the impacts of racism on her mother’s mental health and that he did not take a position on racism in his medical report.

56Again, this is opinion evidence from a witness who was not qualified as an expert, about an issue – her mother’s capacity and mental health - that is not before us.

Tony Caruso

57Tony Caruso is a paralegal who has known Charlene Desrochers for approximately three years and attests to the fact that he speaks with Ms. Desrochers frequently and she “does not speak to me about God during our telephone calls and even if she did speak about God, she has a right to freedom of religion, which to my knowledge, is protected by s.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

58The connection between the facts attested to in Mr. Caruso’s affidavit and the issues in this motion is not apparent.

Greta Neepin

59In the period from 2014 to 2018, Ms. Desrochers represented Ms. Neepin, an Indigenous residential school survivor, in the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) application for compensation. Ms. Neepin affirms that Ms. Desrochers “did a great job” representing her and that she did not have any issues regarding Ms. Desrochers’ capacity or competency to practise law.

60Ms. Neepin states in her affidavit that she was advised by Ms. Desrochers that Mr. Iny, counsel for the Law Society, had informed the Law Society Tribunal that he had concerns about the public disclosure of the IAP reasons which are attached as an exhibit to Ms. Desrochers’ affidavit. Ms. Neepin confirms that she gave Ms. Desrochers her consent to use the IAP reasons for her motion.

61Ms. Neepin affirms that she did not give consent to Mr. Iny or anyone at the Law Society to speak on her behalf without her knowledge and consent.

62The first paragraph of the IAP decision referred to provides as follows:

Enclosed is a copy of the Adjudicator’s decision for Greta Kirkness. The unredacted version of the decision is made available to Claimant Counsel on your undertaking not to release this version to the claimant or others. You are cautioned that you remain under a professional obligation to maintain this version of the decision in strict confidence. If there is only one version, it should be shared with the Claimant.

(Emphasis added)

63Even ignoring the hearsay nature of Ms. Neepin’s testimony, we find nothing improper with Mr. Iny raising the issue of the confidential nature of the IAP decision with the Tribunal.

64Ms. Neepin’s opinions regarding Ms. Desrochers’ capacity and competency are not relevant to the issues before this motion panel.

Ms. Desrochers’ affidavits

65As stated above, Ms. Desrochers’ affidavits and the exhibits thereto are voluminous. These reasons will deal with Ms. Desrochers’ affidavits and her oral testimony by grouping portions of her evidence by issue.

The Law Society’s general policies

66It is Ms. Desrochers’ position in this motion that the Law Society of Ontario is a racist institution and its actions towards her were racist. One of the bases relied upon by Ms. Desrochers for that position is that the Law Society has not implemented its own Indigenous framework.

67On June 28, 2017, Law Society Treasurer Paul Schabas announced the creation of a Review Panel to examine the way in which the Law Society and its Tribunal address regulatory matters involving Indigenous persons, complaints and issues. The Review Panel was charged with identifying issues and making recommendations on opportunities for inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in Law Society processes.

68In May 2018, the Law Society’s Review Panel on Regulatory and Hearing Processes Affecting Indigenous Peoples reported to Convocation.¹² It recommended that the Law Society make an organizational commitment to establish and maintain a culturally competent regulatory process. It spoke of cultural safety as “a framework that captures the relationship between legal services and Indigenous experiences of colonization, discrimination and marginalization, and is sensitive to the traumatic repercussions on multiple generations.” Convocation approved the recommendations set out in the report.

69While Ms. Desrochers states repeatedly in her affidavit and testimony, as well as in her factum and submissions, that the Law Society has not implemented its Indigenous framework, she has provided no evidence in support of that assertion. On the contrary, in the May 2018 report to Convocation referred to above and exhibited in Ms. Desrochers’ affidavit, the Law Society’s Review Panel states that it was encouraged by the progress that has been made on implementing the various components of the Framework.¹³ Ms. Desrochers’ affidavit also contains a letter from the then Law Society Treasurer Malcolm M. Mercer, dated June 25, 2020, in which Mr. Mercer confirms on behalf of the Law Society that,

With advice and guidance from our Indigenous Advisory Group, we continue to implement the Indigenous Framework and the recommendations of the Review Panel Report, to improve cultural competencies and the regulatory and hearing processes for Indigenous Peoples at the Law Society.

70Elizabeth Parenteau, Director of the Investigation Services Department at the Law Society, also confirmed in her testimony that the Law Society has worked to incorporate the recommendations of the reports in its processes for dealing with Indigenous licensees.

71Ms. Desrochers does not identify which aspects of the Indigenous framework were not implemented by the Law Society. More importantly, she does not say how the Law Society’s failure to implement aspects of the Indigenous framework has adversely affected her in these proceedings.

72Likewise, Ms. Desrochers states that the Law Society has not implemented its 2016 Mental Health Framework. What Ms. Desrochers identifies as the Law Society’s Mental Health Framework is the Law Society’s Mental Health Strategy Task Force report presented to Convocation on April 28, 2016.

