LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: February 11, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 24H-005

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario

Applicant

• and -

Rumdeep Singh Dhillon

Respondent

Before: Sophie J. Martel (chair), Ryan Alford, Ingrid Berkeley

Heard: June 10-12, July 29-30, September 23-24, 29, October 1, 14, 2025, by videoconference

Appearances:

Bernadette Saad, for the applicant

Nader Raymond Hasan and Adam Donaldson, for the respondent

Summary:

DHILLON – Conduct Unbecoming – Professional Misconduct – Findings – The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in conduct unbecoming by obstructing a police officer and he admitted this allegation ‒ He was also alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct by failing to act with integrity in misleading the Law Society regarding three investigations, by misappropriating fees from two clients and failing to serve one of these clients ‒ The panel found that the allegations were established, making a number of credibility findings, and a hearing to consider penalty and costs is to be scheduled.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1Sophie J. Martel (for the panel):– Rumdeep Singh Dhillon was called to the bar of Ontario in 2016. He practised as a sole practitioner operating as RSD Law. He has not been practising for several years pursuant to an undertaking not to practise, dated March 22, 2021.

2The Law Society makes several allegations regarding Mr. Dhillon’s conduct at various times in 2020 and in February 2021.

3The Law Society alleges that Mr. Dhillon engaged in conduct unbecoming a licensee when he committed the criminal offence of obstructing a peace officer (Particular 1). Mr. Dhillon admits this allegation. He disputes all other allegations.

4The Law Society alleges that Mr. Dhillon failed to act with integrity on February 25, 2021, when he misled the Law Society regarding three of its investigations (Particular 2).

5The Law Society alleges that between August and September 2020, Mr. Dhillon misappropriated $1,500 in retainer fees regarding client matter GM (Particular 3). Geoffrey Msangi, who retained Mr. Dhillon on behalf of GM and his parents, is the complainant in respect of this allegation, which is at times referred to as the Msangi complaint or matter.

6The Law Society alleges that between February and April 2020, Mr. Dhillon failed to serve client SS and misappropriated at least $12,500 in retainer fees regarding the SS matter (Particulars 4 and 5).

7The credibility of Mr. Dhillon and the witnesses was a significant issue in this application. Generally, we found Mr. Dhillon’s evidence not credible and preferred the evidence of the Law Society’s witnesses.

8After considering the evidence and hearing the parties’ submissions, we find that Mr. Dhillon engaged in conduct unbecoming and professional misconduct as alleged in all the particulars of the notice of application. These are our reasons.

HOW THE HEARING UNFOLDED

9The hearing to consider all allegations was originally scheduled to commence June 9, 2025. The Law Society had difficulties confirming the availability of SS and ensuring his attendance for the June hearing dates. There was information that SS was unavailable for medical reasons but available in September. The Law Society sought an adjournment of the June dates, which Mr. Dhillon opposed. The scheduled hearing of Particulars 4 and 5, relating to SS’s complaint, were adjourned by order of the proceeding management conference adjudicator.

10We heard the following evidence in the following order:

• In June and July 2025, Geoffrey Msangi gave evidence on Particular 3 and Ms. Singroy and Mr. Dhillon gave evidence on Particulars 1 to 3.

• In June and July 2025, we also heard evidence from Amrit Singh (called by Mr. Dhillon), Ms. Singroy and Mr. Dhillon relating to Mr. Dhillon’s production of additional file documents in 2024. Amrit Singh’s last name is the same as the paralegal whom Mr. Dhillon testified assisted him in his files, Dennis (Indar) Singh. To avoid confusion, in these reasons, we at times refer to Amrit Singh and Dennis Singh by their first rather than last names.

• In September and October 2025, we heard evidence on Particulars 4 and 5 from SS, Ms. Singroy, and Mr. Dhillon. SS testified with the assistance of an English/Croatian interpreter.

11We heard final submissions on all particulars on October 14, 2025.

CONDUCT UNBECOMING

12During the afternoon of May 12, 2020, Mr. Dhillon was pulled over by a sergeant of the Ontario Provincial Police because he was driving fast and cutting across lanes. The sergeant noted that Mr. Dhillon’s driver’s licence only permitted him to operate a vehicle with an alcohol ignition interlock device, which he did not have. The sergeant demanded an approved screening device test, which Mr. Dhillon failed. Mr. Dhillon was arrested on a charge of driving with over 80 mgs of alcohol in his blood.

13Upon being arrested, Mr. Dhillon became un-co-operative with and spoke over the sergeant. He was transported to the local police detachment where he refused to exit the police vehicle, requiring the sergeant to seek assistance from other police officers to remove him from the vehicle. While in the detachment, Mr. Dhillon continued to be un-co-operative with police in the execution of their investigative duties.

14On March 14, 2022, Mr. Dhillon pleaded guilty to one count of careless driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H.8, and one count of obstructing a peace officer, contrary to s 129(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

15The 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

(c) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or conduct which undermines the administration of justice….

16Mr. Dhillon admits and we conclude that in obstructing a peace officer, he engaged in conduct unbecoming. Lawyers play an important part in the administration of justice. Mr. Dhillon, however, was disrespectful of the law and its officials. Obstructing a police officer, even when done in one’s personal capacity, undermines the administration of justice. Furthermore, it is a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer.

CREDIBILITY

17Credibility has two components: honesty, which refers to a witness’ sincerity and willingness to tell the truth, and reliability, which relates to the ability of a witness to accurately observe, recall and recount the events in question.

18In assessing the credibility of the witnesses, we have considered their ability to observe and recall the events, any interest or bias on their part, whether their evidence was internally consistent and consistent with other evidence, the plausibility of their evidence such as whether it accords with common sense and their appearance and demeanour: Re Pitts and Director of Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community & Social Services, 1985 CanLII 2053 (ON SC) at p 16-17. We recognize that demeanour alone is an unreliable predictor of the accuracy of the evidence of a witness. We also note that we may believe all, part of, or none of what a witness has said.

19We have also been guided by the reasons of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Faryna v Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252, that the truth of a witness’ story must be evaluated against what a practical and informed person would recognize as reasonable in similar circumstances:

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions.

MISLEADING THE LAW SOCIETY

Documentary evidence

20On February 19, 2021, Graham Hanlon, the Law Society investigator then assigned to the investigations, sent three letters to Mr. Dhillon by email. Each letter dealt with a separate investigation: a capacity investigation, the Msangi matter, and the SS matter. Each letter set out a list of information that Mr. Dhillon was requested to produce no later than March 5, 2021. The letters also indicated that Mr. Hanlon wanted to arrange an interview with Mr. Dhillon to discuss the matters under investigation. Mr. Hanlon indicated that the interview would take place via Zoom and requested that Mr. Dhillon provide dates and times that he was available the weeks of March 1 or March 8, 2021. He indicated that he expected the interview to take approximately one hour.

21On February 25, 2021, at 8:47 AM, Mr. Dhillon sent an email to Mr. Hanlon in which he advised that he would be back in the city April 1, that he had taken a vacation with his fiancée, that Mr. Barry’s firm would not be representing him, and asking about Mr. Hanlon’s availability for April.

22Mr. Hanlon replied to this email that same day. He indicated that Mr. Dhillon’s email did not explain whether he had access to the requested information, whether he had access to the internet, and why he was unable to participate in a Zoom interview the first two weeks of March 2021. He also noted that Mr. Dhillon had not requested any extension for a response to each of the three files, due March 5, 2021. Mr. Hanlon asked Mr. Dhillon to provide dates he was available up to and including March 21, 2021, and to provide additional information regarding his current location, why he took the vacation, his mode of transportation, and supporting documentation regarding such information. He indicated that absent receipt of this additional information, he was unable to determine whether an extension of time to respond was appropriate. Mr. Dhillon never provided the additional information requested by Mr. Hanlon regarding his unavailability.

23Just over three hours after Mr. Dhillon sent his email of February 25, 2021, his mother called police to report that Mr. Dhillon was breaking things in her home and smelled of alcohol. Police arrived at around 12:00 PM and arrested Mr. Dhillon for mischief over $5,000. Mr. Dhillon attended court remotely for a bail hearing concerning this charge on February 26, 2021. He self-reported this criminal charge to the Law Society.

