LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: March 2, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 25H-184

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario

Applicant

• and -

Afshin Yazdani

Respondent

Before: Malcolm M. Mercer (Chair)

Heard: February 6, 2026, by videoconference, and written submissions

Appearances:

Kandace Forbes, for the applicant

Respondent, self-represented

Summary:

YAZDANI – Summary Hearing – Failure to Maintain Books and Records – The By-Laws set out requirements for maintaining books and records – The Law Society provides a bookkeeping guide to assist licensees – Proper books and records are required to provide a regulatory window into legal practices – The Lawyer was suspended indefinitely pending compliance, followed by a one-month suspension – The Lawyer was also ordered to pay costs to the Law Society of $3,438.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1Malcolm M. Mercer:– This is a summary conduct application in which the Law Society alleges that Afshin Yazdani has failed to maintain books and records in compliance with By-Law 9.

2In October 2024, an investigation was instructed into Mr. Yazdani’s conduct. This was on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that he may have engaged in professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a licensee in that he:

• may have misappropriated and/or mishandled funds and/or misapplied trust monies or monies imposed with a trust;
• may have engaged in improper advertising;
• may have failed to act with honour and integrity; and
• may have failed to pay financial obligations.

3A forensic auditor was assigned to investigate. In January 2025, the investigator published 13 case requirements (CASR) to Mr. Yazdani.

4By the time this application began on December 2, 2025, ten of the CASRs had been completed. One further CASR had been completed since December 2, 2025. Two CASRs were not completed according to the Law Society, in respect of deposit slips and cash receipts.

5The Law Society’s position has been that Mr. Yazdani has not fully produced required records and that it should therefore be inferred that he has not maintained them.

6For the following reasons, I conclude that Mr. Yazdani has breached:

• section 18(10) of By-Law 9 by failing to maintain detailed duplicate deposit slips, and
• section 19(1) of By-Law 9 by failing to maintain a book of duplicate case receipts.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER RECORDKEEPING

7It is useful to start by noting the importance of proper record keeping for professional accountability and the relevant requirements of By-Law 9.

8As stated in Law Society of Ontario v Awgu, 2021 ONLSTH 3 at para 48:

The jurisprudence of this Tribunal makes clear that the maintenance of proper books and records is not an option; it is a positive obligation on every licensee. It has the same priority and ranking as services to clients. Cases have referred to these documents representing a “window into the licensee’s practice” that enables the Law Society to look at whether the public interest is being protected, and whether further steps need to be taken by the licensee or the regulator. There is no doubt that maintaining the myriad of financial documents that are required by By-Law 9 can be an onerous obligation, especially for a sole practitioner. Where they have not been maintained, the licensee’s task is to reconstruct them.

9This observation reflects the Tribunal’s consistent jurisprudence. Non-compliance with record keeping requirements “pulls down the blinds” over this important “window” and is accordingly treated seriously. The requirement is to maintain these books and records and to reconstruct them where this has not been done.

BY-LAW 9

Detailed duplicate deposit slips

10Section 18(10) of By-Law 9 provides that (emphasis added):

18. Every licensee shall maintain financial records to record all money and other property received and disbursed in connection with the licensee’s professional business, and, as a minimum requirement, every licensee shall maintain, in accordance with sections 21, 22 and 23, the following records:

19. Bank statements or pass books, images of cleared cheques and detailed duplicate deposit slips for all trust and general accounts.

11Deposit slips have long been used in making bank deposits. There are at least two copies of the deposit slip: the bank copy and the customer copy. The bank copy is left with the bank after the teller verifies the deposit and the deposit slip.

12The customer fills out the deposit slip with information such as the account number, the branch/transit number, the date of the deposit, the customer name, a breakdown of the deposit: i.e. cash (bills and coins) and cheques listed individually (amount + cheque number) and the total amount being deposited.

13The deposit slip is provided by the customer to the teller who stamps and initials the customer’s copy of the deposit slip. This copy of the deposit slip (called the duplicate deposit slip in the By-Law) provides a record of what was deposited.

