LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: February 11, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 25H-163

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario Applicant

• and -

Marilou Nejal Respondent

Before: Murray Walter Chitra

Heard: January 9, 2026, by videoconference

Appearances: Michael Thurston, for the applicant Brooke MacKenzie, for the respondent

Summary: NEJAL – Summary Hearing – Failure to Co-operate – Failure to Promptly and Completely Respond to Investigation – The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct by failing to respond promptly and completely to the Law Society Investigator’s requests for information and documents ‒ The Lawyer acknowledged her failure to do so and the parties made a joint submission on penalty for an immediate suspension pending compliance, followed by a one-month suspension, and costs of $1,500 to the Law Society ‒ The panel accepted the joint proposal and made the requested order.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1Murray Walter Chitra:– The Law Society filed an application on November 11, 2025. It alleged that Marilou Nejal (the Lawyer) had engaged in professional misconduct by failing to respond promptly and completely to requests for information and documents for an investigation.

2A summary hearing into this matter was scheduled for January 9, 2026. Michael Thurston appeared for the Law Society. Brooke MacKenzie was present for the Lawyer, who did not attend. I was advised that the parties had an agreement on findings, penalty and costs.

3I received affidavits from both the Law Society investigator and Lawyer. In the latter the Lawyer acknowledged her failure to respond promptly and completely as required by Rule 7.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and s 49.3 of the Law Society Act, RSO 190, c L.8 (the Act).

4Given the undisputed affidavits, corroborating documents and admission I found that the allegation had been established.

5The parties then made a joint submission on penalty. It called for the immediate suspension of the Lawyer’s licence until such time as she had provided a complete response to outstanding requests. This was to be followed by a one-month fixed suspension and payment of costs to the Law Society of $1,500 within a year.

6I found this reasonable and issued an order adopting the proposal. These are my reasons.

EVIDENCE

7The Lawyer was called to the Bar in 2009. She has worked in the areas of real estate, immigration and family law. Her practice was based in North York.

8On April 29, 2024, the Lawyer was found to have engaged in professional misconduct in her representation of lender clients for loans secured by syndicated mortgages. Misconduct was acknowledged and a joint submission for penalty and costs was accepted. The Tribunal ordered a six-month suspension, practice restrictions, education, refunds to clients, and costs of $35,000.¹

Complaint

9Around the same time, the Law Society received a complaint from Client A. It concerned the Lawyer’s representation of him between 2017 and 2022 in a family law matter concerning child access.

Intake and Resolution

10The complaint was assigned to Julia Soberman of the Law Society’s Intake and Resolution Department. She closed the file on October 25, 2024 when Client A did not provide supporting material. However, he did provide this material in December 2024, and the file was reopened.

11Starting December 12, 2024, Ms. Soberman sent the first of many communications requesting that the Lawyer provide her with a written response to Client A’s concerns by January 2, 2025.

12These concerns were that the Lawyer may have failed to serve her client on two occasions and failed to communicate with opposing counsel.

13The Lawyer responded that she was out of the country and unable to access her files. She requested and was granted an extension to February 5, 2025.

14The Lawyer wrote on February 1, 2025, indicating that her stay was going to be longer and she could not meet the second deadline. She requested another extension to March 7, 2025.

15Ms. Soberman only agreed to a deadline of February 18, 2025. The Lawyer was informed that the matter could be escalated to a formal investigation if she did not meet that deadline.

16The Lawyer met neither the Law Society’s February 18 deadline or her own promised delivery date of March 7. A portal message and email sent on March 5 and a telephone call to her business number on March 7 were not replied to.

17On March 10, 2025, Ms. Soberman sought authorization for a formal investigation into concerns that the Lawyer may have:

• failed to provide legal services to the client in accordance with standards of competence and quality;

• breached an order, undertaking or escrow agreement;

• failed to communicate; and

• failed to communicate and/or co-operate with the Law Society or the licensee’s insurer.

18Authorization was granted that same day.

19On March 11, 2026, Ms. Soberman received an email from an individual who said she was the Lawyer’s assistant. She reported that the Lawyer was consulting her doctor and would respond shortly. There is no record of any communication from the Lawyer after this.

Investigation

20In July 2025, Stepahanie Nesbitt was assigned as investigation counsel. Between July 8 and September 17, 2025, she sent six separate communications to the Lawyer asking for representations, information and documents. No reply was received to any of these communications.

21As a result, a notice of application initiating this summary proceeding was filed with the Tribunal on November 11, 2025.

FINDING

22Rule 7.1-1 states, “a lawyer shall reply promptly and completely to any communications from the Law Society in which a response is requested.”

23This is a fundamental professional duty. It is a key requirement of being a lawyer. The evidence reflected above, which is both documented and admitted, clearly established that the Lawyer failed to respond promptly or completely to multiple requests for information concerning a complaint about her. This constitutes professional misconduct.

24Specifically, I found that since January 2, 2025, and ongoing, contrary to Rule 7.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and s 49.3 of the Act, the respondent has failed to co-operate and failed to respond to a Law Society investigation, by failing to promptly and completely produce all of the information and documentation requested by the Law Society, specifically:

• From January 2, 2025, and ongoing, the respondent failed to provide written representations addressing all of the regulatory issues identified for investigation with each issue discussed under a separate heading.

• From September 27, 2025, and ongoing, the respondent failed to provide a complete electronic copy of the original client file for the matter under investigation, including all solicitor’s notes, work product and correspondence.

• From September 27, 2025, and ongoing, the respondent failed to provide a complete copy of all interim and/or final accounts for the matters under investigation, including documentation demonstrating delivery of those bills to the client.

PENALTY AND COSTS

25Where parties make a joint submission, the panel should order the requested penalty, unless to do so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest: R. v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at para 32.

26The Divisional Court held in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 at para 14, “Any disciplinary body that rejects a joint submission on penalty must apply the public interest test and must show why the proposed penalty is so ‘unhinged’ from the circumstances of the case that it must be rejected.”

27The parties acknowledged the Lawyer’s prior disciplinary finding. A number of mitigating factors in this case were noted:

• depression;

• family death;

• misappropriation by trusted office staff;

• the pressure of responding to multiple ongoing investigations; and

• recent co-operation and admissions.

28Further, the Lawyer had decided to wind down her practice and retire effective January 1, 2026.

29While the proposed penalty is not one which I necessarily would have imposed, I cannot find that it is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that the public interest compels that it be rejected. Accordingly, it is adopted. That included the proposed order for costs.

ORDER

30For the above reasons, I ordered:

1. The respondent’s licence to practise law is suspended effective immediately and continuing indefinitely until, to the satisfaction of the Law Society’s Executive Director of Professional Regulation, or their designate, the respondent has provided a complete response to the requests made by the Law Society investigator in her portal messages on July 8 and September 3, 2025, and the corresponding case requirements published to LSO Connects.

2. The respondent’s licence to practise law shall be suspended for one month starting immediately upon the latter of:

a. the end of the suspension order at paragraph 1 above; and

b. the end of any current or currently pending suspensions of the respondent’s licence under Part II of the Act.

3. The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise while suspended pursuant to this order.

4. The respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1,500 on or before the deadline of January 9, 2027. This deadline may be extended by the Law Society in accordance with the By-Laws. Interest shall accrue on any overdue part of those costs at a rate of 4% per year.

Footnotes

1. 1Law Society of Ontario v Nejal, 2024 ONLSTH 42.