Date: February 11, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 23H-101

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario

Applicant

and -

Benjamin James Henry Delanghe

Respondent

Before: Natalia Rodriguez (chair), Shalini Konanur, John F. Spekkens

Heard: November 25, 2025, by videoconference

Appearances:

Amrita Pal, for the applicant

Robert Karrass, for the respondent

Summary:

DELANGHE – Conduct Unbecoming – Criminal Charges – Agreed Statement of Facts – Joint Submission – While living and practising in Colorado, the Lawyer was indicted on two counts of distributing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute – The panel concluded that the joint submission was not so unhinged as to be unacceptable – The panel ordered that one US court document, which noted on its face “not for public disclosure,” was not public – The Lawyer was suspended for eight months.

1Natalia Rodriguez (for the panel):– The Law Society brings this conduct application against Benjamin James Henry Delanghe (the Lawyer) for engaging in conduct unbecoming a licensee, which the Lawyer admits. The nature of the misconduct involves committing two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine while he was working and living in Colorado. For these offences, the Lawyer was convicted and subject to disciplinary proceedings in Colorado.

2The hearing proceeded on an agreed statement of facts and joint document book. No oral evidence was heard. At the conclusion of the parties’ submissions on conduct, we found that the Lawyer had engaged in conduct unbecoming a licensee, contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

3The penalty hearing proceeded on a joint submission on penalty and costs. At the conclusion of the hearing, we accepted the joint submission and ordered an eight-month suspension and no costs against the Lawyer.

4We heard and determined one preliminary issue, a request to limit openness under Rule 13.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. After deliberating during a break, we ordered that only Tab E of the joint document book be excluded from the public record, with reasons to follow.

Agreed facts

5The Lawyer is currently 43 years old. He was called to the Bar of Ontario in June 2009 and has no prior discipline history in Ontario. He works as director of operations for a real estate development company in London, Ontario.

6From May 2010 to February 2021, the Lawyer’s Ontario law licence was in a not practising status. During most of this period, he lived in Colorado and was called to the Colorado State Bar in October 2011, where he practised law until December 2020.

7On February 22, 2021, the Lawyer’s Ontario licence status changed from not practising to in-house when he joined his current employer, where he was later promoted to his present role.

8In March 2019, a confidential source working with U.S. federal authorities arranged to purchase two ounces of cocaine from the Lawyer at his residence. The transaction was surveilled by law enforcement and involved a cash exchange. Laboratory testing later confirmed the substance was cocaine.

9In April 2019, the same confidential source arranged a second purchase of two ounces of cocaine from the Lawyer at his residence. This transaction was also surveilled, and testing again confirmed the substance as cocaine.

10The confidential source was personally known to the Lawyer prior to these transactions. There was no evidence presented of additional drug distribution beyond these two incidents.

11In July 2020, the Lawyer was indicted in the United States on two counts of distributing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. He was arrested, entered a plea of not guilty, and was released on a personal recognizance bond.

12In December 2020, the Lawyer returned to Canada while the criminal proceedings continued in the United States.

13In January 2022, the Lawyer entered into a plea agreement admitting the facts of the two cocaine transactions and pleaded guilty to both counts, with the remaining counts dismissed. The court formally found him guilty later that month.

14In February 2022, the Lawyer was sentenced to time served, three years of supervised release, 200 hours of community service, and fines totaling $5,700 USD. The sentence was below guideline ranges due to mitigating factors, including limited quantities, lack of prior criminal history, and existing mental health and addiction issues.

15The Lawyer had entered a sobriety program in early 2020, and the court accepted that he had been sober for several years by the time of sentencing. He reports maintaining sobriety since then and did not appeal the conviction.

16Following the conviction, the Colorado Supreme Court suspended the Lawyer from practising law on an interim basis in May 2022. A three-year suspension was imposed in July 2022.

17In October 2024, the Lawyer applied for early termination of supervised release, with no opposition from prosecutors. This was granted. He has therefore served his sentence and has had no further involvement with the criminal justice system since returning to Canada.

18The Lawyer admits that, based on these facts, we can make a finding of conduct unbecoming a licensee.

Issues

19The issues on this application are the following:

Should a not public order be made and, if so, what should be its scope?
Has misconduct been established?
If misconduct is established, should the joint submission on penalty and costs be accepted?

request for Not public order

20The Lawyer seeks a not public order over Tabs D, E and F of the joint document book under Rule 13.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules. The Law Society does not oppose the Lawyer’s request.

