LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: March 3, 2026
Tribunal File No.: 25H-109 & 25H-110
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario Applicant
- and -
Marilou Nejal and Jan Jewel Laguisan Respondents
Before: Barbara J. Murchie (chair), Geneviève Painchaud, Natalia Rodriguez
Heard: September 22, October 14, November 24, 2025, by videoconference
Appearances:
Michael Thurston, for the applicant
Brooke MacKenzie, for Marilou Nejal, respondent
John Dent, for Jan Jewel Laguisan, respondent
Summary:
NEJAL and LAGUISAN – Interlocutory Suspension – The Law Society brought a motion for interlocutory suspensions ‒ The Lawyers were separately represented but agreed to have their matters heard together ‒ The allegations against them relate to irregularities in the firm’s mixed trust account ‒ The Lawyers had different roles and responsibilities in the practice ‒ Ms Nejal was the owner and an experienced lawyer, Ms Laguisan was a newly-called lawyer hired as an associate ‒ Shortly after Ms Laguisan was hired, a six-month suspension of Ms Nejal’s licence began and Ms Laguisan became sole lawyer in charge of all firm files ‒ It is alleged that there was professional misconduct relating to failure to pay out mortgages and irregularities in the firm’s trust account – The panel found there was strong evidence with respect to Ms Nejal suggesting a lack of integrity and at minimum a lack of diligence in looking into the irregularities in the files ‒ In order to protect the public and the public interest in the administration of justice, the panel ordered an interlocutory suspension of Ms Nejal’s licence to practise law ‒ Regarding Ms Laguisan, the panel found that she was not aware of the delayed payout of mortgages and there was no evidence of dishonesty ‒ The motion for an interlocutory suspension of Ms Laguisan’s licence was dismissed.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUSPENSIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
1Barbara J. Murchie (for the panel):– The Law Society (LSO) seeks an interlocutory suspension of the licences of Marilou Nejal and Jan Jewel Laguisan. The respondents are separately represented but have agreed that these matters will be heard together.
2This motion was initially set for September 22, 2025. At that time, the LSO’s evidence showed mishandling and possible misappropriation of trust monies for Clients A and B. The licensees had not yet had an opportunity to respond and requested an adjournment. The motion was adjourned, on terms proposed by Ms. Nejal, to October 14, 2025, and then completed on November 24, 2025.
3The terms of the adjournment to which the licensees are subject include prohibitions on receiving or disbursing or otherwise dealing with trust funds and from practising real estate. Those terms remain in effect. Both licensees submit that an interlocutory suspension is unnecessary as continuing those terms will protect the public interest.
4After the adjournment was granted, the licensees filed responding and supplementary affidavits explaining the circumstances and their actions or omissions. The LSO filed evidence relating to two additional clients, E and F, which raised similar trust concerns.
5Both respondents acknowledge there are irregularities in the firm’s mixed trust account. The firm, MVN, did not discharge existing mortgages from closing funds provided by the new mortgagees as it had undertaken to do. Both licensees deny knowledge of this scheme and deny dishonest intent, pointing instead to a largely unsupervised law clerk as the culprit. In September 2025, Ms. Nejal reported what she now says she believes to be a fraud to the police.
6It is important to note that the two respondents had different roles and responsibilities in the practice over the period under investigation, being October 2024 to May 2025. Ms. Nejal was the owner of the law practice and an experienced lawyer. At all times, she was responsible for overseeing the books and records and financial matters of the firm. Ms. Laguisan, a newly-called lawyer, was hired as an associate in January 2024. She had some experience in family and other areas of law during her placement, but no experience in real estate.
7When she began practice with MVN, Ms. Laguisan was unaware that within three months, she would be the sole lawyer in charge of all firm files for almost a year. In April 2024, when Ms. Nejal commenced a 6-month suspension, Ms. Laguisan became responsible for all clients including those in the firm’s real estate practice. She remained responsible until March 2025 when Ms. Nejal returned to the practice.
8At the end of March 2025, Client A complained that his mortgage balance had not been paid off when his condo sale closed on October 31, 2024. This complaint prompted an LSO investigation of the firm’s books and records and client practices. In May 2025, the Law Society discovered that the firm’s books and records were only complete as of October 2024. They have not been updated since, despite requests from the Law Society investigator, Ms. Andrusko.
9During her investigations, Ms. Andrusko uncovered Client B’s unpaid mortgage and identified two other problematic transactions.