24Upon realizing that Mr. Dhillon had been arrested at his parents’ home at around noon on February 25, 2021, the Law Society opened another investigation that he may have misled the Law Society. On April 7, 2021, via his then counsel, Calvin Barry, Mr. Dhillon responded to this allegation by indicating that he was going through a tough period and was currently enrolled in in-person therapy at Edgewood Treatment Centre.

Mr. Dhillon’s evidence before the Tribunal

25In his response to the Law Society’s request to admit dated February 21, 2024, and in his oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing, Mr. Dhillon indicated that he was on his way to his fiancée’s place the morning of February 25, 2021, but then turned around and went home.

26He testified that he left his parent’s house in Brampton the morning of February 25, 2021, and was driving to Poughkeepsie, New York, where his fiancée was working as a doctor. He described this visit to his fiancée as a “make it or break it” visit because he had failed to show up when they previously made plans in 2020 and because their engagement was disintegrating.

27He testified that after driving for about two hours, he received a call from Mr. Barry telling him to check his email because the Law Society had reached out to him. Mr. Dhillon explained that he had not been checking his email account because he was then taking a break from practising, owing to his addiction-related issues. He then exited the QEW near Highway 405 and pulled over at a gas station to read his emails. It was at this time that he saw Mr. Hanlon’s emails and “erratically” replied to him. He testified that at the time that he sent the email, its contents were accurate because he was on his way to see his fiancée, where he expected to stay two to four weeks. He disputes that he was misleading the Law Society when he sent the email.

28He testified that after sending the email, he continued to drive for about 10 minutes but was thinking about whether he even had the files relating to the investigation, as most of his files were with his previous clerk, Dennis Singh.

29He became anxious wondering if he had the files and therefore decided to turn around to return home. Once home, he searched his house for 30-45 minutes, had a drink to calm down, started losing his temper and threw the dresser in his room, which is why his mother called the police.

Findings

The credibility of Mr. Dhillon’s explanation

30We do not find Mr. Dhillon’s evidence that he was on his way to Poughkeepsie to visit his fiancée credible for the following reasons.

• Mr. Dhillon’s email to Mr. Hanlon dated February 25, 2021, did not indicate that he was on his way to see his fiancée. Rather, he indicated that he had taken a vacation with his fiancée, which implies that he was already with his fiancée rather than on his way there.

• Mr. Dhillon’s testimony at the hearing of being on his way to Poughkeepsie, New York, is inconsistent with his response given through his then lawyer on April 7, 2021. In response to whether he misled the Law Society, Mr. Dhillon then explained that he was going through a rough period and that he enrolled in therapy at Edgewood. He did not indicate on April 7, 2021, that he was on his way to visit his fiancée. Even if it was true that he was going through a rough time, a reasonable person, aware of all circumstances, would have explained that he was on his way to take a vacation with his fiancée as soon as given the opportunity to do so.

• Mr. Dhillon’s testimony is also inconsistent with the evidence he provided when interviewed on August 4-5, 2022, by Analisa Singroy, the Law Society investigator who took over from Mr. Hanlon. During the interview, which he attended with his then counsel, Mr. Dhillon was asked to give the details surrounding his arrest on February 25, 2021, and to “go into as much details as possible.” Mr. Dhillon replied, “basically when I found out about the complaints from the Law Society, I had been drinking and I basically went home and I really just lost it in my room.” While he also indicated that he was then dealing with a lot, including a failed engagement and Dennis Singh’s passing, at no time did Mr. Dhillon advise Ms. Singroy during the two-day interview that he was on his way to see his fiancée when he found out about the complaints. Rather, he indicated that he had been drinking when he found out.

• Mr. Dhillon’s evidence that he was wondering if he even had his files and that he returned home to search for them is inconsistent with other evidence he provided to us. Mr. Dhillon testified that during the pandemic he worked out of Dennis Singh’s basement, where he kept his files. Dennis unfortunately passed away in the fall of 2020. Mr. Dhillon testified that he attended Dennis’ apartment after his passing in late October 2020 to retrieve his files but was unsuccessful. If Mr. Dhillon was already aware that his files relating to the matters being investigated were most likely missing because they had been kept at Dennis’ apartment, there would be no reason for him to return home and, most significantly, to turn his room inside out looking for them.

• Given that he was likely already aware that his files were not at his parent’s home, it also is not plausible that Mr. Dhillon would interrupt his trip to see his fiancée when he had described this trip as a “make it or break it” trip because his relationship with his fiancée was disintegrating.

• Mr. Dhillon also did not have a credible explanation about his failure to make any inquiries or take any preparatory steps regarding crossing the border to New York and returning to Canada less than one year into the pandemic. He testified that he relied on his fiancée, who told him that it was fine. Other than what his fiancée allegedly told him, Mr. Dhillon had not made independent inquires as to whether there were any border restrictions, COVID-19 testing prerequisites, or quarantine requirements.

31Considering all the circumstances, Mr. Dhillon’s evidence that he was on his way to see his fiancée was not plausible. Ultimately, the more plausible explanation is that he wanted additional time to respond to the Law Society investigator and to attend an interview with him. He misled the investigator by telling him that the reason he required more time was because he was away on vacation.

Conclusion on misleading the Law Society

32Rule 2.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires that a lawyer discharge his responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity. By misleading the Law Society as to why he could not attend an interview in March, Mr. Dhillon failed to discharge his duties to the Law Society and to his profession honourably and with integrity.

33We do not accept Mr. Dhillon’s submission that the Law Society has not proven the particular because Mr. Dhillon did not specifically request an extension to the deadline for his response in his email. Particular 2 reads:

On or about February 25, 2021, the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct by failing to act with integrity when he misled the Law Society by claiming that he was away on vacation, as excuse for requiring an extension to the deadline for his response relating to three Law Society investigations, when he was not away on vacation, contrary to Rule 2.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct….

34First, by writing to Mr. Hanlon that he would be back in the city in April and asking for Mr. Hanlon’s availability in April, it is implied that Mr. Dhillon was seeking additional time to respond and to attend an interview given that Mr. Hanlon had requested that the interview be scheduled in March.

35Furthermore, it is well established that particulars in a notice of application are not to be treated like criminal indictments. This means that a notice of application should not be critiqued in an overly technical manner and that deviations between the facts alleged in the notice of application and those ultimately proven by the Society will not preclude a finding of professional misconduct, unless a licensee has been prejudiced in his/her ability to respond to the allegations: Law Society of Upper Canada v Dmello, 2013 ONLSAP 5 at para 108.

36The essence of the allegation is that Mr. Dhillon misled the Law Society by claiming that he could not attend an interview in March because he was on vacation with his fiancée when he was in fact home in Ontario. For the above reasons, we find that the Law Society has proven this allegation.

MR. DHILLON’S LAW CLERKS AND HIS PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FILE MATERIALS IN JULY 2024

Evidence

Mr. Dhillon’s evidence

37Mr. Dhillon testified that he worked with a law clerk throughout his practice. He testified that Dennis Singh was his law clerk from around 2018 to the fall of 2020. Dennis did not work exclusively for Mr. Dhillon; he also worked for other lawyers and law firms. Mr. Dhillon also hired Jamal Patterson full-time around mid to late February or early March 2020.

38When asked why he hired Mr. Patterson when he was already working with Dennis or why not hire Dennis full time, Mr. Dhillon explained that Dennis told him that he had received a great job offer with benefits, such that he recommended that Mr. Dhillon find another clerk. Given that Mr. Dhillon hired Mr. Patterson early in 2020 and that Dennis was still working for him in the fall of 2020, in cross-examination, Mr. Dhillon was asked about Dennis’ great job offer, which he had not yet started throughout 2020. Mr. Dhillon replied that Dennis indicated that he would accept the job offer in 2021.

39Mr. Dhillon testified that Mr. Patterson did not work out and he eventually left around August/September 2020. Mr. Dhillon testified that the documents he provided to the Law Society in 2021 are the materials Mr. Patterson gave him when he left. However, in July 2024, Mr. Dhillon provided additional client documents relating to the Msangi and SS files to the Law Society. By the time he submitted these documents, the investigations had been transferred to the Law Society’s discipline counsel.

40Mr. Dhillon explained that the file materials had been with Dennis but had been lost when Dennis passed away in the fall of 2020. Mr. Dhillon testified that he was able to recover these files from an acquaintance, Amrit Singh, in July 2024 and then provided them to his counsel, who provided them to the Law Society.