73The report recommends that the LSO should provide specialized training on mental illness and addictions for staff who interact with licensees; ensure that regulatory staff have specialized mental illness and addictions training, appropriate for the functions they perform, such that necessary skills are applied to the assessment and handling of cases from first contact with licensees; and ensure regulatory focus is on impairment, not mere presence of a diagnosis or seeking of care.

74The report also recommends training for Law Society Tribunal adjudicators on mental illness and addictions issues and on accommodation requirements.

75Ms. Desrochers further submits that the Law Society does not have any policies for its investigators and prosecutors to follow for how capacity assessments should be conducted or how expert reports on capacity should be written regarding Indigenous licensees. She states that the LSO does not have a policy for investigators and prosecutors to follow for the capacity discipline process as a whole.

76There is no evidence before us on the implementation of the 2016 report recommendations, or on any policies regarding the conduct or capacity assessments, other than Ms. Desrochers’ statement that the Law Society failed to implement them.

77Ms. Desrochers does not explain how the alleged failure to implement the 2016 report or the alleged lack of policies has adversely, or at all, affected the Law Society’s capacity proceedings against her.

78Ms. Desrochers submits that the Law Society denied her, an Indigenous woman, the right to procedural safeguards as required under Re Koch,¹⁴ by not ensuring that capacity assessments are done properly and competently, and that they protect the rights of Indigenous women with mental health issues.

79Ms. Desrochers does not say in what way the assessment conducted by Dr. Chaimowitz was not “done properly and competently” or how her rights as an Indigenous woman with mental health issues were not protected.

80The Koch decision deals with a finding by the Consent and Capacity Board under the Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 (SDA), that Ms. Koch was incapable of managing her financial affairs and property and was incapable of consenting to placement in a care facility.

81As stated in that decision, the mechanisms of the SDA and the HCCA are formidable and can result in the loss of liberty, including the loss of one’s freedom to live where and how one chooses, which is why both SDA and HCCA specifically provide for a presumption of capacity. While the potential loss of one’s licence to practise law or of having restrictions placed on that licence are significant consequences, they are not of the same magnitude as those dealt with by the court in Koch. The Koch case would be of little assistance in evaluating Dr. Chaimowitz’s assessment.

82In any event, while Ms. Desrochers made numerous statements, in her testimony and in her submissions, challenging Dr. Chaimowitz’s conduct of the assessment and his report and findings, these issues are squarely before the panel hearing the capacity application and not for us to adjudicate.

The choice of the psychiatric assessor

83As stated above, in October 2023 the Tribunal made an order for a medical assessment of Ms. Desrochers. The panel’s reasons show that the choice of the assessor was canvassed extensively in that motion hearing.

84The Law Society took the position that Dr. Klassen should perform the assessment. Dr. Klassen is a forensic psychiatrist with significant experience conducting assessments under s 39 of the Act. The Law Society has also put forward two other forensic psychiatrists as potential assessors. From the Law Society’s perspective, a forensic subspecialty is important because of its specific focus on the nexus between law and psychiatry, including within the context of professional regulation.

85Ms. Desrochers was represented by counsel at the assessment motion and it was her position that someone with a demonstrated understanding and practice of cultural safety towards Indigenous persons should be appointed to conduct the assessment and that in her view, there are no forensic psychiatrists who meet these criteria.

86Ms. Desrochers proposed that the assessment should be conducted by Dr. Kathryn Macdonald, who is a psychiatrist without a forensics subspecialty, but who has a demonstrated commitment to working with First Nations individuals. The panel appointed Dr. Macdonald to assess Ms. Desrochers.

87The assessment with Dr. Macdonald was originally scheduled to take place on May 4 and 5, 2024. On April 5, 2024, a retainer letter from the Law Society was sent to Dr. Macdonald, enclosing the relevant materials for her review for the assessment.

88On April 30, 2024, Dr. Macdonald wrote to the Law Society and advised that, after her review of the materials provided, she had to decline conducting the capacity assessment, as she concluded that the assessment “would fall outside [her] scope of practice.”

89In her letter Dr. Macdonald requested that a more appropriate psychiatrist be retained to conduct the assessment. She further noted that, in her view, “it is clear to me that a psychiatrist with more experience in the intersection of law and mental health would be more appropriate for this situation.”

90Since Dr. Macdonald did not proceed with Ms. Desrochers’ assessment the Law Society and Ms. Desrochers’ counsel engaged in communications about a potential replacement assessor to present to the Tribunal. Ultimately, Dr. Chaimowitz was identified as a possible assessor agreeable to both parties.

91Upon the request and consent of both Ms. Desrochers and the Law Society, the Tribunal subsequently amended its order on July 3, 2024, to appoint Dr. Chaimowitz as the assessor and the Law Society retained him to conduct the assessment of Ms. Desrochers.

92We do not find that the choice of Dr. Chaimowitz as the assessor was, in the circumstances of this case, in any way improper.

Improper motives for commencing and proceeding with the capacity application and improper investigations

93Ms. Desrochers submits that “[t]he LSO’s investigation for capacity was unfair, biased, and one-sided. It is an attempt to cover up their racism and misconduct.”

94Virtually all actions and steps taken by the Law Society investigators in Ms. Desrochers’ matters are criticized by Ms. Desrochers in her materials and in her testimony. We now address those actions of the investigators that have some connection to the issues in this motion.