21Tab D is the transcript of the sentencing hearing in the Lawyer’s criminal case on February 25, 2022. Tab E is a document that appears to be a court form entitled “Statement of Reasons”. Tab F is the Lawyer’s mitigation brief that was filed with the Colorado Supreme Court in the Lawyer’s disciplinary matter.

The Lawyer’s submissions

22The Lawyer argues that Tab D – the transcript of his sentencing hearing – should be made not public because it is his understanding that the court in Colorado did not want it disseminated to the public.

23The Lawyer submits that Tab E – the document entitled Statement of Reasons – should be made not public because below the document title are the words, “(Not for Public Disclosure)”. Through his counsel, the Lawyer says that he was given the form by the court upon request on the understanding that he would not disseminate it. He argues that the Tribunal has an obligation to uphold and maintain the policies and protocols of other jurisdictions based on the principle of reciprocity and judicial comity. For example, if the Tribunal made a not public order over a document, it would not want another jurisdiction to file that document publicly, effectively getting around the Tribunal’s not public order.

24The Lawyer says that Tab E is the form in which the facts, mitigating factors and final sentencing imposed in his case are listed and documented. Therefore, he argues, if the court wanted Tab E to be not public, given the “(Not for Public Disclosure)” notation, Tab D – the transcript of the proceedings in which those facts and factors were discussed – should also be not public.

25In response to questioning from us, counsel for the Lawyer was unable to confirm whether Tab E is indeed a standard form, as it appears to be, and whether the words “(Not for Public Disclosure)” are a standard part of that form. Counsel for the Lawyer was not certain whether the sentencing proceeding in Colorado was in camera or otherwise out of public view.

26Finally, the Lawyer argued that his mitigation brief at Tab F should be made not public because it contains health and personal information.

Legal framework and analysis

27Rule 13.3(1) of the Tribunal’s Rules sets out the applicable test to apply to a request to limit openness:

The Tribunal may make a not public order, non-disclosure order or publication ban only if:

a. openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest,

b. the order is necessary to prevent this risk because reasonable alternative measures will not be effective; and

c. the benefits of the order will outweigh its negative effects.

28The Lawyer’s position is that the “serious risk to an important public interest” is a breach of the principle of reciprocity between jurisdictions and judicial comity, a discretionary doctrine in which courts respect foreign decisions as a matter of courtesy and mutual convenience. According to the Lawyer, it is important to maintain positive relations with courts in other jurisdictions and to respect the authority of their orders and decisions.

29With respect to Tab D, there is no evidence before us, including in the transcript itself, to suggest that the sentencing hearing on February 25, 2022 was not open to the public. The only evidence the Lawyer relies on to suggest that perhaps it was not public is the notation below the title of the document at Tab E, “not for public disclosure”. Because both Tab E and Tab D relate to the same proceeding, the Lawyer argues the Colorado court did not want either the transcript or what looks like a court form to be public, based on the language in Tab E.

30The Lawyer did not put forward any authorities in support of his position on the issue of limiting openness.

31In the circumstances, we do not consider that a serious risk to an important public interest has been engaged with respect to Tab D. As noted, we do not have any evidence suggesting that the sentencing hearing was not open to the public. Even if we accept that reciprocity and judicial comity are important public interests, there does not seem to be any risk to them with respect to Tab D. Therefore, the sentencing transcript at Tab D will remain public.

32A different consideration applies to Tab E. This court form includes the notation “not for public disclosure.” Although this notation appears to be standard part of the form – that is, not something that is filled in with information particular to the case in question – it does communicate that the form itself is not to be made public. This raises an important public interest which is respecting the protocols and procedures of a court in a foreign jurisdiction. The risk to that public interest is significant because it would be a clear violation of that directive if the document were made public. In the circumstances, a not public order is necessary. The benefits of a not public order outweigh its detrimental effects on the open court principle because most, if not all of the information contained in Tab E is discussed in the transcript of the sentencing proceeding at Tab D, which is public. Therefore, the benefits of the order will outweigh its negative effects.

33Tab F does not engage a serious risk to an important public interest because the only important public interest argued by the Lawyer regarding Tab F is avoiding the disclosure of personal and medical information.