14The Law Society provides a Bookkeeping Guide for Lawyers (the Guide) on its website. Section 10(b) of the Guide deals with the requirement for detailed duplicate deposit slips for general accounts. As well as providing an example of a deposit slip, the Guide states:

You should record the following information on all your copies of general deposit slips:

• date you deposit the funds
• your firm’s name if it is not preprinted
• your bank account number if it is not preprinted
• source of each receipt
• related client, if applicable
• amount

You should also ensure that the teller stamps each deposit slip. If you use an automated teller machine, attach the ATM receipt to the corresponding deposit slip, or add the source and client reference to the ATM receipt and keep it with your deposit slips.

15The intent of s 18(10) of By-Law 9 is obviously to require a comprehensive record of bank deposits made to licensees’ bank accounts.

16The Guide is helpful as to what licensees should do i.e. ensure that the licensee’s copy of the deposit slip is stamped and that, where a receipt is given, it is attached to the deposit slip.

Duplicate cash receipts book

17Section 19(1) of By-Law 9 provides that (emphasis added):

Every licensee who receives cash shall maintain financial records in addition to those required under sections 18 and 19.1 and, as a minimum additional requirement, shall maintain, in accordance with sections 21, 22 and 23, a book of duplicate receipts, with each receipt identifying the date on which cash is received, the person from whom cash is received, the amount of cash received, the client for whom cash is received and any file number in respect of which cash is received and containing the signature of the licensee or the person authorized by the licensee to receive cash and of the person from whom cash is received.

18Section 11 of the Guide deals with the required Duplicate Cash Receipts Book. The Guide states as follows and provides a sample receipt:

For each cash receipt you receive in your practice, in addition to recording it in either the trust or general receipts journal and either the client trust or general ledger, prepare a duplicate cash receipt with:

• the date you received the cash
• the name of the person who gave you the cash
• the amount of cash received
• the name of the client for whom you received the cash
• the file number if any
• your signature or that of your authorized designate
• the signature of the person who gave you the cash

Give one copy of the receipt to the person who gave you the cash, and keep one copy with your accounting records. You may also want to prepare the receipt in triplicate and keep the third copy in the client file.

By-Law 9 requires you to use reasonable efforts to obtain the signature of the person who gives you the cash. You should be wary of accepting cash from someone who does not want to sign a receipt.

Keep in mind that your staff may be reluctant to accept responsibility for receipt of cash payments. If you decide to make it a policy of your firm not to accept cash or cash over a certain amount, be sure to notify potential clients in writing before accepting their retainers.

19It is obviously particularly important to ensure a record of cash received is maintained. Unlike instruments such as cheques and bank drafts, cash transactions do not leave their own record. The requirement for the signature of the payor is obviously an important element of the cash receipt for this reason.

20Mr. Yazdani submitted that s 19(1) only applies to cash received from a client. I do not agree.

21The primary requirement in s 19(1) is that “Every licensee who receives cash shall maintain financial records in addition to those required under sections 18 and 19(1) and, as a minimum additional requirement, shall maintain, in accordance with sections 21, 22 and 23, a book of duplicate receipts …”.

22Section 19(1) goes on to detail what each receipt must identify. One of the items that must be detailed is “the client for whom cash is received”. Mr. Yazdani submits that this requirement should be read to limit the generality of s 19. I do not accept that this is the implication of these words. Taking this interpretation would be, in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of s 19 specifically and By-Law 9 generally. If cash is not received for a client, the duplicate receipt can simply say “N/A” or something to this effect.

23To repeat, proper books and records are required to provide a regulatory window into legal practices: Law Society of Upper Canada v Wysocky, 2009 ONLSHP 77. Transparency for cash transactions is particularly important given that cash cannot be traced like cheques and bank drafts. Transparency for cash transactions is particularly important given the risk of money-laundering and other problematic transactions where cash is involved.

24Mr. Yazdani’s position is that s 19(1) does not apply to cash deposits from the account holder. His submission was that one cannot receive something from oneself. There are two reasons that I do not accept this submission. The first is that the point of s 19(1) is to provide a record of cash received into the licensee’s practice. The interpretation of s 19(1) that is consistent with its purpose is that the requirement applies to all cash received into a practice. Cash can be received into a practice from the licensee. The second is that, in this case, Mr. Yazdani was not the account holder. His professional corporation was the account holder. The professional corporation can receive funds from its shareholder, whether as a loan, a repayment or on some other basis.