95In October 2016, former investigative counsel for the Law Society, Curtis Smith, was assigned carriage of an investigation of Ms. Desrochers’ conduct. Both conduct and capacity concerns were authorized; however, when Mr. Smith’s investigation was completed in 2017, it culminated solely in a conduct application being filed against Ms. Desrochers.

96Ms. Desrochers alleges that Mr. Smith treated her in racist manner when he failed to advise her that her capacity was being investigated and thus was not given an opportunity to respond to the 2016 capacity investigation.

97Ms. Desrochers has produced a copy of her then counsel’s notes of a January 2017 conversation with Mr. Smith, which clearly indicated Mr. Smith discussed the capacity investigation with her counsel. Ms. Desrochers states in her affidavit that her then counsel did not inform her that she was being investigated for capacity. She states that her then counsel had acted in a racist manner towards her.

98On February 4, 2017, Ms. Desrochers sent a letter to Mr. Smith in which she categorically refused to undergo a capacity examination as requested by Mr. Smith:

I do not under any circumstances agree with any of your demands because I am fit to practice (sic) law and I am very competent. I am not incapacitated, and never was incapacitated at any time.

99In any event, as stated above, the original capacity investigation was closed in 2017, and the alleged failure to provide Ms. Desrochers an opportunity to respond to it is not evidence of either improper investigation or of investigator racism or misconduct.

100Ms. Desrochers further states that Mr. Smith “verbally threatened me with disbarment using [Ms. Desrochers’ former counsel] to relay the message to me.” Ms. Desrochers bases this allegation on her former counsel’s notes of a conversation her former counsel had with Mr. Smith. However, the former counsel states in an email entered in evidence that that portion of the notes is a typographical error and that Mr. Smith did not make such a threat.

101The Law Society re-opened the capacity investigation in June 2018. In her affidavit, Ms. Desrochers states that the capacity investigation was re-opened in retaliation for her filing a complaint of discrimination against the Law Society at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and for filing a complaint of discrimination with several UN Special Rapporteurs.

102Under cross-examination, Ms. Desrochers acknowledged that her HRTO complaint was filed in 2025, long after the reopening of the capacity investigation, and that her complaint was therefore not a motivating factor for the reopening of the investigation. She maintains that retaliation for her complaint to the UN Special Rapporteur was a reason for the reopening of the capacity investigation.

103Ms. Parenteau affirms in her affidavit that, to date, the Law Society has not received a copy of any United Nations complaint from Ms. Desrochers, nor has it received notification from the United Nations directly of a complaint made by her.

104In the course of the conduct application, Ms. Desrochers submitted to the Law Society a series of medical notes from her health care providers, a nurse practitioner, and a psychiatrist, Dr. Douglas Green. Dr. Green’s letters were referred to by the interlocutory motion panel cited above (para 14). The notes and letters raise the issue of Ms. Desrochers’ capacity to practise law. In his note dated May 31, 2018, Dr. Green states that Ms. Desrochers is “not able to participate in the Law Society Tribunal matter, nor is she able to work as a lawyer.”

105Other than Ms. Desrochers’ bald assertion, there is no evidence of any improper motive for the Law Society’s re-opening of the capacity investigation.

106The Law Society’s re-opened capacity investigation was conducted by Kim Hertwig. We accept the evidence of Ms. Hertwig, supported by the contemporaneous correspondence from Ms. Hertwig to Ms. Desrochers, that the Law Society’s decision to reopen the capacity investigation into Ms. Desrochers’ capacity was based on Dr. Green’s letter of May 31, 2018, and not for any improper reason.

107Ms. Hertwig did not request an interview or written representations from Ms. Desrochers and did not ask any questions about her tweets (the basis for the conduct application) and only sought her consent to a psychiatric assessment. Ms. Desrochers submits that this is evidence of differential and racist treatment by the Law Society and by Ms. Hertwig, based on the fact that she is Indigenous.

108We do not accept that submission. Written representations or an interview may be appropriate steps in many investigations. However, where, as in this case, the Law Society has a written statement from a treating psychiatrist that a licensee is “not able to work as a lawyer”, any evaluation by the investigator would be of little assistance. We do not find that Ms. Hertwig’s request for Ms. Desrochers’ consent to a psychiatric assessment, without requesting an interview or written submissions, was improper in these circumstances.

109The capacity investigation was discontinued in June 2019 pending resolution of the interlocutory matter. At this time Ms. Desrochers was also administratively suspended and had previously changed her status to “retired/not working” on the Law Society website.

110It was reopened again in October 2019 based on further medical documentation provided by Ms. Desrochers, which indicated, among other things, that she intended to return to the practice of law at some point. Following Ms. Desrochers’ refusal of a further request by Ms. Hertwig for her consent to an assessment, notice of the capacity application was issued on December 5, 2019.

Prosecutorial misconduct

111Ms. Desrochers submits that “[t]he LSO prosecutors Shannon McDunnough and Daniel Iny are biased and engaged in racism and discrimination.”

112As in the case of the Law Society investigators involved in her matters, Ms. Desrochers challenges the bona fides and good faith of many of the steps taken by the Law Society counsel in the proceedings against her.