41Mr. Dhillon explained that he lived near Dennis, whom he described as a friend and mentor. He testified that during the pandemic, he had to relinquish the new office he had just moved into in early 2020 and began doing most of his work from Dennis’ home office located in Dennis’ basement apartment. He left the physical files at Dennis’ home office. When asked about the management of electronic files, Mr. Dhillon replied that he had a work laptop, which went between his house and Dennis’ house and that they both worked from that laptop. When specifically asked where he stored the laptop, Mr. Dhillon replied that he stored it at Dennis’ house, as he trusted him with its safekeeping.

42Around September 2020, Mr. Dhillon decided to lessen his workload to address personal issues and did not take on further clients. As a result, he spent less time at Dennis’ house.

43Dennis passed away on October 31, 2020. Mr. Dhillon testified that his laptop and some of his physical files were at Dennis’s apartment at the time of his passing. When asked whether he had tried to retrieve his files and laptop from Dennis when he made the decision to lessen his workload in September 2020 and prior to Dennis’ passing, Mr. Dhillon responded that at that time, he trusted Dennis and Dennis’ home office. As such, he thought it would be acceptable to leave his files with him.

44After Dennis’ passing, around mid to late November, Mr. Dhillon went to Dennis’ apartment seven to eight times, hoping to run into someone. He indicated that the landlords, who lived on the main floor of Dennis’ basement apartment, did not want him to knock on their door. He was never able to retrieve his laptop or his files from the apartment.

45In January 2024, when he felt he had made sufficient progress with his addiction issues, he started attending the same bars and restaurants that he had previously attended with Dennis in the hope that he would run into a friend who might have contact information for Dennis’ mother, who lived in New York. He was hoping to contact her to ask if she had any of Dennis’ possessions.

46Around March or April 2024, he ran into Amrit Singh and told him that he was looking to get in touch with Dennis’ mother. Amrit replied that after Dennis’ passing, he had gone to Dennis’ house and noticed that things were being thrown out. At that time, he picked up a box of files he thought looked important but was now unsure if he still had the box.

47Mr. Dhillon testified that it took him weeks and months of badgering and pestering Amrit before he finally advised that he had located the files. Amrit left the box on his doorstep and Mr. Dhillon collected it on July 10, 2024. In the box were the Msangi and SS files as well as three old real estate files.

48Mr. Dhillon testified that he brought the files to his lawyer’s office where they were photocopied and the originals returned to him. However, he has since misplaced these paper files. He explained that his family hosted two weddings at his house such that the files have been misplaced anew. As a result, Mr. Dhillon is unable to provide the Law Society and the Tribunal with the original documents.

49Mr. Dhillon acknowledged that he did not advise the Law Society that he was missing files when he first responded in writing to the complaints via Mr. Barry in 2021 and when interviewed by Ms. Singroy in August 2022. He explained that he felt hopeless about being able to recover the files and did not want to admit to the Law Society that he had misplaced files and records. He testified that he had not done a good job in the interview because he was frustrated and let his emotions get the better of him. He indicated that he was curt in his responses.

50Mr. Dhillon testified that he has also not been able to produce electronic files. He testified that while he had a laptop, he did not use a computer server when he practised. His emails were on GoDaddy, and he has not been able to retrieve his emails once his account was closed after he failed to pay its fee. He was also unable to retrieve his laptop.

Amrit Singh’s evidence

51Amrit Singh also provided testimony about the box of files allegedly recovered from Dennis’ former residence.

52He testified that he is both a truck driver and realtor. He first met Dennis at a local bar and knew that Dennis worked with lawyers. He believed him to be a paralegal. He met Mr. Dhillon through Dennis. He described Dennis as a friend and Mr. Dhillon as an acquaintance.

53Sometime in 2020, Amrit heard that Dennis had passed away. However, since none of his acquaintances appeared to be sure of Dennis’ passing, he decided to drive by his residence, a rented basement apartment, to confirm his passing. When he drove by, he noticed that the landlords, an older couple, were throwing away Dennis’ possessions. Amrit spoke with the couple, who confirmed that Dennis had passed away and that they were putting his belongings at the end of the driveway for garbage collection.

54Among the articles by the curb was a box that appeared to contain files with personal information. Given his background as a realtor and his belief that Dennis had assisted several lawyers on closing, Amrit felt that this material was not something you should leave at the end of the driveway. After confirming with the landlords that they were throwing it out, he decided to take the box and put it in his car. He kept it in his car for a while, as he thought he might run into someone Dennis had worked with, which would facilitate a transfer of the box into the right hands.

55Eventually, having not met anyone, Amrit testified that he put the box in his basement. He ran into Mr. Dhillon around March or April of 2024 and spoke with him about Dennis. Mr. Dhillon asked him if he knew anyone who had Dennis’ files and he replied that he had a box. Amrit testified that Mr. Dhillon asked him several times to locate the box, but with his busy truck driving schedule, Amrit did not place much importance in searching for the box and giving it to Mr. Dhillon. He testified that Mr. Dhillon kept pestering him a couple times a week, so eventually Amrit located the box in his basement. They then discussed coordinating a pick-up, which also took some time given Amrit’s busy truck driving schedule. Amrit left the box on his porch under the table and told Mr. Dhillon he could pick it up whenever was convenient. He did not see Mr. Dhillon pick up the box and did not speak to him again.

56In cross-examination, Amrit was asked about his work history and when he became a realtor. He replied that he completed his real estate agent course in 2021 but did not sign up with a real estate firm until 2022.

57In cross-examination, Amrit acknowledged that there were lawyers in his wife’s family, but that he never reached out to them for assistance. He explained that he did not know them well at that time. Later, after he became better acquainted with them, he did not place much importance on the box and its contents.

Evidence from Mr. Msangi and SS

58While the files produced in July 2024 include copies of documents allegedly sent to Mr. Msangi and SS, both denied ever receiving such documents.

Conclusion

59We conclude that the documents produced in July 2024 allegedly found in a missing box are not authentic and contemporaneous with the events.

60The evidence regarding the late discovery of the box of materials is not credible for the following reasons:

• Mr. Dhillon’s explanation for having two sets of documents because the documents were stored with two different law clerks is not credible. First, the reason for having two law clerks is not plausible. Mr. Dhillon testified that he took on another law clerk because Dennis had received a great job offer. Yet, despite this offer being lucrative with benefits, Dennis never started this job in 2020. Mr. Dhillon’s explanation that Dennis would wait until the new year (months away from the hiring of Mr. Patterson) to start this purportedly great job was not credible. Second, Mr. Dhillon’s evidence that Dennis and Mr. Patterson each held portions of the file was inconsistent with other evidence given at the hearing, namely while Dennis and Mr. Patterson each opened their own files on the same client, they occasionally got together and joined the files.

• Mr. Dhillon testified that after Dennis’ death, he went to the apartment seven or eight times yet failed to obtain any information about Dennis’ possessions. Amrit went to Dennis’ apartment once, which just happened to be the day the landlords were putting his possessions by the curb. Amrit’s one-time discovery is an unlikely coincidence, especially when viewed in conjunction with the other unlikely circumstances.

• Amrit testified that it was because of his background as a realtor that he picked up the box of materials, because he felt that this kind of information should not be left by the curb. However, when Amrit picked up the box in 2020, he was not yet a realtor, since he only completed his real estate agent course in 2021 and signed up with a real estate firm in 2022.

• While Amrit felt that the documents were important enough not to be left by the curb in 2020 and that he kept them in his car for some time hoping to run into someone to give them to, he later had to be pestered many times by Mr. Dhillon before retrieving the box and making pick-up arrangements. Furthermore, while he felt uncomfortable leaving the box by the curb at Dennis’ place, he left the box outside on his porch for Mr. Dhillon to pick up whenever was convenient. There was no direct person-to-person transfer.

• Mr. Dhillon never advised the Law Society throughout the investigation that he was missing files.

• While Mr. Dhillon spent a lot of time in 2020 and in 2024 searching for his missing files and has relied on these documents in his defence, after lending them to his counsel to make copies, he brought the originals home and misplaced them. If he felt these documents were indeed so important, he would have ensured they were kept somewhere safe. The fact that he can no longer produce the file materials means that the originals are not available for the Law Society or for us to review.