Receipts journals

25Section 18(5) of By-Law 9 provides that licensees are required to maintain:

A book of original entry showing all money received, other than money received in trust for a client, and identifying each date on which money is received, the method by which money is received, the amount of money which is received and the person from whom money is received.

26This requirement applies generally to monies received. The receipts journal is a requirement in addition to the requirements for cash receipts.

OVERVIEW

27Shortly before this hearing, Mr. Yazdani produced deposit slips for deposits made in 2024. These deposit slips showed cash deposits by Mr. Yazdani as shareholder’s loans to his professional corporation. Mr. Yazdani also produced deposit tickets showing that these deposits were made in cash, mostly 100 dollar bills.

28On the day of the hearing, Mr. Yazdani produced receipts journals which reflected these cash deposits by him. He did not produce cash receipts, taking the position that cash receipts are only required for cash receipts from clients.

29Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Yazdani disclosed that eight of these deposits were not from him and were not cash deposits but rather were deposits from clients by way of cheques/bank drafts. He produced revised receipts journals reflecting this. Mr. Yazdani’s position is that he inadvertently shared “preliminary, unverified accounting files” that incorrectly recorded the source and method of these deposits. As a result, I conclude that Mr. Yazdani had failed to maintain books and records compliant with s 18 of By-Law 9.

30As discussed above, I also conclude that s 19(1) of By-Law 9 requires cash receipts for any and all cash received in by a legal practice whether from a client, the licensee or anyone else. As a result, I conclude that Mr. Yazdani has failed to maintain books and records compliant with s 19(1) of By-Law 9.

RECEIPTS JOURNALS, DEPOSIT SLIPS AND CASH RECEIPTS

31On January 9, 2025, the investigator requested the following among other requests:

• receipts journals;
• detailed duplicate deposit slips; and
• duplicate cash receipts book.

Receipts journals and deposit slips

During the investigation

32Mr. Yazdani responded to the investigative request for receipts journals on January 28, 2025. He provided journals for the Bank of Montreal (BMO) account that was closed in October 2024 and for the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS) account that was being used. However, these journals did not contain all of the information required by s 18 of the by-law. The receipts journal did not identify the person from whom money was received and, in some cases, the method by which money was received.

33Mr. Yazdani responded to the request for deposit slips on February 28, 2025. He did not provide deposit slips, saying that:

The Bank, neither BMO or Scotia Bank do not provide deposit slips as I assumed it is an old fashion way which I remember for transactions before 2020, and not currently.

Banks (except RBC and TD I believe) do not provide a deposit slips as used to. I believe the only exception is when using an ATM machine to deposits cheques.

(sic)

34Mr. Yazdani responded to the request for cash receipts on February 28, 2025. He did not provide any cash receipts, saying that:

These clients paid the professional fee in Iran through the exchange office as indicated in their invoice/receipts. They are not resident of Canada.

35On May 30, 2025, Mr. Yazdani advised as follows but did not provide deposit slip or cash receipts:

I have complied with maintaining detailed duplicate deposit slips and/or receipts from the ATM or bank, in accordance with Bylaw 9, as outlined above. A professional accounting firm is handling all accounting matters on my behalf.

Attached, please find the bank statements for the business account. The deposits reflected in these statements were made by me to cover business expenses.

36He also advised that:

Regarding the provided copies of receipts for various clients instead of the duplicate cash receipts book issued by the bank upon cash deposit:

This is because there were no cash deposits from clients during the entire period.

37On June 30, 2025, Mr. Yazdani advised with respect to deposit slips:

I understand the requirement and I complied, however since 2024 the business expenses mainly was paid by myself rather than receiving fees from my clients. There were only 7 new clients who paid for my legal services in which the deposit was made directly by the clients.

38By June 30, 2025, Mr. Yazdani had provided the receipts journals mentioned above. But he had not provided deposit slips or cash receipts.