113Ms. Desrochers submits that the Law Society prosecutors ignored and did not respond to her communications. She testified, for example, that the Law Society did not respond to her letter to Mr. Iny of May 16, 2021.

114In that letter Ms. Desrochers requests, among other things, information and documents from investigations of other licensees, a copy of “[Mr. Iny’s] contract with the LSO, including, but not limited to, the terms of remuneration” and “[a] copy of [Mr. Iny’s] Partnership agreement with Goldblatt Partners LLP”.

115Contrary to Ms. Desrochers’ testimony before us, the Law Society did respond to her letter. On June 16, 2021, Shannon McDunnough, Mr. Iny’s co-counsel, sent a six-page letter, with PDF attachments, to Ms. Desrochers in response to her disclosure requests. Ms. Desrochers’ request for information deemed irrelevant by the Law Society counsel was refused. Ms. Desrochers did not bring a motion for the disclosure of the refused documentation.

116Ms. Desrochers submits that Mr. Iny’s racial bias against her is further evidenced by the fact that he threatened to have her disbarred. As in the case of Mr. Smith, Ms. Desrochers has never heard that threat herself, but rather relies on what she states she was told by her then lawyer. We have no evidence from that lawyer, and that interpretation of the conversation was denied on behalf of Mr. Iny by Ms. McDunnough in a letter dated May 31, 2021, in which Ms. Desrochers’ attention is directed to the Law Society’s pre-hearing conference memo on its position on penalty.

117Ms. Desrochers submits that Mr. Iny confirmed his threat in his submissions for his motion for a capacity assessment and refers to the transcript of those submissions. There is no reference to revocation of Ms. Desrochers’ licence or disbarment in the transcript. The closest Mr. Iny came to that in those submissions was to state that “Ms. Desrochers’ actions have suggested that she does not like the fact that she is regulated by the Law Society, but she is. She’s required to abide by the Law Society Act to be governed by the Law Society.” These remarks do not constitute a threat, as alleged by Ms. Desrochers, and do not demonstrate a bias, racial or otherwise, on Mr. Iny’s part toward Ms. Desrochers.

118Ms. Desrochers submits that Mr. Iny was tampering with a witness, Dr. Chaimowitz:

Daniel Iny sent me an email dated January 15, 2025 and copied Dr. Chaimowitz on the email. He insinuated that I was crazy by sending numerous emails and copying others on emails to the LSO. In his January 15, 2025 email, Daniel Iny did not provide details of his allegations. Daniel Iny had no reason to copy Dr. Chaimowitz on his email except to “taint” his expert opinion of me.

119Ms. Desrochers exhibits Mr. Iny’s email of that date in her affidavit, which reads as follows:

Dear Ms. Desrochers:

Please stop with your endless emails, and I have no idea why you see fit to copy everyone on them that you are including. In particular, as has been asked of you – repeatedly – please stop including the Treasurer on your emails.

The list was forwarded to me late on Monday. I was in court part of yesterday and didn’t get a chance to look at it until the end of the day. You will receive it today.

Daniel

120Mr. Iny’s email was in response to Ms. Desrochers’ email of earlier that day, addressed to Dr. Chaimowitz and copied by her to Mr. Iny, as well as to the Law Society Treasurer, to Justin Trudeau, to the Premier of Ontario, to Doug Downey (Attorney General of Ontario), and others.

121In her email Ms. Desrochers states:

The LSO prosecutors Daniel Iny and their “Indigenous” prosecutor Shannon McDunnough still refuse to answer my correspondence and thus, refuse to disclose the list of documents, emails, etc. since you sent them the list of documents.

122Ms. Desrochers asks Dr. Chaimowitz to prepare and provide her with copies of those documents.

123Mr. Iny’s email of January 15, 2025 is in response to Ms. Desrochers’ email to Dr. Chaimowitz. The omission of Ms. Desrochers’ email to Dr. Chaimowitz from her materials leaves a completely misleading and incorrect impression of the nature of Mr. Iny’s response. While admittedly somewhat frustrated in tone, it is clear from the email string that Mr. Iny is not copying Dr. Chaimowitz arbitrarily, out of pique, or for any improper purpose, but rather to advise him that Mr. Iny will provide Ms. Desrochers with the documentation she requested from Dr. Chaimowitz.

124Ms. Desrochers alleges that LSO counsel tampered with evidence by removing exhibits from her motion records provided to Dr. Chaimowitz and by “not giving my whole file to Dr. Chaimowitz”.

125In her letter of July 10, 2024 retaining the services of Dr. Chaimowitz for the assessment, Ms. McDunnough includes the parties’ motion records of the various interlocutory motions in these proceedings, including Ms. Desrochers’ affidavits. Due to the voluminous nature of the materials, and the confidential nature of some of the documents pertaining to the investigations of other licensees, the exhibits to some of the affidavits were not included in the package provided to Dr. Chaimowitz. In the retainer letter Ms. McDunnough advised Dr. Chaimowitz that the documents were not included and stated that if he would like to review any of the documents, she will provide them to him.

126In these circumstances, we see nothing improper in the Law Society counsel not providing Ms. Desrochers’ “whole file” to Dr. Chaimowitz.