10In August 2025, Clients E and F launched complaints that their mortgages had not been paid out on closing on June 30 and July 10, 2025, respectively. Subsequently, Ms. Laguisan conducted inspections of files that pre-dated her employment and found evidence suggesting that there may have been a firm practice of delaying payouts on mortgages on closing since at least as early as 2021. Her report has been turned over to the Law Society.
11The task for this panel is not to determine who is at fault for the failures to pay out mortgages on closing or whether either or both respondents engaged in professional misconduct. That determination will await the completion of the investigation. Instead, we must determine whether the facts before us present reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant risk of harm to the public or the public interest in the administration of justice if an order against either or both respondents is not made. If we find that the risk of harm exists, we must decide whether the current or other restrictions are sufficient or if an interlocutory suspension is required.
12In our view, the facts before us present a reasonable risk of harm to both the public and the public interest in the administration of justice. Trust monies were mishandled and possibly misappropriated. Four client complaints allege that existing mortgages were not paid out on closing. The investigation has not been completed because Ms. Nejal has failed to update books and records or provide documents requested by the Law Society since May 2025.
13At all times, Ms. Nejal was responsible for the firm’s books and records. Ms. Laguisan is in a different position and bears no such responsibility; however, she was the lawyer of record in the Client A and B transactions before us, and is listed as Client F’s solicitor in Land Registry records related to the Client F complaint on the July 10, 2025 closing.
14For reasons that follow, we have concluded that to protect the public and the public interest in the administration of justice, Ms. Nejal’s licence to practise law must be suspended on an interlocutory basis, and the motion against Ms. Laguisan should be dismissed.
FACTS
15Ms. Nejal was called to the bar in 2009. She was a sole practitioner, including through her professional corporation, MVN Law. Ms. Nejal practised primarily family, real estate, estates law and immigration law.
16MVN employed three support staff: Ms. Albano as a law clerk (real estate) beginning in 2010, Ms. Austin as an administrative assistant (real estate), and Ms. Decena as a bookkeeping and administrative assistant (immigration).
17In 2021, the LSO commenced discipline proceedings against Ms. Nejal. On May 29, 2023, Ms. Nejal’s disciplinary proceeding was scheduled for a February 20, 2024 hearing. At the hearing, Ms. Nejal admitted to and the panel found that she had engaged in professional misconduct. Pursuant to a joint submission, Ms. Nejal’s licence was suspended for six months commencing April 1, 2025.
Ms. Laguisan joins MVN
18On October 10, 2023, after completing the Law Practice Program (LPP), Ms. Laguisan was called to the bar in Ontario. Her four-month LPP placement was with the Ministry of the Attorney General – Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. During this placement, she learned about family law, in which she was already interested, as well as estates and guardianship, charities and civil law.
19Ms. Laguisan testified that MVN Law was well known in her community. She met Ms. Nejal in 2021 and they kept in touch. In July 2023, Ms. Nejal hired Ms. Laguisan to assist her as a clerk in family law matters. Ms. Laguisan also assisted in civil and to some extent immigration matters.
20In January 2024, Ms. Laguisan was hired by MVN as an associate lawyer. She understood she would be working primarily in family law. Ms. Nejal began transferring family, civil law and immigration matters to her. Ms. Laguisan would draft pleadings, affidavits and other documents and send them to Ms. Nejal for review and amendment. She relied on Ms. Nejal to mentor and teach her in these areas and testified that she felt happy and lucky to practise in a supportive work environment.
21In February 2024, Ms. Laguisan first became aware that Ms. Nejal was involved in a Law Society proceeding and that Ms. Nejal was going to be suspended. She was shocked but sympathized with her mentor. At the same time, she felt overwhelmed. She realized that, as the only remaining lawyer, a significant amount of responsibility would fall on her.
Transfer of real estate practice
22Ms. Nejal advised Ms. Laguisan that she would have to take over the firm’s real estate practice. Ms. Laguisan had never practised or been involved in any real estate transactions. Ms. Nejal explained how the office handled real estate transactions and that Ms. Albano would prepare all the documentation for her review and signature. She walked Ms. Laguisan through two real estate deals that she was handling and added Ms. Laguisan as a signatory to the firm’s trust account. Ms. Nejal advised that the process would remain the same during her absence and that Ms. Albano would guide and teach her.
23Ms. Albano taught Ms. Laguisan how to “hands on” review Agreements of Purchase and Sale, mortgage documents, instructions for disbursements, trust legers, statements of adjustment and payout statements. She taught her to use her Teraview account. Ms. Laguisan testified that the trust reconciliations were handled by the bookkeeper until the bookkeeper fell ill in November 2024.