39On July 22, 2025, the investigator wrote asking whether Mr. Yazdani maintained deposit slips for deposits made in an ATM bank machine and, if so, to produce them. Mr. Yazdani responded on August 9, 2025, saying that deposits through the ATM were from his “own pocket to carry the business expenses”. He did not answer whether he maintained deposit slips and did not produce any.

40On August 15, 2025, the investigator repeated the request, stating “Please explain whether you maintain the deposit slips from the ATM machine or any other form of deposit, for the deposits from into the account by you or anyone else. If so, please provide copies of same for the period of January 1, 2024 to current.” (sic) There is no response in evidence.

41Mr. Yazdani’s evidence is that he provided some further documents in August 2025. For whatever reason, the Law Society did not receive documents from him at this time.

42On November 11, 2025, Mr. Yazdani was advised that the Proceedings Authorization Committee had approved this application. On November 24, 2025, he advised that he just discovered that documents that he had previously uploaded for the investigation did not submit properly resulting in his failure to provide the requested documents. He said that documents being shared again with the investigator had previously been previously created and uploaded.

During the application

43On December 9, 2025, Mr. Yazdani advised that he had provided draft versions of the journals and that he would provide final copies in the next few days. On December 23, 2025, Mr. Yazdani provided receipt journals. The receipts journals included the source of the funds and the method by which the funds were received. While not the subject of evidence or submissions, these receipt journals do not appear to be consistent with the receipt journals produced in January 2025 or with subsequently produced receipts journals.

44On February 4, 2026, Mr. Yazdani provided copies of deposit slips (and deposit tickets) to the Law Society. It does not appear that these documents had previously been produced.

45On February 6, 2026, the hearing of this application took place. Shortly before the hearing began, Mr. Yazdani filed “receipt journals on a monthly basis, along with the corresponding bank statements for each month and the deposit slips related to that month”. These documents were entitled “receipt journal and docs for [the period]”. For each period (mostly a month), the document included the bank statement, excerpts from the receipt journal and deposit tickets for the period. These documents were not the subject of evidence or submissions at the hearing. However, the receipts journals appear to be different than the receipts journals produced in December 2025 but are consistent with the receipts journals produced in January 2025.

46Subsequent to the hearing, I requested further submissions from the parties with respect to the application of s 18(10) of By-Law 9 in the context of evidence from Mr. Yazdani to the effect that BMO and BNS no longer stamp/initial duplicate deposit slips.

47In addition to providing requested submissions on February 13, 2026, Mr. Yazdani filed further documents which he described in his submissions as “Books and Records produced by the Respondent”. According to the submissions, these included:

• detailed duplicate deposit slips;
• general account receipts journals;
• ATM receipts/tickets;
• bank receipts;
• copies of deposited cheques (some of which were actually copies of bank drafts);
• all bank statements (bank-generated) previously provided by the Respondent; and
• related documentation (for January 2024 onward).

48In considering these documents, there appeared to be inconsistencies between the deposited cheques/bank drafts produced on February 13, 2026 and the deposit slips/deposit tickets produced on February 4, 2026.

49As a result, I provided the parties with the following chart and requested further submissions:

Date	Amount	Deposit Slip	Deposit Ticket	Cheque or Bank Draft	SWHS**
10-Apr-24	$6,500	Ex 2 p. 103	Ex 2 p. 144	Cheque from Golsharifi	p. 60
18-Apr-24	$20,000	Ex 2 p. 104	Ex 2 p. 143	Bank Draft from Soflaei	p. 62
22-Apr-24	$7,808	Ex 2 p. 105	Ex 2 p. 142	Bank Draft	p. 61
3-May-24	$6,900	Ex 2 p. 107	Ex 2 p. 140	Bank Draft	p. 63
3-Jun-24	$6,500	Ex 2 p. 112	Ex 2 p. 135	Cheque from Jafari	p. 70
18-Jun-24	$11,500	Ex 2 p. 114	Ex 2 p. 133	Cheque from Golsharifi	p. 74
4-Jul-24	$11,585	Ex 2 p. 116	Ex 2 p. 131	Bank Draft from Sarabidarian	p. 83
21-Aug-24	$10,000	Ex 2 p. 120	Ex 2 p. 127	Bank Draft from Hemati	p. 97

** Mr. Yazdani's Supplementary Written Hearing Submissions

50Each of the deposit slips listed in the chart indicated that the deposit came from Mr. Yazdani in cash as a shareholder’s loan. Each of the deposit tickets listed in the chart indicated a cash deposit, mostly in 100 dollar bills. The deposit slips and deposit tickets were consistent with the documents filed just before the hearing on February 6, 2026.

