LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: January 30, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 25H-057
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario Applicant
- and -
Any Mayer Respondent
Before: Karen Hulan (chair), Brigitte Pilon, John F. Spekkens Heard: November 12, 2025, by videoconference
Appearances: Nathan Prendergast, for the applicant Marie Sylvie Denyse Boulet, for the respondent
Summary: MAYER – Failing to Act with Honour and Integrity – Practising While Suspended – Failing to Co-operate – The Lawyer lied to three clients about the status of their matters, fabricated correspondence and court documents, and prepared materials that were not served or filed – The Lawyer charged for work that was not done – The Lawyer’s licence was revoked, she was ordered to repay the Compensation Fund certain amounts that it might later pay, and to pay costs of $7,157 to the Law Society.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1Karen Hulan (for the panel):– The Law Society alleged that contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules), the Licensee, Any Mayer, engaged in professional misconduct as set out below:
Failing to discharge all responsibilities to clients and courts honourably and with integrity and failing to uphold the standards and reputation of the legal profession, contrary to Rules 2.1-1 and 2.1-2.
Practising law and holding herself out as entitled to do so while her licence was administratively suspended during the period June 4 to August 16, 2014 contrary to Rule 7.6-1.2 and s 26.1 of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8 (the Act).
Failing to co-operate with four Law Society investigations by failing to provide information, documents, and representations as requested between September 5, 2024 and February 6, 2025, contrary to Rule 7.1-1 and s 49.3 of the Act.
2The Law Society sought revocation of Ms. Mayer’s licence to practise law and reimbursement of specified amounts to the Compensation Fund should any payments be made by it.
3The parties reached an agreed statement of facts (ASF) two days before the hearing.
4At the hearing, Ms. Mayer agreed to all of the terms of the order sought by the Law Society.
5On the basis of the evidence of the Law Society and the Licensee, at the conclusion of the hearing we revoked Ms. Mayer’s licence to practise law effective immediately and ordered the additional relief sought with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.
OVERVIEW
6Ms. Mayer was born in 1974 and was licensed to practise law in Ontario in 2006. She practised primarily family law as well some civil litigation. At the time of the hearing her licence to practise law was suspended pursuant to Tribunal orders dated August 16, 2024 and February 7, 2025.
7The misconduct arises out of Ms. Mayer’s representation of three clients who are identified in these proceedings as Clients A, B and C. Ms. Mayer admitted the following facts.
ADMITTED PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Client A – family law client
8In September 2022, Ms. Mayer coached Client A in a Motion to Change as a self-represented litigant; however, Client A was unsuccessful with the motion and two months later Ms. Mayer formally began representing Client A, though no retainer was signed.
9On November 16, 2022, Ms. Mayer sent a cease-and-desist letter to Client A’s ex-husband through counsel; however, this letter did not resolve the concerns Client A had with the parenting arrangements.
10Ms. Mayer subsequently advised Client A that she would address Client A’s concerns by preparing materials for a case conference as well as potentially bringing an urgent Motion to Change to vary the terms regarding support, custody and access, and parenting arrangements.
11Between November 2022 and March 2023, Client A frequently requested updates on the status of her matter. Ms. Mayer advised her of case conferences and other scheduled dates and attributed delays in the proceeding to opposing counsel.
12Although some initial steps were taken to commence the motion, no motion to vary the terms of Client A’s custody and access and parenting arrangements was ever brought. The scheduled dates and communications Ms. Mayer told her client about were not in fact taking place.
13Based on Ms. Mayer’s representations to her, Client A frequently took time off work in order to be able to attend the case conferences which were, unbeknownst to her, not actually scheduled. For instance, on March 10, 2023, Ms. Mayer advised Client A there would be a case conference on April 6, 2023; however, she had concerns with opposing counsel’s conduct. No case conference took place on April 6, 2023.