127Ms. Desrochers also accuses the Law Society of witness tampering with Dr. MacDonald:

The LSO tampered with the expert witness and interfered with psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn MacDonald’s assessment of me, which was scheduled to be completed at the end of May 2024. It did not take place because Dr. Kathryn MacDonald recused after the LSO’s interference.

128Ms. Desrochers states that the Law Society interfered with Dr. Kathryn MacDonald’s capacity assessment by questioning her about the need for psychological testing, refusing to pay for psychological testing, and by instructing Dr. MacDonald to delete the Law Society’s documents provided to her. Ms. Desrochers does not provide any evidence in support of these assertions.

129Ms. Desrochers alleges that Law Society counsel tampered with evidence when they instructed Dr. MacDonald to delete the LSO documents, “preventing me from seeking third party disclosure using a summons.”

130While there is no specific evidence before us on this issue, it appears that after Dr. MacDonald withdrew from the assessment of Ms. Desrochers, Law Society counsel requested Dr. MacDonald to destroy the materials she received from the Law Society in this matter.

131It was always open to Ms. Desrochers to request that documentation from the Law Society and to bring a disclosure motion if her request was refused. We do not view the Law Society’s request that Dr. MacDonald destroy the documentation after she declined to conduct the assessment as improper and it does not constitute tampering with evidence by Law Society’s counsel.

132Ms. Desrochers repeatedly accused the Law Society counsel, in her materials, in her testimony, and in her submissions, of lying. Ms. Desrochers was repeatedly cautioned by us not to call opposing counsel liars, with only limited compliance. None of the allegations of lying are supported in the record before us.

133For example, Ms. Desrochers states in her affidavit that “At the hearing on January 27, 2022, LSO prosecutor Daniel Iny lied to the LST by informing them that the offer for funded legal counsel was still on the table.” The transcript of the proceeding that day indicates that Mr. Iny stated that “the Law Society [was] at all material times being prepared to explore the possibility of a discretionary funding arrangement along the lines of what was proposed.” The email correspondence of that day, exhibited in Ms. Desrochers’ affidavit, confirms that an offer for funded counsel for the capacity application was still on the table – perhaps not the unconditional offer Ms. Desrochers sought, but confirming Mr. Iny’s statement on the record.

134Similarly, Ms. Desrochers states that “The LSO prosecutor Shannon McDunnough lied in the retainer [letter to Dr. Chaimowitz] by alleging that I failed to cooperate with the investigator”. But Ms. McDunnough’s letter merely stated that the original capacity investigation was closed “due to a lack of evidence and cooperation (as well as the Licensee’s statements that she was not incapacitated)”. While the letter could have been clearer in stating that Ms. Desrochers was not consenting to an assessment, there was no misrepresentation or lie.

135Ms. Desrochers states in her affidavit that “[t]he LSO prosecutors also obstructed justice by not providing the name and citation of the case law in their retainer with Dr. Chaimowitz.” Ms. Desrochers alleges that “The LSO prosecutors tampered with the witness, Dr. Gary Chaimowitz, by not providing him with the name and citation of the case law and manipulating the capacity assessment to get an ‘incapacity’ diagnosis.”

136Ms. Desrochers elaborates on this allegation in her factum:

In the LSO’s retainer with Dr. Chaimowitz dated on or about July 10, 2024, LSO prosecutor Shannon McDunnough did not cite the case law that she alleges held that licensees who fail to cooperate with investigations are incapacitated and then alleged that I failed to cooperate with the capacity investigation in 2016. The LSO did not take me to a Summary Hearing for Failure to Cooperate in 2016 like they do with all non-Indigenous licensees.

137Ms. Desrochers, once again, misstates what transpired. Ms. McDunnough states in the retainer letter that “[t]he caselaw confirms that licensee (sic) who are unable to cooperate with investigations for reasons related to physical or mental illness are incapacitated.” (Emphasis added). It is Ms. Desrochers’ position that the failure by Ms. McDunnough to cite the case law in support of that proposition in the retainer letter to Dr. Chaimowitz, constitutes obstruction of justice and tampering with a witness. Ms. Desrochers has not provided any jurisprudence or other basis for that position and we do not accept that proposition.

138Ms. Desrochers states in her affidavit:

The LSO refuses to disclose 6 complaints to me a Cree woman lawyer, … there are 7 complaints against me in total, of which 2 are under the name “Law Society of Ontario”. Out of the 7 complaints, 6 complaints have not been disclosed to me despite repeated requests.

139Ms. Desrochers again misstates what actually occurred. On August 27, 2021, McDunnough wrote to Ms. Desrochers about this issue:

As stated in my letter to you dated June 16, 2021, the 7 complaints include the 2 current applications you are facing, for which you already have disclosure, and 5 unrelated matters that have been closed and are not disclosed as a matter of course.

The Law Society’s disclosure obligations are related to the “fruits of the investigation” of the matter that is currently before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Law Society has no obligation in relation to the matters 17H-053 and 19H-139 to make disclosure of unrelated complaints.

With that said, I did look into the issue further.