51It was troubling that the February 13, 2026 submission from Mr. Yazdani included documents that showed these eight deposits as being by cheque and bank draft from third parties rather than by cash from Mr. Yazdani. It was also troubling that this was inconsistent with the February 6 documents, which also showed cash deposits from Mr. Yazdani rather than deposits by cheque/bank draft.

52On February 20, 2026, Mr. Yazdani filed submissions in which he acknowledged the inconsistencies which he explained as having arisen “from prior, unverified submissions provided to the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) under time constraints”.

53On review of the February 20, 2026 submission, it became apparent for the first time that the receipts journal filed on February 13, 2026 differed from the documents filed on February 6, 2026. It was not apparent from Mr. Yazdani’s submissions filed on February 13, 2026 that the receipts journal filed with his submissions had been changed.

54It is difficult to understand how urgency and time constraint could provide an explanation. Mr. Yazdani was asked for receipts journals and deposit slips in January 2025. This application began in December 2025. Accurate books and records, including receipts journals and deposit slips, were required to have been maintained. During the investigation, Mr. Yazdani represented that he maintained compliant books and records. It is unclear why only “preliminary unverified” books and records would have been available.

55That said, Mr. Yazdani has not given evidence since the hearing. He has not been cross-examined. The issue raised in this application is failure to maintain books and records, not whether there has been some impropriety in what has been filed for this hearing, which is the Law Society’s submission now.

56What is nevertheless clear is that deposit slips have not been maintained as required. Whether the deposit slips finally produced on February 4, 2026 were recently created or not, there were no deposit slips for the eight cheques/bank drafts.

57It also is clear that the receipts journals produced prior to and on the day of the hearing similarly failed to properly record receipt of the cheques/bank drafts.

58In light of the foregoing, I draw the inference that Mr. Yazdani did not maintain receipts journals and deposit slips as required by s 18 of By-Law 9. Had he done so, there would have been deposit slips for the eight cheques/bank drafts and the cheques/bank drafts would have been reflected in the receipts journal. Had he done so, there would not have been deposit slips and deposit tickets showing cash advances from Mr. Yazdani which did not occur.

59As a result, I need not address the question of whether Mr. Yazdani was unable to have duplicate deposit slips stamped and initialled by the bank (and whether he attempted to do so) and what the by-law requires if banks no longer stamp deposit slips and only provide deposit receipts. On the latter point, I would not be inclined to interpret s 18(10) to require that receipts, if provided, must be attached to deposit slips, if deposit slips are not stamped/initialled, since the By-Law doesn’t expressly so require and the Guide contains recommendations.

Duplicate cash receipts

60On January 28, 2025, Mr. Yazdani provided information and documents to the investigator, including copies of some receipts. The investigator responded on February 12, 2025:¹

I note that you have provided copies of receipts for various clients, however, the information requested is the duplicate cash receipts book (ie. The receipts book obtained from … the bank when cash is deposited).

61On February 28, 2025, Mr. Yazdani wrote, “These clients paid the professional fee in Iran through the exchange office as indicated in their invoice/receipts. They are not resident of Canada.” This did not answer the request made.

62On May 14, 2025, the investigator wrote:

Bylaw 9, section 19.1 (sic) provides that:

19. (1) Every licensee who receives cash shall maintain financial records in addition to those required under sections 18 and 19.1 and, as a minimum additional requirement, shall maintain, in accordance with sections 21, 22 and 23, a book of duplicate receipts, with each receipt identifying the date on which cash is received, the person from whom cash is received, the amount of cash received, the client for whom cash is received and any file number in respect of which cash is received and containing the signature of the licensee or the person authorized by the licensee to receive cash and of the person from whom cash is received.

Please provide a detailed explanation regarding whether you maintain cash receipts book in compliance with Bylaw 9, as outlined above.