24From April 1 to October 1, 2024, Ms. Laguisan was the sole lawyer at the firm.
October 1, 2024 to March 28, 2025
25Although Ms. Laguisan did not know it, from October 1, 2024 to February 28 2025, Ms. Nejal was on leave status with the LSO. Ms. Nejal did not advise Ms. Laguisan of the leave and was in the office regularly. Ms. Laguisan assumed she had returned to practice at the completion of the suspension. Both licensees agree that, at this time and throughout her suspension, Ms. Nejal was attending to management, administrative and accounting issues and that Ms. Laguisan was handling client matters.
26Since October 31, 2024, Ms. Nejal has not completed monthly trust reconciliations. She admits she encountered difficulties in fulfilling her responsibility for MVN’s books and records. She testified that between the end of her suspension and her departure for the Philippines, she focused on:
a. reviewing trust records for real estate clients to ensure each client trust account was at zero;
b. reconciling the general bank account for fiscal year ending October 31, 2024;
c. finalizing corporate tax returns;
d. receiving and addressing accounts receivable; and
e. beginning her firm’s transition from PC Law to CosmoLex, two legal software platforms.
27Ms. Nejal accepts that it is her responsibility to ensure the firm’s books and records are up to date. She explained that her longtime bookkeeper was away starting in November 2024, then sick, then unable to catch up and then, in August 2025, resigned. She has not hired a replacement.
28On October 31, 2024, the sale of Client A’s condo closed. Ms. Laguisan was the lawyer of record. She has limited recollection of dealing with Client A as, at the time, the matter seemed routine. She testified that Ms. Albano would have prepared all the documents and cheques for her signature. She testified that she did not realize that the mortgage disbursement for $441,105.47 had not been made.
November 1, 2024, Laguisan maternity leave
29From November 1, 2024 to early January 2025, Ms. Laguisan was theoretically on maternity leave. However, she continued to work from home until December 6, 2024, when she gave birth to her first child, and shortly after childbirth as well.
30Between November 22, 2024 and March 1, 2025, Ms. Nejal was in the Philippines. She was ill when she returned to Canada, and so did not return to the office until the end of March 2025. She testified that she did not sign any trust cheques while she was away and out of the office but was otherwise responsible for the administration and books and records. However, most of the trust cheques signed during her absence bear her signature. Ms. Nejal identified cheques she did sign but alleged Ms. Albano signed others without her authorization.
31On December 17, 2024, the sale of Client B’s property closed. Ms. Laguisan was the lawyer of record. She was unaware that the existing mortgage was not paid out in full on closing.
32Ms. Laguisan testified that she felt she had no choice but to return to the office quickly as Ms. Nejal was in the Philippines. Ms. Laguisan testified that in hindsight, she recognizes that she fell short in staying on top of client closing reports in real estate transactions. Her testimony was compelling:
My feeling of being overwhelmed was worsened by Ms. Najel’s [sic] absence from the office, especially when she was in the Philippines. In hindsight I recognize that I should not have relied so much on the office staff for the preparation of the reports, and that I needed to do a better job at review and oversight. If I could not do that, I should not have been working at all. I really needed the time off to recover from childbirth and care for my baby, but I did not feel I could take that time off given Ms. Nejal’s absence from the office. I felt very alone and overwhelmed by what I had to do. The result was that I fell short of my responsibilities, and I take full responsibility for that.
33On March 27, 2025, Ms. Laguisan learned that Client A’s mortgage had not been discharged as part of the October 31, 2024 closing. Client A told her that the bank had deducted $14,360.08 from his account for mortgage arrears. She spoke to Ms. Albano and to Ms. Nejal, who asked for and reviewed the file.
April 1, 2025 to present - investigation and further complaints
34On April 1, 2025, Ms. Nejal made Ms. Laguisan a partner in the firm.
35In April 2025, Client A’s matter was resolved and Client A was repaid. Both Ms. Nejal and Ms. Laguisan testified they thought the failure to pay out the mortgage on closing was a one-off mistake that had been made by Ms. Albano. Ms. Nejal testified there were sufficient monies in A’s trust account to pay out the mortgage, and she had known Ms. Albano for 15 years and trusted her.
36On May 14, 2025, the LSO made an unannounced visit to the MVN office to investigate Client A’s complaint and requested documentation including the files of Clients A, B and three others. The Law Society’s investigator, Ms. Andrusko, learned that Client B’s file contained documentation indicating that the full mortgage on Client B’s file was not paid out on closing as should have been done. It also contained records of repeated requests for subsequent discharge statements indicating new, fictitious, closing dates. Ms. Andrusko requested that Ms. Nejal provide updated books and records and source documents.