Two of the 5 unrelated complaints were transferred to the Intake division of the Law Society for regulatory review. For matters that proceed to Intake, licensees are usually informed of the complaint and given closing letters unless there is a superseding reason not to. In your case, you have already been informed of the details of both complaints, and you were also provided closing letters dated November 9, 2015, and May 25, 2018, respectively. These complaints were not anonymous.

Contrary to your position that you are being treated differently from other licensees, you have already been provided with information regarding the complaints that went to Intake and the corresponding closing letters, just like any other licensee.

The other 3 complaints did not proceed to Intake before being closed and there are no closing letters to provide to you as they do not exist.

140We do not find the Law Society acted improperly in the disclosure of the complaints to Ms. Desrochers and she has not established differential treatment by the Law Society in respect of the disclosure of the complaints.

141Ms. Desrochers also submits in her affidavit information about a number of other licensees receiving opening and closing letters. This is not evidence that Ms. Desrochers was treated in a differential manner from other licensees. As Ms. McDunnough’s letter of August 27, 2021 confirms, she was also notified of complaints that proceeded to Intake, and she was given closing letters for matters which proceeded to Intake and were later closed – just like the licensees she refers to in her affidavit.

142Ms. Desrochers submits that Ms. McDunnough “informed me and the LST on October 8, 2021 that she was new to the LSO and did not know my file.” Once again, Ms. Desrochers mischaracterizes what was said. The transcript of the Tribunal appearance on that day shows that the Tribunal adjudicator, Barbara Murchie, asked Ms. McDunnough if it was typical for the Law Society to choose what it wants to proceed with once it’s had an assessment by its own assessor. McDunnough answered, “I’m still relatively new to the Law Society, so I can’t speak to the history of every capacity matter or what’s been standard practice before I arrived at the Law Society.” Nothing in that exchange supports Ms. Desrochers’ assertion that Ms. McDunnough “did not know her file”.

143Ms. Desrochers alleges that Law Society counsel attempted to remove another licensee, Mark Ciarallo, as her counsel and that the Law Society and Tribunal “suspended Mark Ciarallo’s license without investigating him first in July 2020 and without letting him respond to their investigation before the motion to suspend his licence was pursued” and this was evidence of bias and racism against Ms. Desrochers.

144Ms. Desrochers states in her affidavit that the Law Society “suspended Mark Ciarallo’s license to remove him as my lawyer.” She offers no evidence for these allegations. On the contrary, the Tribunal reported decisions¹⁵ for the interlocutory suspension of Mr. Ciarallo’s licence show that he was suspended for reasons that had nothing to do with Ms. Desrochers.

145Ms. Desrochers submits in her factum that:

Daniel Iny copied other lawyers, who are not parties to the LST, when he informed me and the LST that he received PAC approval for his motion for an interlocutory suspension on July 13, 2028 (sic). The lawyers, who were copied on the letter, were counsel representing the Ministry of Attorney General for Ontario, the OPP, the OPS, and Department of Justice. Daniel Iny’s conduct is vexatious.

Daniel Iny copied other lawyers, who were not parties to the motions that Daniel Iny was seeking to set date for, on his emails regarding my mental health.

146Ms. Desrochers again omits important facts from her account of what transpired. In 2017, Ms. Desrochers had brought a motion for disclosure in the now discontinued conduct proceeding, in which the Justice Sector Security Office, Justice Laliberté, Justice Leroy, the RCMP and the Ottawa Police Service, in addition to the Law Society, were respondents. As the endorsements of the pre-hearing conferences show, this motion was in the process of being scheduled by the Tribunal at the time of Mr. Iny’s letter. The lawyers copied in his email were representing the respondents in Ms. Desrochers’ disclosure motion.

147There was nothing improper or vexatious in Mr. Iny copying the lawyers representing the respondents in Ms. Desrochers’ disclosure motion with his letter advising that the Law Society will be bringing an interlocutory suspension motion, with the unwritten implication that this might cause further delay in the scheduling of the disclosure motion.

Inordinate delay

148Delay is not included in the list of grounds in Ms. Desrochers’ motion and is not mentioned in either party’s facta or submissions.

149Delay is raised by Ms. Desrochers in her November 6, 2025 re-examination evidence affidavit, delivered after the conclusion of the oral portion of the hearing of this motion:

23. The LST’s interim suspension of my license in August 2018 using an adjournment on terms, and the LST’s recent delay of my motion to dismiss and the LSO’s Application until the year 2026, especially to on or about January 26 and 27, 2025 and March 2026 for the LSO’s Application for Capacity has severely prejudiced me and Indigenous people who could have used my legal services. I was denied the right to work as a lawyer during the prime of my career, and I had to return to nursing in September 2021 to earn a livelihood.

24. By delaying the LST matters into the year 2026, I am still being prejudiced and denied the right to work as a lawyer, to earn a higher income as a lawyer, and to work for my people, who are Indigenous. Indigenous people are also being prevented from hiring me as their Indigenous legal representative.

25. It is likely that the LST will not render decisions on the LSO’s Application for Capacity and my motion to dismiss until fall or winter 2026 to delay the matter even further.