14On April 27, 2023, Ms. Mayer arranged for Client A to sign an affidavit in support of her Motion to Change. The affidavit outlined the ways in which Client A’s ex-husband was alienating her from their two children. Ms. Mayer did not serve or file the affidavit.
15On May 3, 2023, Ms. Mayer emailed Client A with a list of potential case conference dates for July and August. Ms. Mayer also raised the possibility of asking for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to be appointed. Ms. Mayer wrote, “we will not be able to proceed with the final hearing until the [Office of the Children’s Lawyer] has completed their investigations.” As is outlined below, this was untrue.
16On May 8, 2023, Ms. Mayer confirmed a case conference for July 14, 2023.
17On June 5, 2023, Client A texted Ms. Mayer and advised her that she required a decision on the issues of religious instruction, family therapy, and children’s cell phone use by the end of the month. Although Ms. Mayer called to discuss this with Client A, no steps were taken.
18On July 27, 2023, Ms. Mayer emailed Client A and advised her the case conference was rescheduled for August 9, 2023. Client A attended court in accordance with Ms. Mayer’s instructions; however, there was no case conference scheduled and Ms. Mayer did not attend court to meet Client A. Client A had to take the day off work in order to attend.
19On August 11, 2023, Client A signed an affidavit in support of a Motion to Change in order to address issues regarding the children, including urgent safety concerns regarding school pickup and drop off times for September. The affidavit was never served and filed.
20On August 18, 2023, Ms. Mayer advised Client A that opposing counsel wanted to resolve the matter, so she agreed to a two-week extension.
21On September 6, 2023, Ms. Mayer emailed Client A copies of correspondence from the court, advising her the matter would be brought to the judge’s attention. These communications were inauthentic.
22On September 27, 2023, Ms. Mayer provided Client A with a court order dated September 22, 2023, purportedly signed by a judge. The order referred the matter to the Children’s Lawyer to make a full, independent enquiry of all the circumstances to the best interests of Client A’s two children and to participate as necessary. The order adjourned the matter to a date to be set. The order was false.
23On October 10, 2023, Ms. Mayer provided Client A with a paper copy of the judge’s endorsement, dated October 4, 2023. The endorsement stated there would be no moving forward on the matter until the Office of the Children’s Lawyer pronounced on whether it would get involved. The endorsement was inauthentic.
24On November 8, 2023, Ms. Mayer emailed Client A a copy of a draft letter to the judge to schedule a case conference. The letter detailed Client A’s concerns, including the deteriorating co-parenting relationship between the parties. The letter was never sent to the judge’s office.
25On December 22, 2023, Ms. Mayer emailed Client A to advise her that a case conference had been scheduled for January 16, 2024.
26On January 11, 2024, Ms. Mayer provided Client A with a letter purportedly from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer dated November 27, 2023. The letter stated the Office of the Children’s Lawyer refused to be appointed in the family law matter. The letter was inauthentic.
27On January 30, 2024, Client A took the day off work to attend a scheduled case conference. Ms. Mayer sent Client A a link to the case conference; however, no case conference took place that day.
28On April 23, 2024, Ms. Mayer and Client A exchanged emails regarding a purported pre-hearing motion and what should be addressed by arbitration. Ms. Mayer wrote that the arbitrator had forwarded the attached arbitration agreement and had asked to speak with Ms. Mayer later that day. Ms. Mayer attached an unsigned Arbitration Agreement purportedly from an arbitrator. The Arbitration Agreement addressed several issues that were important to Client A, including very specific issues regarding the children. The document was inauthentic as it was drafted by Ms. Mayer. No arbitration or mediation had been arranged with the arbitrator. Between April and July 2024, Ms. Mayer continued to provide Client A with updates regarding the ongoing renegotiation of the arbitration agreement.
29On August 1, 2024, Client A was contacted by opposing counsel, who advised her Ms. Mayer had been administratively suspended since March 2024, and she had not received any documents since 2022. Further, she provided a letter dated July 12, 2024, to which Ms. Mayer failed to respond.