63Mr. Yazdani responded on May 30, 2025, “I have complied with maintaining detailed duplicate deposit slips and/or receipts…”. Mr. Yazdani also advised, “Regarding the provided copies of receipts for various clients instead of the duplicate cash receipts book issued by the bank upon cash deposit: This is because there were no cash deposits from clients during the entire period.”

64On January 27, 2026, the investigator summarized the history of communications and concluded:

Based on documentation that you have provided to date during the investigation, I continue to require your duplicate cash receipts book. This requirement coincides with the requirement above for deposit slips. The information you obtain from the bank will clearly reflect whether you have deposited any cash into your general account. You must have a duplicate cash receipt issued by your firm for each cash amount received. The invoices that you have provided the Law Society indicate “paid in cash via the Mihan Exchange Office”.

65On January 30, 2026, Mr. Yazdani advised the investigator with respect to cash receipts:

Explanation Regarding Cash Receipts – This letter outlines our client base and payment practices for January to June 2024, emphasizing that our 7 new overseas clients used non-cash methods like wire transfers or exchanges. It clarifies that “deposits” in journals were made by Canadian agents directly into bank accounts, without our firm handling physical cash, and includes a table of relevant entries to demonstrate traceability and compliance with cash limits.

66On January 30, 2026, the investigator responded to Mr. Yazdani with respect to cash receipts as follows:

You have provided a detailed explanation regarding cash receipts.

In your response you advised that “Any entries in our receipts journals that appear as ‘deposits’ from clients were not direct cash receipts by our firm. Rather, these client cash deposits to the bank accounts were made by their agents or representatives in Canada on their behalf.”

Therefore, it appears unclear whether you receive cash payments or not.

This requirement continues to remain outstanding.

67As noted above, Mr. Yazdani wrote on February 2, 2026 with respect to deposit slips and cash receipts stating:

I will visit Scotiabank and BMO in the coming days to request any duplicate deposit slips or equivalent transaction details for the relevant deposits during the period from January 1, 2024, to the present. I anticipate being able to provide these within the next two weeks, once the banks process my request and I cover the associated fees ($5 per slip).

68On February 2, 2026, the investigator responded to Mr. Yazdani with respect to cash receipts as follows:

Regarding the duplicate cash receipts book, I understand your explanation that you have not received any cash receipts. This request is tied to the deposit slips as the deposit slips are source documents obtained from the bank which shows the method of funds received. As such, until such time as I receive the deposit slips and/or information that is found on deposit slips, this request will also remain outstanding and I have updated the requirement status in the schedule of case requirements to reflect this.

69Mr. Yazdani’s position is that s 19(1) of By-Law 9 does not apply except to cash deposits from, or for, clients; accordingly, no book of duplicate receipts for cash deposits is required. Mr. Yazdani acknowledges that cash has been deposited but not, he says, from or for clients.

70As discussed above, I do not accept Mr. Yazdani’s interpretation of s 19(1). I conclude that receipts are required in respect of any cash received into a practice, including by deposit into a general or a trust account.

71I conclude that Mr. Yazdani has not complied with this requirement and that he has therefore breached s 19(1) of By-Law 9.

72I recognize that the notice of application refers only to s 18 of By-Law 9. However, it was clear that Mr. Yazdani had a fair opportunity to, and did, respond to the allegation of breach of s 19(1) of the By-Law: Law Society of Upper Canada v Dmello, 2013 ONLSAP 5 at para 108(c).

FINDING

73For these reasons, I find that Mr. Yazdani has engaged in professional misconduct by failing to maintain books and records as required by ss 18 and 19(1) of By-Law 9.

PENALTY

74The usual penalty for failure to maintain required books and records is:

• a reprimand if the books and records are brought into compliance by the hearing of the application; and
• a one-month suspension, if not.

75In cases such as this, there is substantial value in consistent penalties as a matter of parity and to ensure appropriate deterrence against breach of an important obligation. As said in Law Society of Ontario v Kanoni, 2021 ONLSTH 156 at paras 19-20:

Failing to maintain books and records as required is a serious infraction of a lawyer’s or paralegal’s professional obligations. This is not a mere technical obligation but a public protection measure. Lawyers and paralegals hold funds in trust for clients. We hold retainers, settlement monies and other sums until accounts are rendered or proper authorization for payment has been received. Accounting for trust funds is part and parcel of safeguarding those trust funds for our clients. The Law Society’s mandatory bookkeeping requirement is a key element in fulfilling its public protection mandate.