• Mr. Dhillon provided inconsistent evidence regarding his search for Dennis’ mother. He testified that in 2024, he went searching for someone who knew Dennis’ mother so that he could ask her about Dennis’ possessions. However, at another point in his testimony when asked if Dennis had been ill for a period of time or died suddenly, he replied that he had tried to ask Dennis’ mother when he spoke to her around the time of Dennis’ passing but that she could not confirm how he had died. As submitted by the Law Society, Mr. Dhillon’s conversation with Dennis’ mother at the time of his death was an ideal opportunity to ask her about Dennis’ possessions, and far more rational than waiting until 2024 to go from bar to bar trying to track down someone who knew how to get in touch with Dennis’ mother.

61In our reasons relating to the Msangi and SS complaints, we provide further reasons regarding the actual contents of the box and how in our view they are not authentic and contemporaneous with the events.

MSANGI COMPLAINT

62The Law Society alleges that Mr. Dhillon misappropriated $1,500 in retainer fees that were wire transferred from GM’s family. The Law Society alleges that Mr. Dhillon kept all the funds without having performed any legal services for the potential client. Mr. Dhillon’s response is that he had done legal work prior to receiving the funds through the wire transfer.

Evidence

Summary of Mr. Msangi’s evidence August 10-12, 2020

63In August 2020, Mr. Msangi sought to retain Mr. Dhillon on behalf of an accused person, GM, who had been arrested. Mr. Msangi, originally from Tanzania, works in Canada assisting newcomers to Canada. GM was a foreign student, from Tanzania, enrolled at the University of Waterloo.

64Mr. Msangi obtained information that GM may have been arrested by Waterloo police, but he was unable to ascertain his whereabouts because the police advised that they could only disclose this information to a lawyer.

65In consultation with GM’s parents, who lived in Tanzania, Mr. Msangi sought to retain a criminal lawyer to ascertain GM’s whereabouts. He found Mr. Dhillon’s law firm through a Google search.

66Mr. Msangi called RSD Law on August 10, 2020, and spoke with Jamal Patterson. Mr. Patterson quoted an hourly rate of $300 during the call. According to Mr. Msangi, he only spoke with Mr. Patterson on August 10, 2020 and in the following days. He did not speak with Mr. Dhillon either on August 10, 2020, or in the immediate days afterward. He denies being quoted an hourly rate other than $300.

67Mr. Msangi testified that he had discussions with Mr. Patterson about the necessary steps regarding GM’s matter. He testified that Mr. Patterson informed him that they required a deposit of $1,500, which would then be followed by a signed retainer agreement, after which they could attempt to locate GM.

68Mr. Msangi also testified that they had some discussions about how to pay the $1,500 retainer given that GM’s parents were in Tanzania. Eventually it was agreed that GM’s parents would transfer the money to RSD Law through a Western Union wire transfer.

69During the morning of August 12, 2020, Mr. Msangi provided Mr. Patterson with the Western Union receipt and advised that they could now collect the money.

70Around the same time, the University of Waterloo also became involved in GM’s whereabouts and his legal issues. According to Mr. Msangi, the University advised that GM was eligible for a legal aid lawyer. On August 12, 2020, at 2:54 PM (the same day that the Western Union transfer was sent), Mr. Msangi sent an email to Mr. Patterson asking him to stay put for now because he had found out that the university where GM attended was assisting with retaining a lawyer through Legal Aid. Mr. Msangi also advised that GM was being held at Maplehurst in Milton:

Hi Jamall,

There is an update that I consider important. Apparently, the school where our accused go has helped him with acquiring a lawyer through Legal Aid. He also qualifies for Legal Aid. The other lawyer is scheduled to meet him tomorrow. I have asked for plans to go meet him as well. He is currently being held at Maplehurst in Milton.

I would, therefore, ask you to stay put for now till I gave you a go-ahead depending on the discussion with him.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the incovenience [sic].

71Mr. Msangi testified that his understanding from his conversations with Mr. Patterson prior to August 12, 2020, is that no work had been performed as of 2:43 PM on August 12, 2020, because he had been advised that the law firm first needed the deposit and a signed retainer before doing any work. There is no dispute that there is no signed retainer.

72Mr. Msangi also testified that he was able to check the status of the wire transfer and from his recollection, both GM’s father and he verified that the Western Union transfer money had not yet been collected when he sent the email to Mr. Patterson asking the law firm to hold off.

Summary of Mr. Dhillon’s evidence August 10-12, 2020

73Mr. Dhillon testified that Mr. Msangi called RSD Law on August 10, 2020, and spoke with Mr. Patterson, Mr. Dhillon’s law clerk. He agrees that Mr. Patterson quoted Mr. Msangi an hourly rate of $300 during that call. Mr. Dhillon testified that he corrected the hourly rate to $400 during a subsequent phone call with Mr. Msangi that same day.

74Mr. Dhillon testified that he himself spoke with Mr. Msangi on August 10, 2020, after Mr. Msangi’s telephone conversation with Mr. Patterson. He testified that he had one conversation with him on August 10 and one or two conversations with him on August 11, 2020. He testified that given the urgency of the situation, he immediately began to make calls to police stations and correctional facilities on August 10 and August 11, 2020, prior to receipt of the retainer.

75Mr. Dhillon does not dispute that Mr. Msangi sent the email of August 12, 2020, asking the firm to cease its efforts, but testified that he did not see it prior to attending at Western Union to obtain the funds.

Evidence of events after August 12, 2020

76Mr. Msangi subsequently sent an email to Mr. Patterson on August 31, 2020, thanking him for his firm’s willingness to assist and advising that the client was now represented by different legal counsel. He asked the firm to return the retainer funds by e-transfer to his email address. Mr. Msangi testified that he intended to then forward that money to GM and his family.

77Mr. Msangi did not receive a response to his email of August 31, 2020. He later texted Mr. Dhillon to advise that the parents and accused had decided to take a different route in this matter. He indicated that his texts and emails to Mr. Patterson had gone unanswered and asked Mr. Dhillon for his email address.

78While Mr. Msangi could not recall speaking to Mr. Dhillon on the phone until after he stopped being able to communicate with Mr. Patterson, there is documentary evidence of a text exchange between him and Mr. Dhillon on August 19, 2020. Mr. Dhillon texted him asking that he keep him updated and to give his phone number to GM’s parents. Mr. Msangi replied that he had passed the information to them and was awaiting their answer.

79Mr. Msangi and Mr. Dhillon both testified that they had a telephone conversation on September 10, 2020. Mr. Msangi testified that the conversation became unpleasant once Mr. Dhillon realized that his firm was not retained and that the clients expected their money back. Mr. Dhillon testified that while Mr. Msangi told him they wanted the $1,500 returned, he updated Mr. Msangi as to what he had done and how he could not see himself returning the money for work already done.

80Following their conversation, on September 11, 2020, Mr. Msangi sent a letter to Mr. Dhillon by email. Mr. Msangi recounted his conversations with Mr. Patterson, in particular his instructions on August 12, 2020, to hold off and his request to refund the money. He recounted having finally gotten a hold of Mr. Dhillon on September 10, 2020, only to be told that the retainer fee was gone because he had made calls inquiring about the accused’s whereabouts and spent two hours in line at Western Union to retrieve the money. Mr. Msangi proposed that Mr. Dhillon claim one hour of services, amounting to $300 and requested the balance of $1,200.

81Mr. Dhillon did not respond to this letter and Mr. Msangi filed a complaint with the Law Society.

Evidence about GM’s name

82There was evidence from both Mr. Msangi and Mr. Dhillon as to whether Mr. Dhillon was provided with GM’s name prior to August 12, 2020.

83Mr. Msangi testified that he never gave GM’s name to Mr. Patterson or Mr. Dhillon, such that it would have been impossible for Mr. Dhillon to inquire about GM’s whereabouts. Mr. Dhillon, on the other hand, testified that Mr. Msangi gave him GM’s full name during their first phone call on August 10, 2020. As noted earlier, Mr. Msangi denies talking on the phone with Mr. Dhillon on August 10, 2020.

84The wire receipt of August 12, 2020, includes the last name of GM’s father such that Mr. Dhillon would have had information regarding GM’s last name as of that date.

Documents submitted by Mr. Dhillon to the Law Society on May 31, 2021

85In his first written response to the Msangi complaint, sent through his then lawyer on May 31, 2021, Mr. Dhillon denied removing money from trust. He explained that the funds received were not deposited into the trust account because they were funds for services already rendered. He indicated that a significant number of calls and inquiries were made before the money was received and that he did not put in further billable work after he learned about Mr. Msangi’s changed instructions.