34As noted in Law Society of Ontario v Ferris, 2025 ONLSTH 24, the desire to avoid the normal stresses of disclosing personal matters in litigation is insufficient to establish an important public interest. Specifically, with respect to personal and health information, including mental health, the panel in Ferris said at para 29:

…We agree that personal health information is intrinsically sensitive and that there is still societal stigma regarding mental health issues. However, Tribunal decisions are often grounded on a licensee’s personal information, including information about the licensee’s physical or mental health. This information is often crucial to the Tribunal’s determinations on conduct, penalty or capacity: [Law Society of Upper Canada v Xynnis, 2014 ONLSAP 9], para 43. The public has a right to know the basis for the Tribunal’s decisions, even if that includes otherwise sensitive information.

35In this case, the mitigation brief at Tab F explains the factors that were considered by the court in ordering a relatively light penalty against the Lawyer. It is in part these mitigating factors that have led the parties to put forward a joint submission on penalty that is lower than one might expect for two convictions related to drug dealing. There is no risk to an important public interest and so Tab F will remain public.

36In sum, Tabs D and F are public and there will be a not public order over Tab E.

Misconduct

37Licensees are prohibited from engaging in “conduct unbecoming”. The Rules of Professional Conduct define “conduct unbecoming” as follows:

"conduct unbecoming a barrister or solicitor" means conduct, including conduct in a lawyer's personal or private capacity, that tends to bring discredit upon the legal profession including, for example,

(a) committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer,

(b) taking improper advantage of the youth, inexperience, lack of education, unsophistication, ill health, or unbusinesslike habits of another, or

(emphasis added)

38The Lawyer was convicted of two counts of distributing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. There is no doubt that a criminal conviction relating to drug possession and distribution is a basis for a finding of conduct unbecoming a licensee: Law Society of Upper Canada v Cwalino, 2015 ONLSTH 32.

39We are satisfied that the Lawyer’s criminal convictions in Colorado establish that the Lawyer engaged in criminal acts that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. The Lawyer admits the misconduct. Misconduct as alleged has been established.

Penalty

40The parties presented a joint submission on penalty, for an eight-month suspension.

41Joint submissions are important to the functioning of the justice system because they promote certainty and efficiency. They should be accepted unless they are so unreasonable that they might be viewed as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system: Law Society of Ontario v Di Giacomo, 2023 ONLSTA 5 at para 3.

42The test is often articulated as whether the joint submission is so “unhinged” from the circumstances of the offence and the offender to lead a reasonably informed person to believe that the system of justice has broken down: Di Giacomo at para 66.

43Conviction for drug offences can sometimes lead to licence revocation: e.g. Law Society of Upper Canada v Li, 2010 ONLSHP 6. However, depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender, lesser penalties have been imposed, including suspensions of various lengths.

44In Law Society v Mills, 2005 ONLSHP 5, the lawyer pleaded guilty to possessing trace amounts of cocaine for personal use. In the criminal proceeding, he was granted a conditional discharge and put on probation for 12 months. In the disciplinary hearing, the panel accepted that the lawyer had acted responsibly in getting treatment for his drug problem and in rehabilitating himself. The lawyer was found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming. He was suspended for 45 days and was required to continue therapy.

45In Law Society of Upper Canada v Gauthier, 2005 ONLSHP 8, the lawyer pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to an inmate's possession of cocaine. She failed to stop her interview with her criminal client or report to prison officials when he retrieved drugs from under the table in the interview room and hid them on his person. She lied to officials about the incident. The lawyer received a suspended sentence, was placed on probation for 24 months, and was required to do community service. She was found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming and was suspended for one month given the lack of pre-meditation, her remorse, inexperience, public disgrace, and the supports she had in place for continuing practice in family law only.

46Clearly, drug offences vary in seriousness and penalties at the Tribunal reflect those variances. In this case, given the mitigating circumstances considered by the courts in Colorado, including the Lawyer’s mental health and addiction struggles for which he received treatment, an eight-month suspension is not so unhinged from the circumstances and we accept it.

Costs

47The Law Society did not seek costs against the Lawyer and none were ordered.

Conclusion

48We therefore ordered:

The respondent’s licence to practise law is suspended immediately for eight months.
The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Paralegals Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Provide Legal Services while suspended pursuant to this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Law Society of Ontario v. Benjamin James Henry Delanghe, 2026 ONLSTH 31

Case Summary