30When confronted about this email, Ms. Mayer advised Client A that she had been suspended since March 2024, but she would be reinstated shortly. Further, Ms. Mayer indicated that no case conference had been scheduled and apologized to Client A for telling her otherwise. Ms. Mayer offered to finish the materials on an urgent motion to resolve a number of school-related matters at no charge.
31According to Client A’s husband, Ms. Mayer told him that she would take full responsibility for what happened on Client A’s file.
32In August 2024, Client A retained new counsel. There were then a series of additional revelations to Client A about the scope of misrepresentations made to her by Ms. Mayer. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer confirmed that its office did not send or receive the correspondence that had been provided to Client A. Similarly, the courthouse confirmed that the endorsements and court orders were forged.
33Ms. Mayer had charged legal fees for work that she had not performed. In August 2024 she was asked to provide statements of account for the file. Ms. Mayer did not respond. Her law firm was asked by Client A to provide detailed billing of charges to Client A’s credit card totaling $17,678 for legal services supposedly rendered by Ms. Mayer from November 2022 until June 2024. The statements of account included billing for time spent on fabricated communications and documents never sent to opposing counsel or the court. The statements of account also included billing for time spent on the file while Ms. Mayer’s licence to practise law was administratively suspended in June 2024.
34Client A contested the fees; however, the credit card company refused to reimburse her as she had to first try to resolve the matter with Ms. Mayer and her former law firm. In response to Client A’s contestation of fees, Ms. Mayer responded with a letter stating the funds had already been disbursed to her from her law firm to her personal account.
Client B – civil litigation client
35Ms. Mayer was retained by Client B in July 2020 to bring a civil claim as Client B was seeking the enforcement of an unpaid personal loan.
36On August 31, 2020, opposing counsel emailed Ms. Mayer to indicate the defendant was prepared to settle; in September 2020, Ms. Mayer served and filed a statement of claim.
37On October 27, 2020, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a letter that Ms. Mayer had purportedly emailed to opposing counsel, indicating that she had not received the defendant’s offer to settle or Statement of Defence. The letter was never sent to opposing counsel.
38On or about January 25, 2021, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a consent order that set out a timetable for the parties to deliver their materials. The consent order was inauthentic.
39On or about March 4, 2021, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with an offer to settle, purportedly from the defendant. The offer to settle was inauthentic.
40Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a notice of motion to be heard on March 31, 2021. No such motion had been scheduled.
41Ms. Mayer prepared an affidavit for Client B dated March 31, 2021, which included an explanation regarding the delay in advancing the matter; however, the affidavit was not commissioned and there was no evidence that it was served or filed.
42On or about February 16, 2022, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a consent agreement, dated the same day. The consent agreement stated that the defendant would pay Ms. Mayer a total of $150,000 plus $15,000 in costs by December 31, 2022. The consent agreement was inauthentic. Later the next month, Ms. Mayer emailed Client B to advise that she was awaiting the cheque from opposing counsel for the initial portion of $100,000. When asked for an update, Ms. Mayer indicated she was still making progress but did not yet have it.
43On July 5, 2022, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a court endorsement dated July 4, 2022, stating that the motion shall be adjourned to a date after July 22, 2022. The endorsement was inauthentic.
44On July 14, 2022, Client B requested an update regarding the progress with the title search as well as the next court date. Ms. Mayer advised the title search would be ready and that she would provide an update on the next court date later on. A week later she provided Client B with a writ of seizure and sale in order to obtain equity from the defendant to pay for the awarded order. The writ of seizure and sale was inauthentic.
45Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a letter she purportedly sent to opposing counsel dated August 18, 2022. The letter noted the defendant’s failure to meet the terms of the final order and that she would be taking steps to seek its enforcement by scheduling an appearance on August 22, 2022. The letter was never sent to opposing counsel and no such appearance had been scheduled.