86Mr. Dhillon attached the client file to his correspondence of May, 31, 2020. The attached information includes a signed statement of account dated September 10, 2020, which states that two hours were spent locating the accused and two hours spent at Western Union:

September 10, 2020

Statement of Account

2 hours x $400/hour – Aug 10 2020 – locating accused

2 hours x $400/hour – Aug 12 2020 – Western Union

There is a balance of $100 remaining on account as we have received $1,500 via Western Union.

87Mr. Msangi testified that he never received this statement of account.

Documents submitted to the Law Society in July 2024 (the recovered box)

88As noted earlier, in July 2024, Mr. Dhillon provided additional documents relating to this file. These materials include a document entitled, “internal Running MEMO,” a letter to Mr. Msangi dated August 11, 2020, and an invoice dated September 15, 2020.

Letter of August 11, 2020

89The letter of August 11, 2020, addressed to Mr. Msangi but with no contact information for him, is a reporting letter that sets out the progress made on the file. It states that that on August 10 and 11, 2020, Mr. Dhillon made several phone calls to various police stations and correctional facilities, but all denied GM’s presence there. However, Maplehurst Correctional Complex (Maplehurst) indicated that it could neither confirm nor deny information about GM and asked for Mr. Dhillon’s credentials. The letter states that this made Mr. Dhillon think, based on past experience, that GM may be at Maplehurst but may already have retained a lawyer.

90Mr. Msangi denies receiving the letter dated August 11, 2020.

Internal running memo

91The internal running memo sets out the calls made and actions taken on various dates between August 10 to September 15, 2020 in the Msangi matter. It outlines the phone calls allegedly made by Mr. Dhillon on August 10 and 11, 2020, to various police stations and correctional facilities.

92Mr. Dhillon explained that he started the practice of an internal running memo once Mr. Patterson came on board. The objective was to allow the three of them (Mr. Patterson, Dennis, and Mr. Dhillon) to stay on top of their files.

93Mr. Dhillon’s evidence regarding the purpose of the running memo was further probed during cross-examination given that Mr. Dhillon did not have a shared computer server and that at various times Dennis, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Dhillon were working at different locations. Mr. Dhillon testified that when Mr. Patterson initially came on board in early 2020, they were working in an office. Dennis, however, was working on his own in his home office. Then, when the pandemic arrived, Mr. Dhillon gave up the office and started working in Dennis’ home office. Mr. Patterson, however, did not work in Dennis’ office. He worked at his own home. Furthermore, while Mr. Patterson had a cell phone to answer calls, he did not have a computer; when needed, he used Mr. Dhillon’s laptop.

94Mr. Dhillon’s explanation was that the plan for the internal memo was to keep Mr. Patterson in the loop with the intention that whoever had the laptop would input the information, print the memo and place it in the physical file. Mr. Dhillon acknowledged that the memo did not achieve what it was supposed to do and that most of the information inputted in the memo was done by Dennis, sometimes as dictated by Mr. Dhillon.

Invoice of September 15, 2020

95The invoice of September 15, 2020, indicates that 5.5 hours were spent for professional services rendered:

• 1.4 hours on August 8, 2020 for phone calls to client and various police stations.

• 1.6 hours on August 11, 2020 for phone calls to client and various correctional facilities.

• 0.5 hours on August 11, 2020 for draft letter to client regarding update.

• 2.0 hours on August 12, 2020 for collecting funds at Western Union.

96The invoice provides an hourly rate of $400 per hour but indicates that no amount was charged for the two hours spent at Western Union. The service total is $1,400, plus $195 HST, minus $95 discount, for a total invoice owing of $1,500.

97The invoice is addressed to Mr. Msangi but provides no address (email or street address) for Mr. Msangi and does not indicate how the invoice was sent.

98Mr. Dhillon testified that the invoice he provided to the investigator in 2021 (the one that invoiced the client $800 for waiting in line at Western Union) was never sent to the client. Rather, he asserted that the above quoted invoice is the one that was to be sent to the client. He testified that the first invoice was merely an “exercise” for Mr. Patterson, which Dennis was to review. According to Mr. Dhillon, the system then in place was for Mr. Patterson to run everything by Dennis. While Mr. Dhillon spent two hours at Western Union, upon doing some research, Dennis and he realized that they could not charge for this time. Mr. Dhillon testified that the corrected invoice, shown above, is the invoice he told Mr. Patterson to send to Mr. Msangi although he does not know if Mr. Patterson in fact did so.

99Mr. Msangi testified that he never received the invoice of September 15, 2020.

Factual findings

100Mr. Msangi’s evidence is that no work was done before August 12, 2020, because he had been told that nothing would be done until the law firm received the retainer deposit and a signed retainer agreement. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Mr. Dhillon to make the calls he alleges he made on August 10 and 11, 2020, because he did not then have GM’s name to search for his whereabouts.

101Mr. Dhillon’s evidence is that he was given GM’s full name on August 10, 2020, and because of the urgency of the situation, immediately started searching for GM’s whereabouts.

102We found the evidence of Mr. Msangi credible. Mr. Msangi was trying to assist GM, a foreign student. He testified that his motivation at the time was to assist a young man in trouble whose parents were anxious to locate him. Mr. Msangi is not the one who provided $1,500 to Mr. Dhillon, such that he has minimal interest in this matter. His interest is limited to the sense of responsibility he feels for having facilitated GM’s family’s referral to Mr. Dhillon.

103While Mr. Msangi was questioned about how he knew GM’s father, Mr. Msangi testified that he had no relationship with GM’s parents and did not then know who GM’s father was nor the position he held in the Tanzanian government. Even when he came to know GM’s father better, Mr. Msangi refuted the suggestion put to him that GM’s father was a “prominent” figure in Tanzania; rather, he described him as a presidential appointee in a bureaucratic position.

104In contrast to Mr. Msangi’s evidence, we found Mr. Dhillon’s evidence not credible. We find that he did not make any calls to any police station or correctional facility prior to being advised not to do any work on August 12, 2020.

105Much of Mr. Dhillon’s defence relies on the documents he produced in July 2024. These documents are inconsistent with the documents he provided on May 31, 2021, and with the evidence he provided in his interview with Ms. Singroy.

106For example, he provided inconsistent statements of account. The one provided on May 31, 2021 indicates that he charged two hours searching for GM on August 10, 2020 and two hours waiting at Western Union. The statement of account dated September 15, 2020, provided in July 2024, indicates that he spent three hours searching for GM and half an hour drafting a letter. While it also states that he did not charge for these two hours.

107At the hearing, Mr. Dhillon testified that the first account, the one dated September 10, 2020, was not sent because it was not satisfactory. However, during his interview with Ms. Singroy on August 4, 2022, he stated that he told Mr. Patterson to send the account but did not know if he had done so.

108Mr. Dhillon provided inconsistent evidence as to whether he charged the client for standing in line two hours at Western Union. At the hearing, relying on his second statement of account, he testified that the did not charge the client for standing in line for two hours. During his interview with Ms. Singroy on August 4, 2022, he answered yes in response to whether he had charged $400 per hour for the two hours that he was at Western Union.

109Mr. Dhillon’s explanation at the hearing for the two different statements of account was not credible. While he testified that the first statement of account was done by Mr. Patterson as an exercise that required a review by Dennis, the statement of account includes Mr. Dhillon’s signature. There is no credible explanation for Mr. Dhillon to have signed the statement if it was not satisfactory or still required Dennis’ approval. There is also no explanation for the different amount of time noted on the two statements of account. The first statement indicates two hours were spent searching for the accused while the second indicates three hours were spent searching for the accused.

110The more plausible explanation is that offered by the Law Society: that both statements of account were fabricated. Once Mr. Dhillon realized that he could not charge two hours for waiting at Western Union, he changed his previously fabricated account. As noted earlier, we found Mr. Msangi’s evidence credible and accept his testimony that he did not receive any statement of account – neither the first nor second statement. Furthermore, it is unclear how Mr. Patterson could even create an invoice, given that he was not working with a computer, shared file, or in the same location as Dennis and Mr. Dhillon.