26. Former LST Chair Dave Wright wrote in an endorsement that I did not object to the LSO putting their motion for an interlocutory restriction on hold, which is not true. I was unable to “object” to an adjournment due to my medical condition and the LSO and LST knew that. I was only responding to the LST and LSO via medical notes about my medical condition from Dr. Green at the time and psychiatrist Dr. Green is not a lawyer. He is not qualified to put forth legal submissions on my behalf.

150The investigation that culminated in the current proceedings began in 2016. Ms. Desrochers’ licence has been suspended on an interim interlocutory basis since 2018.

151There is no allegation made that the passage of time will impact fairness in Ms. Desrochers’ capacity hearing. There is no evidence in the record before us that delay has resulted in relevant evidence no longer being available.

152But as set out above, an inordinate delay may still result in an abuse of process, in the “residual category”, if it caused significant prejudice to a party and the delay is manifestly unfair to the party or the administration of justice is brought into disrepute by the delay.

153The record indicates complex and multifaceted interlocutory proceedings. It is clear that Ms. Desrochers contributed to the delay by her own requests for adjournments, documented in the decisions and endorsements in the record, and by bringing motions. There is nothing in the record before us that indicates that Ms. Desrochers sought at any time to have the interlocutory suspension motion brought back on to a hearing.

154We have no submissions from the parties as to what or who caused these proceedings to be so protracted. In these circumstances we cannot conclude that the delay in these proceedings satisfies the test for abuse of process set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Blencoe and Abrametz, cited above in these reasons.

The Tribunal’s treatment of Ms. Desrochers

155Both in her testimony and her submissions, Ms. Desrochers asserts that Tribunal adjudicators have acted in an unfair, biased and discriminatory manner towards her. This includes the current Chair, the former Chair David Wright, and virtually every adjudicator who has made a ruling in Tribunal proceedings involving Ms. Desrochers.

156Ms. Desrochers bases these assertions almost exclusively on the fact that the adjudicators made decisions and rulings which were adverse to her, an Indigenous woman.

157The rulings and decisions to which Ms. Desrochers objects were for the most part the outcome of complex hearing and procedural processes. We are not in a position to re-litigate the issues decided by the panels hearing the interlocutory motions and pre-hearing conferences. Even if we had the full record that was before those panelists, which we do not have before us, it is not our function to second-guess the other panels. The proper forum for challenging those panels’ decisions is on appeal, not this motion.

158There is nothing in the record before us that demonstrates any adjudicator’s conduct which could substantiate the accusations of bias and give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Ms. Desrochers repeatedly referred to the fact that adjudicators were Benchers or former Benchers and that they are “on the Law Society’s payroll”. The participation of benchers on panels is a statutory requirement. The fact that the Tribunal’s expenses, including the adjudicators’ remuneration, is paid out of the Law Society budget does not substantiate any bias, any more than the fact that the courts and judges in Canada are paid from the governments’ budget, that is, by the Crown, demonstrates that our courts are not independent.

159Ms. Desrochers also made submissions objecting to rulings made by the panel hearing the capacity application, conducted contemporaneously with this motion. These also could be grounds for an appeal if Ms. Desrochers disagrees with the capacity panel’s decision, but it is not for this panel to review those rulings.

Infringement of s 2 Charter rights

160Ms. Desrochers is alleging that the Law Society, Law Society investigators, Law Society counsel, Dr. Chaimowitz, Dr. Booth, Dr. Green, and/or Tribunal adjudicators infringed her s 2 rights under the Charter.

161Ms. Desrochers states in her factum:

63The LSO is covering up the judiciary, SCJ, JSSO, OPP, Cornwall Police, and RCMP’s undercover illegal, racist, and discriminatory police investigation into my twitter page using LSO investigator Curtis Smith’s letter dated November 1, 2016, which violates my right to a fair investigation, the right to notice that I was being investigated for capacity, the right to respond to the investigation before PAC made a decision, and the right to make full answer and defence. This undercover criminal investigation violated all my legal rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This investigation is discrimination based on my race and religion. It is also institutional bias (perceived and real) on the part of the investigators Curtis Smith and Kim Hertwig and LSO prosecutors Daniel Iny, Shannon McDunnough and Nisha Dhanoa, and the LSO as an institution.

162Ms. Desrochers’ allegation of the breach of her Charter rights by the Law Society (as opposed by the various police forces and the judiciary) is based on the alleged violation of her freedom of religion in s 2 of the Charter.

163This allegation appears to be based on the fact that the tweets that gave rise to the original conduct application and Ms. Desrochers’ subsequent correspondence with the Law Society were provided to Dr. Chaimowitz and he referred to them in his assessment report. In these tweets and correspondence Ms. Desrochers expressed her Christian beliefs and prophecies and it is her submission that the Law Society’s and Dr. Chaimowitz’ references to these documents violate her rights under s 2 of the Charter.

164As stated above, the validity of Dr. Chaimowitz’s methodology of his assessment of Ms. Desrochers is not an issue for us to decide.

165We do not accept the submission that “[t]he LSO is pursuing an order stating that [Ms. Desrochers] is delusional for prophesying and expressing her religious beliefs to the LSO in communications.” As stated above in these reasons, the Law Society’s decision to pursue this capacity application was based on the letters provided by Ms. Desrochers’ psychiatrists.