46On September 1, 2022, Client B asked for an update regarding the title search on the defendant’s property. Ms. Mayer indicated she was still waiting for a conflict check before doing the search. Later that month, she emailed Client B to indicate the date, time, and location of a court appearance. No such court appearance had been scheduled.
47Ms. Mayer then provided Client B with a letter she purportedly sent to the courthouse trial coordinator, dated September 28, 2022. The letter requested an urgent appearance to enforce the final order. The letter was never sent to the court.
48On October 19, 2022, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a court endorsement dated October 18, 2022, stating that both parties had 14 days to serve and file their material, and upon receiving the materials, Client B’s motion would be scheduled for a one-hour appearance. The endorsement set out a timetable for the parties to submit their materials. The endorsement was inauthentic.
49On October 24, 2022, Client B signed an affidavit in support of a motion, alleging the defendant breached the order by failing to pay according to the consent order.
50On January 23, 2023, Ms. Mayer texted Client B, confirming that she had filed materials for the enforcement of the writ of seizure and sale.
51On April 25, 2023, Client B signed an affidavit detailing the defendant’s failure to abide by the final order, as well as the personal and financial strain this failure had on Client B. This affidavit was never served or filed.
52On June 5, 2023, Ms. Mayer texted Client B to advise him the matter would be heard on June 22, 2023. No court appearance had been scheduled.
53On or about July 17, 2023, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a notice of sale under mortgage of the defendant’s property to enforce the final order.
54On September 6, 2023, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a court endorsement dated September 5, 2023, stating that each party shall file their materials by no later than September 11, 2023. The endorsement also noted that no decision had been made to release the $75,000 purportedly held by Ms. Mayer. The endorsement indicated that the court was awaiting an update on the status of the power of sale on the defendant’s property. The endorsement was inauthentic.
55On or about March 5, 2024, Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a letter sent to a judge. The letter stated that approximately $106 in interest had accrued on the $75,000 held in trust. The letter was never sent to the court.
56Ms. Mayer provided Client B with a court endorsement dated April 16, 2024, stating that the parties were to submit their case law by April 24, 2024, and that Ms. Mayer shall file an updated bill of costs. The endorsement set a written hearing date of May 10, 2024. The endorsement was inauthentic.
57Ms. Mayer then provided Client B with writ of seizure and sale against the defendant in the amount of $90,000, dated June 14, 2024. The writ was inauthentic.
58On August 13, 2024, Client B contacted Ms. Mayer by text message and inquired about the $75,000 he expected would be released to him in accordance with the writ of seizure and sale. At the time, it was his understanding that Ms. Mayer had these funds in trust but needed the seizure and sale to be completed before disbursing the funds to him. Ms. Mayer advised she had been sick with COVID-19 and was taking a medical leave.
59Later that day, Client B contacted the law firm and learned Ms. Mayer’s licence had been suspended.
60After learning Ms. Mayer was suspended, Client B retained new counsel. Client B filed a complaint against Ms. Mayer to the Law Society as well as to the police.
61Between September 2020 and March 2021, Ms. Mayer billed Client B a total of $9,067 for purported legal services which were never performed.
62In September 2024, Client B attended the courthouse and discovered that the court documents Ms. Mayer had provided him were forged.
Client C – family law client
63Ms. Mayer was retained by Client C in August 2015 to deal with custody, access, and child support matters related to his daughter.
64The matter went to trial in 2019 and concluded in 2020. In March 2022, Client C instructed Ms. Mayer to bring a Motion to Change to vary the terms regarding support, custody and access, and parenting arrangements.
65Client C swore an affidavit in support of the motion; however, the affidavit was never served or filed.
66In 2023, although no motion was ever brought, Ms. Mayer advised Client C that his ex-wife had been noted in default so his motion would be successful. Later that year she invoiced him for legal services purportedly completed for the motion.