111We also do not accept that Mr. Dhillon wrote and sent a reporting letter to Mr. Msangi on August 11, 2020. That letter does not include any contact information for Mr. Msangi nor does it indicate how it was sent. Mr. Msangi denied receiving this letter. Furthermore, as submitted by the Law Society, if Mr. Msangi had received the letter of August 11, 2020, there would have been no need for him to write to RSD Law on August 12, 2020, to tell them to cease all work.

112The existence of a reporting letter is also inconsistent with other parts of Mr. Dhillon’s testimony at the hearing. Mr. Dhillon testified that during his telephone conversation with Mr. Msangi on September 10, 2020, in response to Mr. Msangi’s request for the return of the $1,500, he updated Mr. Msangi as to what he had done and asserted that he could not see himself returning the money for work already done. It would not be necessary for Mr. Dhillon to “update” Mr. Msangi if he had already updated him by means of a reporting letter.

113Mr. Dhillon’s evidence at the hearing, namely that he knew GM’s first and last name as of August 10, 2020, was also inconsistent with the evidence provided in his interview with Ms. Singroy on August 4, 2022. During that interview, in response to whether he had the name of the person (GM), he answered, “I did have the last name. I didn’t have the first name.”

114The Law Society’s position is that Mr. Dhillon only found out about GM’s full name after he was provided with discovery in this matter because a document found in the discovery materials references GM’s full name. Relying on R. v Chacon-Perez, 2022 ONCA 3 at paras 114-115, Mr. Dhillon submitted that it is unlawful for the Law Society to characterize his testimony as suspect or unworthy of belief because he received disclosure, which is a fundamental right. It is not necessary for us to decide if the reasoning in Chacon-Perez applies to this proceeding. Our reasoning for discounting Mr. Dhillon’s evidence regarding his knowledge of GM’s full name rests on our finding that he provided inconsistent evidence to Ms. Singroy and to us. We make no finding that he tailored evidence based on disclosure.

115In his defense, Mr. Dhillon relied on Mr. Msangi’s acknowledgement in his letter of September 11, 2020, and at the hearing that Mr. Dhillon had likely made some calls. After several questions in cross-examination on this issue, however, Mr. Msangi clarified that the only suggestion put to him by counsel he could agree with regarding Mr. Dhillon’s time spent on the file was that he had to go and collect the money at Western Union and spent a few moments here and there in communications with him. He disagreed with the suggestions put to him about other time spent by Mr. Dhillon on the file. While Mr. Msangi had proposed to Mr. Dhillon to claim one hour of his services, Mr. Msangi explained that in doing so, he was trying to be considerate and appreciative of his efforts.

Conclusion

116Mr. Dhillon submitted that at most, the Msangi complaint is a fee dispute (whether the fee was justified for the work performed) rather than misappropriation. We disagree. We have concluded that Mr. Dhillon did not perform the work he says he did.

117Tribunal jurisprudence has defined misappropriation as the unauthorized use of client property by a lawyer or paralegal, whether done knowingly, recklessly or with willful blindness: Law Society of Ontario v Wilkins, 2021 ONLSTA 15 at para 82. There is an important distinction between taking retainer monies without having done the work for which the monies were advanced and a dispute as to whether a fee is justified for work actually performed.

118We do not accept that Mr. Dhillon used the funds to locate GM. Rather, we find that he knowingly used the funds without having done the work. The client’s instructions were to hold off on the matter, and we accept that these instructions were given prior to work being done. While a very limited amount of time may have been spent by Mr. Patterson (up to August 12, 2020) and with Mr. Dhillon (after August 12, 2020), in calls with Mr. Msangi, such time does not account for the greater part of the $1,500 retainer. Without having to decide whether Mr. Dhillon could have charged for these calls, we conclude that Mr. Dhillon misappropriated the majority of the $1,500 entrusted to him by GM’s father.

SS MATTER

119The Law Society alleges that between February and April 2020, Mr. Dhillon misappropriated at least $12,500 of retainer fees and failed to provide the legal services he was retained to provide in relation to SS’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) matter.

Oral evidence

Summary of SS evidence

120SS testified that after finding him through the internet, he contacted Mr. Dhillon by phone seeking to retain him for his WSIB matter. SS was injured in a workplace accident in 2011 while working as a truck driver. He subsequently had a long history with the WSIB, during which he sought various benefits because of his accident.

121While SS testified that he needed a criminal lawyer because he had been the victim of a criminal act, he was also quite specific in his testimony that he told Mr. Dhillon that he needed help “for L4¹ and pain and suffering,” which he explained he had never gotten from his previous lawyer, Mr. Fink (of the firm of Fink & Bornstein). He denied retaining Mr. Dhillon for anything other than L4 and pain and suffering. While he agreed that he and his wife (who worked for the same employer) had been harassed and abused by their employer’s employees and that he mentioned this abuse to Mr. Dhillon, he denied hiring Mr. Dhillon to assist with the past harassment and bullying of either him or his wife.

122SS testified that before contacting Mr. Dhillon, “2,000 lawyers” had refused to accept his case. Mr. Dhillon agreed to take on his case over the phone and requested money to start and subsequently to continue looking into his matter.

123Starting around the early spring, when it was still chilly outside, SS testified that he gave Mr. Dhillon a total of $15,000 on four occasions. He described each encounter as brief, having never lasting more than 30 minutes. Three of the payments were in cash and the final payment of $15,000 was by certified cheque:

1. During their first phone conversation, SS testified that Mr. Dhillon told him that he required $5,000 and would attend SS’s apartment building in Mississauga to collect the money. Mr. Dhillon attended outside his apartment building and SS gave him $5,000 in cash.

2. After their first encounter, SS testified that Mr. Dhillon advised that he had started work on his case and required $2,500 to continue. They met on a street in Brampton and SS gave Mr. Dhillon $2,500 in cash.

3. SS testified that Mr. Dhillon again called him to advise that he required more money. This time, SS attended an office in Brampton, which he understood was an office that Mr. Dhillon was renting. Mr. Dhillon and another person, whom SS believed to be Mr. Dhillon’s secretary, were present. He does not know the name of the person who was with Mr. Dhillon. SS gave Mr. Dhillon another $2,500 in cash, but this time SS requested a receipt. Mr. Dhillon gave him a receipt for $2,500. SS testified that the receipt was only for the most recent payment of $2,500, and did not include the prior payments given to Mr. Dhillon. He does not know why he did not say anything when the receipt was made out for only $2,500 as he expected to receive a receipt for all the money he had given to Mr. Dhillon. SS testified that he believes that it was at this meeting that he gave Mr. Dhillon a bag of original WSIB documents. He added that he was never able to recover these documents from Mr. Dhillon.

4. Prior to their fourth encounter, SS testified that Mr. Dhillon called him to advise that he needed an additional $5,000. SS attended his bank to obtain a certified cheque for $5,000 made out to RSD Law. SS explained that while he had previously given Mr. Dhillon cash, he decided to give Mr. Dhillon a cheque because he wanted evidence of having given him money. SS testified that Mr. Dhillon met him outside his bank and that Mr. Dhillon was somewhat nervous about receiving a cheque instead of cash. According to SS, Mr. Dhillon told him that a cheque requires him to go to the bank to withdraw money, which is a loss of time and money.

124SS testified that he did not have any further contact with Mr. Dhillon after this last meeting. He called him but never received an answer. SS also went to the office he had previously attended, but the person he believes to be the owner of the office told him that Mr. Dhillon was no longer working there.

Summary of Mr. Dhillon’s evidence

125Mr. Dhillon testified that SS retained him for two matters: his WSIB claim and a harassment and bullying claim against employees of his former employer. He testified that SS gave him a total of $10,000: two cash payments of $2,500 each (on March 2 and 18, 2020, respectively) and one certified cheque payment of $5,000, received on April 27, 2020.

126Mr. Dhillon denied ever receiving $5,000 cash in front of SS’s apartment building or on a street in Brampton. He testified that his first meeting with SS occurred at his office on March 2, 2020, at which time he obtained photocopies of SS’s driver’s licence and passport. At this meeting, SS only discussed his claims against his former employer. SS gave him $2,500 in cash. Mr. Dhillon agreed that he should have put this money in trust and that he had failed to do so.

127Mr. Dhillon testified that he did not hear of SS’s WSIB matter until their second meeting on March 9, 2020. He testified that it is at this meeting that he gave SS a receipt for $2,500 (for the money received on March 2, 2020). Mr. Dhillon quoted him a flat fee of $5,000 for each matter.