166There is no evidence in the record to support the allegation that Ms. Desrochers’ Charter rights have been violated by the Law Society in these proceedings.

Law Society proceedings against other licensees

167In her March 28, 2025 affidavit, Ms. Desrochers attaches as exhibits numerous hearing briefs, affidavits, expert’s reports and correspondence from the Law Society in investigations and Tribunal proceedings involving other licensees. Ms. Desrochers submits that these documents demonstrate that she has been treated differently from these other licensees because she is an Indigenous woman.

168There simply is no evidence to support that assertion. Ms. Desrochers provides us with documents from another Law Society investigation, points out an apparent difference between the way an issue was dealt with in that investigation and the way a similar issue was dealt with in her investigation, and asserts racial or religious discrimination.

169To show differential treatment, “it is necessary to compare like cases”.¹⁶ The examples Ms. Desrochers has submitted as proof of differential treatment are different from her own matter and do not substantiate her allegations.

170Some of cases she relies on are not capacity investigations. Those that are were not based, unlike Ms. Desrochers’ capacity investigation, on medical reports of the treating psychiatrist, submitted by the licensee.

171Ms. Desrochers’ evidence of Law Society investigations and proceedings against other licensees does not support her assertion of differential adverse treatment in these proceedings.

CONCLUSION

172As stated above, Ms. Desrochers’ allegations in support of her claim of abuse of process are largely based on alleged discriminatory conduct by the Law Society, its investigators and counsel, and by various adjudicators of this Tribunal.

173As an Indigenous woman, Ms. Desrochers satisfies the first part of the test for a prima facie case for discrimination set out above in these reasons. However, she has failed to establish that she experienced differential treatment or an adverse impact with respect to her treatment in the investigation stage or in the initiation and conduct of these proceedings or that her race or religion was a factor in the adverse impact.

174Failing to make out the second and third criteria of the test, Ms. Desrochers has failed to make out a case of prima facie discrimination.

175There is no evidence that that the Law Society commenced and proceeded with their investigation of Ms. Desrochers, or authorized and pursued these proceedings, because Ms. Desrochers is Indigenous, a Christian, or a woman, or because anyone concerned subscribed to negative stereotypical assumptions about Indigenous or Christian women.

176Ms. Desrochers provided voluminous documentary evidence and oral testimony over nearly three full days. There is nothing in all that evidence to suggest that race or religion were a factor in the Law Society’s investigation or the commencement and conduct of these proceedings.

177We find that racial bias or stereotypical negative assumptions about Indigenous people, or Christians, were not a factor in the investigation of Ms. Desrochers by the Law Society, or in the initiation or continuation of the proceedings against her.

178Likewise, Ms. Desrochers has not established a reasonable apprehension of bias or discriminatory conduct on the part of the Tribunal adjudicators dealing with her matters. There is nothing in the evidence before us that supports those allegations.

179We find that Ms. Desrochers has not presented any evidence that establishes wrongdoing by the Law Society, Law Society counsel, Law Society investigators, or any Tribunal adjudicators, much less evidence to establish conduct that rises to the level of an abuse of process.

ORDER

180Ms. Desrochers’ motion to dismiss these proceedings as an abuse of process is dismissed.

181If the Law Society seeks its costs, it will deliver its costs submissions, not to exceed 15 pages (not including the bill of costs), by June 19, 2026. Ms. Desrochers will deliver her costs submissions by July 10, 2026, also not to exceed 15 pages.

Footnotes

1. 1Canam Enterprises Inc. v Coles, 2000 CanLII 8514 (ON CA) at para 55, affirmed at 2002 SCC 63; United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 175 v La Rocca Creative Cakes, 2024 ONSC 2243 (Div. Ct) at para 44.
2. 2Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44 at para 178.
3. 3Law Society of Saskatchewan v Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29 at para 83.
4. 4Law Society of Ontario v David, 2021 ONLSTH 98 at para 93, Law Society v Khan, 2020 ONLSTA 18 at para 50 (appeal to Divisional Court dismissed, 2022 ONSC 1951), Human Rights Code, ss 1, 6, and 11.
5. 5Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 at para 24.
6. 6Khan, above, at para 50.
7. 7Law Society of Ontario v Barnwell, 2024 ONLSTA 15 at paras 59-61and 67.
8. 8R. v Power, 1994 CanLII 126 (SCC).
9. 9R. v Anderson, 2014 SCC 41 at para 50.
10. 10R. v Anderson at para 53.
11. 11AB v Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONLSTH 85 at para 52.
12. 12Law Society Review Panel on Regulatory and Hearing Processes Affecting Indigenous Peoples Report, https://lawsocietyontario.azureedge.net/media/lso/media/legacy/pdf/c/convocation-june2017-equity-indigenous-affairs-committee-report.pdf (Report).
13. 13Report at para 30.
14. 14Re Koch, 1997 CanLII 12138 (ON CTGD), 33 O.R. (3d) 485 [1997] O.J. No 1487.
15. 15Law Society of Ontario v Ciarallo, 2021 ONLSTH 97, and 2021 ONLSTH 143.
16. 16Law Society of Ontario v David, 2021 ONLSTH 98 at para 104.