67By the end of the year, in a series of communications, she advised Client C that the trial was still underway, despite the finding of default; that the judge would make a final decision without needing an oral hearing and had requested written submissions; and then, on December 22, 2023, she advised that the judge would sign an order that afternoon.
68On March 21, 2024, Ms. Mayer again relayed that an order would be signed that day and she provided Client C with a court endorsement dated the same day. The fabricated endorsement indicated that Client C’s ex-wife had been noted in default of his Motion to Change and provided a deadline of March 26, 2024, for her to respond to his motion materials. The endorsement was inauthentic.
69Ms. Mayer provided Client C with a letter she purportedly sent the judge, dated March 25, 2024. The letter requested time to locate a copy of Client C’s ex-wife’s materials as none had been served on her. The letter was never sent.
70On May 2, 2024, Ms. Mayer texted Client C to advise that his ex-wife had contacted the court indicating she did not read Ms. Mayer’s emails to her because they “are abusive and causes her a great deal of anxiety”. As a result, the matter was rescheduled. There is no record of Client C’s ex-wife communicating this to the court. At the time of this text message, Ms. Mayer was aware of the client’s ex-wife’s mental health issues when she added the detail of her having anxiety over the motion.
71On May 9, 2024, Ms. Mayer provided Client C with a court endorsement dated May 8, 2024. The endorsement granted Client C overpayment of monthly support payments. The endorsement also referenced an affidavit from Client C’s ex-wife, detailing her struggle with anxiety. The judge’s endorsement was inauthentic.
72That same day Ms. Mayer provided Client C with an email from the trial coordinator indicating the matter had been struck from the list due to his ex-wife’s failure to upload her updated financial disclosure. The email appeared to copy his ex-wife. The email was inauthentic.
73Ms. Mayer provided Client C with a letter she purportedly sent to the judge, dated July 15, 2024, to request order for payment of arrears. The letter was never sent.
74On September 3, 2024, Client C was contacted by Ms. Mayer’s former law firm and advised that Ms. Mayer could no longer represent him.
75On November 21, 2024, he received an email from the courthouse, confirming that the above-noted court orders and endorsements were inauthentic.
76Client C subsequently filed a complaint against Ms. Mayer with the Law Society.
Practising while administratively suspended
77On July 17, 2024, two of Ms. Mayer’s law firm partners became aware of Ms. Mayer’s administrative suspension that had been in effect since June 2024. They also learned that Ms. Mayer was subject to a Law Society Tribunal proceeding in which it was alleged that she failed to co-operate with Law Society investigations.
78The next day, Ms. Mayer advised her firm that she had contacted the Law Society to address the regulatory concerns.
79On July 30, 2024, Ms. Mayer informed her partners that her practice status had been reinstated, pending the Law Society’s review of her response.
80On August 14, 2024, the firm received a call from Client A’s new lawyer advising it of Ms. Mayer’s suspension, as well as the allegations of misleading clients and providing them with fake endorsements.
81On August 15, 2024, a letter of complaint was sent to the Law Society from three individuals with the firm who detailed their concerns about Ms. Mayer’s conduct.
82The next day Ms. Mayer was let go from her law firm.
Failure to co-operate with Law Society investigations
83On September 5, 2024, Law Society investigation counsel sent Ms. Mayer a notification letter by portal message and by courier regarding the Law Society’s investigation into the Client A complaint.
84In the letter, investigation counsel summarized the complaint against Ms. Mayer and requested specific information from her. The letter noted that Ms. Mayer’s contact information was up-to-date and reminded her of her obligations to update her information whenever it changed. It advised that if she did not respond by September 25, 2024, the matter would be referred to the Proceedings Authorization Committee (PAC) with no further notice to her. At the time of writing to Ms. Mayer, investigation counsel had already been trying to contact Ms. Mayer for several months through the course of other investigations.