As set out in [Law Society of Upper Canada v van der Schel, 2012 ONLSHP 76 at para 3]:

The maintenance of books and records, particularly in respect of trust funds, is a positive obligation and is not an optional activity for a licensee. It is an obligation that ranks as high and equal with every other obligation to serve our clients and the public interest. The record-keeping obligation is not one which takes second place to the performance of day-to-day work, the necessity to earn a living, nor is it diminished by a licensee’s subjective knowledge of how to maintain books and records… to the extent that we are incapable of performing [our obligations] ourselves, we must turn to other professionals in order to ensure that we maintain compliance with the record-keeping obligations of the Law Society.

76Mr. Yazdani did not disclose that cheques/bank drafts were deposited from third parties until after the hearing. As of the hearing, he maintained that the books and records showing that he deposited cash were proper records. If his books and records are now compliant, they only became compliant after the hearing.

77Accordingly, a one-month definite suspension is appropriate.

78Where books and records are not brought into compliance before the penalty order is made, the usual order is an indefinite suspension pending compliance. This is to ensure that ongoing breaches are properly addressed and because proven misconduct is continuing.

79With respect to Mr. Yazdani’s receipts journal, I am uncertain whether compliance has been achieved. This was not in issue at the hearing but only became an issue after the hearing when a revised receipts journal was filed. With respect to deposit slips, it does not appear that deposit slips exist for the eight cheques/bank drafts as they should. If not, it may be that compliance is not now reasonably possible.

80With respect to cash receipts, I have concluded that Mr. Yazdani is required to maintain compliant cash receipts in respect of cash received by his practice from him. I can understand why Mr. Yazdani did not recognize a need for cash receipts in this context. It should be simple to promptly remedy this failure.

81I conclude that an indefinite suspension pending compliance is appropriate but also that a period of grace is appropriate to determine what is required in the circumstances and, if possible, to avoid the indefinite suspension by full compliance. Accordingly, I will order an indefinite suspension commencing on [two weeks from the date of these reasons]. The one-month suspension will follow the indefinite suspension should there be one. If not, the one-month suspension will commence on [two weeks from the date of these reasons].

COSTS

82The Law Society seeks costs of $3,438 which is an obviously reasonable amount. While I have not found breach of s 18 of By-Law 9 because of Mr. Yazdani’s last-minute production of deposit slips, this should have been done long ago. With respect to s 19 of By-Law 9, Mr. Yazdani was not successful. Had Mr. Yazdani promptly produced deposit slips, it appears likely that this application could have been avoided with respect to cash receipts as the investigator needed deposit slips to identify cash receipts.

83I recognize that Mr. Yazdani appears to be financially strained. On the other hand, this application should not have had to be brought. Mr. Yazdani will have one year to pay costs.

84I will order costs of $3,438 as asked.

Order

85For these reasons, I order:

1. The respondent’s licence is suspended, starting March 16, 2026, and continuing indefinitely thereafter until, to the satisfaction of the Law Society’s Executive Director, Professional Regulation or their designate, the respondent has demonstrated that the books and records of their practice are in full compliance with the requirements of the By-Laws, or has demonstrated that such compliance is not possible.
2. The respondent’s licence is suspended for a period of one month, to follow immediately upon the later of: a. the end of the suspension ordered at term 1, above, if that suspension occurs. If that suspension does not occur then, March 16, 2026; and b. the end of all current or already pending suspensions of the respondent’s licence under Part II of the Law Society Act.
3. The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise while suspended pursuant to this order.
4. The respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $3,438 on or before the deadline of February 6, 2027. This deadline may be extended by the Law Society in accordance with By-Law 11. Interest shall accrue on any overdue part of those costs, at a rate of 4% per year.

Footnotes

1. 1I doubt that s 19(1) of By-Law 9 requires receipts from the bank as opposed to duplicate receipts from the licensee.