128Mr. Dhillon testified that he worked on both matters: the claims against the previous employer and the WSIB claim. He wrote two demand letters to SS’s previous employer. However, he testified that while SS wanted to sue his previous employer, he was not up front with Mr. Dhillon about his wife’s desire to participate in the litigation. At their meeting of March 18, 2020, Mr. Dhillon testified that SS told him that he was not speaking to his wife and that she would not join him in the matter.

129Mr. Dhillon testified that he met with SS six times: four meetings were scheduled meetings and two occurred when SS appeared spontaneously at his office in March 2020. The meetings lasted between 30 to 75 minutes.

130Mr. Dhillon testified that while at one point he decided to stop working on SS’s file (because SS was abusive to his staff), after having Mr. Patterson prepare a disengagement letter on April 15, 2020, he decided not to send it because SS had calmed down and apologized for erupting during a phone call with Mr. Patterson. A couple of days later, Dennis also brought to his attention a medical report in SS’s WSIB file, which suggested mental health issues that might explain SS’s challenging behaviour.

131Mr. Dhillon denied obtaining the WSIB file from SS; rather, he testified that he obtained the file from SS’s previous lawyer, Fink & Bornstein.

Documentary evidence

SS

132The documentary evidence SS gave to the Law Society includes the following.

• A bank transaction history from SS’s bank documenting a cash withdrawal of $5,000 on March 17, 2020.

• A signed but undated receipt confirming that RSD law had received $2,500 cash from SS, which reads:

This is to confirm that RSD Law has received $2,500 CAD in cash from [SS] to open and review file.

• A purchaser’s receipt for $5,000 made out to RSD law on April 25, 2020 from SS’s bank.

Mr. Dhillon

133As noted earlier, Mr. Dhillon provided the Law Society with file documents on two occasions: May 31, 2021, through his then lawyer, Mr. Barry, and in July 2024, through his new counsel.

May 31, 2021 documents

134In his written response to SS’s complaint, sent by Mr. Barry on May 31, 2021, Mr. Dhillon denied misappropriating or mishandling any trust funds. He explained that he had received $10,000 from SS for legal fees and that all monies paid had been used to cover arrears arising out of the work done on the file, which included two separate issues: reviewing a potential WSIB claim, and investigating allegations of workplace harassment and criminal conduct against SS and his wife by their former employer.

135The documents attached to the letter of May 31, 2021, include:

• Photocopies of SS’s passport and driver’s licence.

• Two letters dated March 4, 2020 and April 13, 2020, sent to SS’s former employer in respect of claims of racism, sexual assault and workplace harassment against SS and his wife. Mr. Dhillon testified that he showed SS these letters. At the Tribunal hearing, SS denied having ever seen them.

• A receipt for $2,500 cash dated March 9, 2020, but with a handwritten note, which states, “received March 2, 2020.” Mr. Dhillon acknowledged that SS had received the undated receipt (which SS had produced, as noted above) and testified that the typed and handwritten dates were added after the fact and that the new receipt was placed in the file.

• A receipt of March 18, 2020, confirming receipt of $2,500 from SS as a “retainer for his WSIB file.” The receipt further states that they are unable to copy the cheque and provide the client with a copy, but that an email will be sent with a copy of the signed receipt and cheque. The receipt is signed by Mr. Dhillon. It also includes a signature purportedly signed by SS. While SS acknowledges that this looks like his signature, he denies signing it.

• A six-page written document was produced, which begins with a date statement of “end of May 2009” and includes a handwritten note at the top, which states, “first meeting.” Mr. Dhillon testified he received this memo from SS at their first meeting. While SS recognized the memo, he denied having given it directly to Mr. Dhillon and testified that he believed Mr. Dhillon must have got it in some other manner.

• Handwritten notes for the “2nd meeting,” which states that SS’s spouse is not likely to participate in the harassment matter.

• Two statements of account dated March 30, 2020 and April 15, 2020. The first states that a flat fee of $5,000 was paid to investigate the alleged offenses and parties involved regarding SS’s former employer, while the second states that a flat fee of $5,000 was paid to review the WSIB file.

• A reporting letter dated April 15, 2020, addressed to SS, stating that RSD law had reviewed his WSIB file sent to them by SS’s prior lawyer, but that RSD Law would not be taking on the file at this time. This is the letter that Mr. Dhillon testified had been prepared, but not sent to SS.

• A document of over 1,000 pages, which appears to be SS’s WSIB file. SS testified that he gave his WSIB file to Mr. Dhillon while Mr. Dhillon testified that he obtained it from SS’s prior lawyer. SS denied signing an authorization permitting Mr. Dhillon to obtain his file from his previous lawyer.

136The documents provided on May 31, 2021, also include bank statements. Mr. Dhillon testified that he did not deposit SS’s payments in his trust account; rather, he deposited the amounts in his general account.

137The general account information shows a deposit of $2,500 on March 2, 2020, which is around the time that Mr. Dhillon testified that SS tendered funds. The general account information also shows a deposit of $5,000 on April 27, 2020, which is around the time that SS provided Mr. Dhillon with a $5,000 cheque.

138As noted by Ms. Singroy in her testimony, at the time that Mr. Dhillon deposited the $5,000 amount on April 27, 2020, his general account had a negative balance of $4,867.25. The $5,000 deposit brought his general account into a positive balance. Mr. Dhillon testified that he had overdraft protection in the amount of $5,000.

July 2024 documents

139As noted earlier, in July 2024, Mr. Dhillon provided additional documents to the Law Society related to this file. These materials are voluminous – more so than in the Msangi claim. They include:

• An internal running memo beginning with a first meeting entry on March 2, 2020, and ending on May 30, 2020, with the preparation of a statement of account. The internal running memo notes that Mr. Dhillon met with SS to discuss his matters on March 2, March 9, March 18, and April 27, 2020. It includes multiple additional entries for the review of the file and research.

• An invoice of May 30, 2020, which provides hours worked and descriptions of the work done on various dates from March 2 to May 2, 2020, yielding a total of 26.5 hours amounting to fees of $10,600, excluding HST.

• A 16-page opinion letter dated May 2, 2020, addressed to SS, regarding his WSIB claim.

• A timeline of WSIB events and several typed research notes addressing the following subjects: Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decisions (15 pages), case law for actions (23 pages), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case law (70 pages), Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions (38 pages), and WSIB authorities (six pages).

Credibility findings

140While there are reliability issues related to SS’s testimony, we ultimately found the material parts of his evidence about his dealings with Mr. Dhillon to be credible and reliable. The reliable documentary evidence supports most of his evidence.

141We found Mr. Dhillon’s evidence not credible.

Credibility of SS

142At the time of the hearing, SS was 68 years old and testified that he was in bad health. He is not well versed in video conference technology and participated from a Law Society office. He required technical assistance during the hearing. While he attended the second day of hearing to continue his testimony, he testified that he did not feel well. It was obvious that SS did not want to participate in the hearing. We reject the submission that SS’s testimony was tainted by bias because of his self-interest in seeking to recover fees paid to Mr. Dhillon from the Law Society’s Compensation Fund. In any event, given that we accept that SS paid Mr. Dhillon at least $12,500 without obtaining any services in return, it is understandable that he would want to recover these funds.

143It is apparent from the medical records found in the WSIB file that SS suffers from mental health issues. A medical report dated November 17, 2017, indicates that he suffered from paranoid ideation that had reached the level of a delusion disorder, especially in the context of his beliefs regarding the WSIB. SS’s paranoia in respect of the WSIB was evident during cross-examination in response to questions pertaining to the WSIB. After testifying that he had been in Croatia receiving treatment during the summer of 2025 (which is why he could not then attend the Law Society Tribunal hearing), SS maintained that the WSIB was following him in Croatia. Given his prolonged history with WSIB (since his accident of 2011), it is not surprising that the WSIB was a triggering and sensitive area of questioning.

144There were also issues about SS’s recall of more recent events. He initially testified that he had not had a meeting with Law Society staff prior to the Tribunal hearing even though he had spoken with Ms. Singroy by telephone in October 2022 and talked to Ms. Saad on the eve of his testimony. However, it became clear in redirect examination that SS’s understanding of the word “meeting” was limited to an in-person meeting. Neither of his meetings with Ms. Singroy or Ms. Saad had occurred in person. Furthermore, his telephone meeting with Ms. Singroy had occurred about three years prior to his Tribunal testimony, such that it is not entirely surprising that he would have forgotten it. We also note that an interpreter was not present for his interview with Ms. Singroy. From the passages of the transcript referenced by Mr. Dhillon (regarding SS’s interview with Ms. Singroy), it is evident that SS has difficulty expressing himself clearly in English.