85Ms. Mayer did not respond to the letter or the additional notification sent on September 26, 2024.
86Similarly, she did not respond to notifications of other complaints that were sent on September 17 and 26, 2024, and February 6, 2025, nor did she respond to reminders sent by the Law Society.
87As of the date that the ASF was entered into on November 10, 2025, Ms. Mayer had not provided any of the requested information or documents regarding any of the four investigations.
88Ms. Mayer’s counsel advised that since leaving her law firm, Ms. Mayer has not had access to her LSO Connects Portal Account.
89Since August 2024, Ms. Mayer has not made any efforts to update her contact information with the Law Society, pursuant to her obligations under By-Law 4.
90By way of orders dated August 16, 2024 (suspension effective August 19), and February 7, 2025, Ms. Mayer was found to have failed to co-operate with investigations and her licence was suspended. She was ordered to pay costs, which she had not done by the time she signed the ASF.
CONCLUSION
91For these reasons, we found professional misconduct as alleged and admitted.
PENALTY AND COSTS
92The Law Society submits that Ms. Mayer’s licence to practise law should be revoked, that she be ordered to repay the Compensation Fund’s maximum amounts of $15,745 for claims related to Clients A and B, and that she should be ordered to pay costs of $7,157.
93During the hearing, Ms. Mayer agreed to all of the relief sought by the Law Society. It is repeated in the order below.
94We are satisfied that revocation is appropriate in these circumstances. Ms. Mayer made numerous untrue representations to clients, including exchanges that she had with opposing counsel, of court appearances that were scheduled, and about documents she had filed with the court. She failed to complete work that she represented she would complete, including filing court documents and taking steps to move her clients’ matters forward. She then billed clients for work that she did not perform. Some of the billings were for work supposedly completed when her licence to practise law was suspended.
95The misconduct was persistent and occurred over a period of at least four years. She repeatedly lied to her clients. These deliberate falsehoods are serious breaches of her responsibility to act with honesty and integrity. She provided her clients with forged documents, representing that they were authentic orders and endorsements from a judge; correspondence from a judge, a trial coordinator, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and opposing counsel; and an arbitration agreement. She simply lied to Clients A, B, and C. She lied repeatedly to them. She offered no explanation for the bewildering extent of her dishonesty.
96There was evidence from Clients A, B and C about the impact that Ms. Mayer’s actions have had upon them. Unsurprisingly, the consequences have been grave. Ms. Mayer failed in her duty to represent them honourably and with integrity. Trust lies at the centre of the lawyer-client relationship. She breached the trust that Clients A, B, and C placed in her as their legal representative.
97Clients A and C needed legal representation in matters involving child custody and access. They relied on Ms. Mayer to take steps to protect their interests and those of their children. Clients A, B, and C made financial or personal decisions based on representations made by Ms. Mayer. Her actions caused them harm.
98Ms. Mayer’s actions also harm the reputation of the legal professions. Lawyers have responsibilities to the legal system and the administration of justice more broadly. Opposing counsel and parties, the public, and courts rely on lawyers to act with honour and integrity. The many misrepresentations and forgeries made by Ms. Mayer over an extended period of time are antithetical to this fundamental requirement. She breached her duties as an officer of the court. In these circumstances, revocation of her licence to practise law is appropriate.
ORDER
99We ordered:
The respondent’s licence to practise law is revoked effective immediately.
The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Former Lawyers Whose Licences Have Been Revoked or Who Have Been Permitted to Surrender Their Licences.
The respondent shall pay to the Compensation Fund any amounts paid by the Fund after the date of this order in relation to:
a. Claim CAS-158867-H7N0P0 (Client A) to a maximum of $6,678, and
b. Claim CAS-158503-L5Z5M3 (Client B) to a maximum of $9,067.
- The respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $7,157 within 30 days from the date of this order; after which interest shall accrue on any unpaid part of those costs at a rate of 4% per year.