145The Law Society referred us to several cases about assessing the credibility of a witness who suffers from a mental illness. First, the mere fact that a witness suffers from a mental illness is not a basis to reject that person’s evidence. To do so would be to give improper effect to the stereotypes and prejudices that surround mental illness (R. v Tomlinson, 2008 CanLII 8266 (ON SC) at para 7, and R. v G.M., 2017 ONCJ 346 at para 39). It is only if there is evidence that the mental illness has affected the witness’ ability to perceive or recall details that the mental illness may impact the reliability of that witness’ evidence.

146In our view, while there were some inconsistencies about the exact total amount of money SS gave to Mr. Dhillon and the timing of each payment, SS’s testimony was clear and reliable on the material issue: that he gave Mr. Dhillon money in cash and by cheque and he received nothing in return for that money. In other words, Mr. Dhillon failed to perform any services for the money SS gave him.

147We address these inconsistencies, which in our view, do not detract from SS’s overall credibility.

• In his interview with Ms. Singroy, SS indicated that the second time he gave Mr. Dhillon money was at the office location and the third time on the street in Brampton, whereas at the Tribunal hearing, these were inverted.

• Around March 15, 2021, the Law Society received additional materials in the SS complaint, on behalf of SS (although not directly from him). The materials include a typed letter dated February 17, 2020,² stating that Mr. Dhillon had taken the following amounts from him to represent him in his WSIB matter:

o CAD 5,000.00 on 17th March 2020

o CAD 2,500 on 2nd April 2020

o CAD 5,000 on 27th April 2020

SS denied having sent this letter. However, since the contents of his package also include other documents that only SS could have provided, such as the bank transaction history showing the withdrawal on March 17, 2020, and the purchaser’s receipt for the certified cheque of April 25, 2020, it is likely that the letter dated February 17, 2020 was also included in the package. Given that the materials did not come directly from SS and given SS’s difficulties with technology and the English language, we accept that someone else assisted him with the letter. As a result, we also accept that any inaccuracies are most likely explained by communication issues. In any event, SS’s recollection that he gave money to Mr. Dhillon without receiving any services in return was not shaken.

• SS was asked multiple questions in cross-examination about his encounters with Mr. Dhillon and when he gave him what amount of money at which location. He maintained throughout his Tribunal testimony, that in total, he gave Mr. Dhillon $15,000. We note that given that one of the cash payments occurred at an office where SS was provided with a receipt for $2,500, this payment likely occurred in early (rather than mid) March. Social distancing measures were put in place around mid-March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is therefore more likely that SS attended the office before such distancing measures were in place. Thus, most likely, SS first gave Mr. Dhillon $2,500 in early March and later provided him with another cash payment around March 17, 2020.

• Mr. Dhillon also alleged that SS gave inconsistent evidence about his WSIB hearing. SS testified that he gave Mr. Dhillon a full bag of documents consisting of his WSIB file, whereas it was alleged that during his interview with Ms. Singroy that he indicated he had given him four bags of documents. In our view, it matters not whether the WSIB file was in one or four bags. SS maintained that he is the one who gave Mr. Dhillon his WSIB file.

148There is supporting documentation that accords with SS’s testimony. There is documentation from his bank of a cash withdrawal on March 17, 2020. There is an undated receipt for a cash payment to Mr. Dhillon of $2,500, which Mr. Dhillon agrees he provided to SS. There is a purchaser’s receipt for $5,000 from April 2020; Mr. Dhillon agrees he received a cheque for $5,000 around this time. There is also no dispute that SS paid Mr. Dhillon at least $10,000, since Mr. Dhillon’s evidence was that SS gave him a total of $10,000.

Credibility of Mr. Dhillon

149In our view, Mr. Dhillon’s evidence was not credible.

150There were significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in his evidence.

151Mr. Dhillon testified that he should have put SS’s first payment of $2,500 in trust because he had not yet performed any work. This evidence is inconsistent with his written representation of May 31, 2021, in which he indicated that all monies paid were used to cover arrears arising out of the legal work done on the file.

152Mr. Dhillon’s evidence that he continued to work on the file after the disengagement letter of April 15, 2020, is inconsistent with the evidence he provided to Ms. Singroy during his interview in 2022. Mr. Dhillon told Ms. Singroy that he would “not be taking his file on,” and “that there would be a $5,000 flat fee just to review the file.” Mr. Dhillon explained to Ms. Singroy that the letter of April 15, 2020 was “basically” him stating that he would not take his file on, which came after a phone call with his assistant. Mr. Dhillon did not advise Ms. Singroy that he had subsequently changed his mind and that he never sent the letter of April 15, 2020. He also did not tell her that he completed research on multiple different topics as well as drafted and sent to SS a 16-page opinion letter.

153One of Mr. Dhillon’s explanations was that at the time of his interview with Ms. Singroy, he did not have the benefit of his complete file and was piecing it together such that he thought that the date of April 15, 2020 was the disengagement date. We find this explanation not credible. The interview with Ms. Singroy occurred in 2022, closer in time to the events at issue, while his testimony before us took place in 2025. If he had done as much research as the 2024 disclosed documents suggest, and if he had drafted and sent a 16-page opinion letter to Mr. SS, Mr. Dhillon would surely have recalled these things in 2022. Furthermore, his other defence, namely that he did not want to make representations that he could not support at the time of his interview with Ms. Singroy, was not credible, as such information could have assisted him in his defence.

154Mr. Dhillon’s evidence that he received SS’s WSIB file from the previous lawyer was not credible. He indicated that to obtain the file, he used the receipt of March 18, 2020, which he alleges SS signed and which confirms receipt of $2,500 from SS as a “retainer for his WSIB file.” Yet, nothing in this receipt states that SS authorized Fink & Bornstein to provide his file to RSD Law. Furthermore, there is no correspondence from Mr. Dhillon to Mr. Fink requesting the file or correspondence from Mr. Fink to Mr. Dhillon enclosing the file.

155The receipt of March 18, 2020, which confirms receipt of $2,500, states that RSD Law is unable to copy the cheque and provide the client with a copy. Mr. Dhillon’s testimony at the hearing that he received $2,500 cash on March 18, 2020, is inconsistent with the document of March 18, 2020, which suggests receipt of a cheque.

156We make no findings regarding the contents of the opinion letter and the extent to which it accurately reflects the law on various topics. We note, however, that it addresses many complex legal concepts and that there is no oral or written evidence from Mr. Dhillon that he ever discussed the letter’s contents with SS. This suggests that the letter was neither drafted nor sent to SS at the time of the relevant events.

Conclusion

157Relying on our credibility findings as detailed above, we conclude as follows.

158We accept SS’s evidence that he only retained Mr. Dhillon for his WSIB matter. While he indicated he was searching for a criminal lawyer, he explained that he believed that the WSIB treatment he received was criminal in nature, such that he required a criminal lawyer. SS’s evidence was clear that he retained Mr. Dhillon to get compensation for L4 and pain and suffering. He did not retain him to litigate against his former employer or co-workers.

159The documentary evidence, in our view, confirms that SS gave Mr. Dhillon at least $12,500. Mr. Dhillon provided him with a receipt for $2,500 in March 2020, there is a bank transaction history of a withdrawal of $5,000 cash around March 17, 2020, and there is a bank purchaser’s receipt for $5,000 made out to RSD Law on April 25, 2020.

160We conclude that Mr. Dhillon took SS’s money and failed to do any work in return. In our view, it is not necessary for us to decide whether SS gave Mr. Dhillon $12,500 or $15,000. Mr. Dhillon took SS’s money without having done the work for which it was advanced and in doing so misappropriated SS’s funds.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION

161Mr. Dhillon engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in all particulars. The Tribunal office will schedule a hearing to consider penalty and costs.

Footnotes

1. 1We understand SS’s reference to “L4” to mean the fourth vertebra of the lumbar spine.
2. 2The date is more likely intended to refer to February 17, 2021 since SS had not yet given any money to Mr. Dhillon as of February 17, 2020.