37From May 24, 2025 to July 25, 2025, Ms. Nejal was in the Philippines to continue working on the estates of her deceased parents, siblings and aunt. On her return, she was sick and did not return to the office until August 11, 2025. She testified that while she was away, she did not have capacity to work on firm matters except for attending to payroll and bills or to respond to the Law Society’s requests.
38On August 16, 2025, Ms. Nejal began reviewing documents. The following week, she met with Ms. Laguisan, but they were unable to meet with Ms. Albano. They agreed to reconvene the following week to thoroughly review the files in question, but before they could do so, they learned that Ms. Albano was in intensive care in hospital.
39On August 19, 2025, Ms. Andrusko, wrote to Ms. Nejal, advising of the following:
The October 2024 trust reconciliation was out of balance and, despite repeated requests, had not been updated, leading her to believe it was hundreds of thousands of dollars short.
As managing partner, Ms. Nejal had failed to ensure that trust reconciliations were updated monthly and failed to provide certified cheques for the trust account as requested.
Since Ms. Andrusko’s May 14, 2025 visit to the office, Ms. Nejal had left for the Philippines and had been unavailable to respond to the investigation.
Her review of the Client B matter showed that the mortgage was not discharged until six months after closing. She asked for a copy of all disbursement cheques and a full and frank representation as to why the mortgage was not paid out in November.
She requested all documents on two other transactions in which the mortgage was not paid out on time and full and frank representations as to why they were not paid out.
She was highly concerned that the latest payments on old files, if made, were made using current client trust funds, and asked if that was the case.
It appeared that MVN was making some payments to financial institutions to offset unpaid interest on mortgages and asked for details, source of funds and client ledgers for such payments.
40On August 19, 2025, Ms. Nejal responded and sought more time. She advised she could not respond to the LSO while in the Philippines and was sick when she returned. She said she was meeting with the bookkeeper who had also been sick. She said she was working on getting documents requested and was having difficulty obtaining them. She advised she was meeting with Ms. Laguisan the following day and they would work on a draft response together.
41On September 1, 2025, Ms. Laguisan responded to the LSO by portal message. She explained there were no trust records because they were changing systems. The clerks were using PC Law, but their entries had not been entered into the new system. She advised that Ms. Nejal was doing her best but that she was having difficulty finding the records and was now having to attend to real estate matters as Ms. Albano had been sick. She attached documents to the extent they were available and advised that reporting letters, which Ms. Albano completed, were being compiled.
42After Ms. Albano was released from the hospital, she advised Ms. Nejal that she would be in the office September 8, 2025. When she did not attend, Ms. Nejal and Ms. Laguisan went to her home. According to Ms. Nejal and Ms. Laguisan, Ms. Albano collapsed and an ambulance took her to the hospital. On September 9 and 10, Ms. Nejal attempted to report possible theft to the police. She was told she needed more evidence. On September 17, she reported the matter and arranged to provide the supporting documents. On September 20, 2025, she uploaded the documents to the Toronto Police Services Portal.
43On September 12, 2025, Client E complained to the LSO about an unpaid mortgage from a June 30, 2025 closing. On September 26, 2025, Client F complained to the firm about an unpaid mortgage from a July 10, 2025 closing.
44In her affidavit sworn October 10, 2025 and in her testimony before us, Ms. Laguisan testified that as the extent of the irregularities became clear, she undertook to investigate how long this had been going on. She reviewed files from 2021, 2022 and 2023 and saw the same pattern of irregular trust account transactions. She reported her findings to the Law Society.
45In October 2025, Ms. Laguisan left the firm for a position as an associate in another firm. She advised that she remained willing to co-operate with the LSO.
Client A transaction
46There is no dispute that MVN did not pay out Client A’s mortgage until April 2, 2025, some five months after closing. There is no dispute that MVN reimbursed Client A for the mortgage arrears he paid. There is no dispute that Client A has now been made whole.
47The transaction closed on October 31, 2024, as scheduled. On November 1, 2024, MVN paid from trust all disbursements in the transaction including Client A’s line of credit. However, nothing was paid by MVN to CIBC on the first mortgage of $441,105.47. Ms. Laguisan was unaware the mortgage had not been paid. She believed all disbursements had been paid.
48In his complaint, Client A stated that Ms. Laguisan assured him that the mortgage would be paid in full on closing and that he would receive confirmatory documentation. On March 27, 2025, Client A discovered that $14,360.08 had been deducted from his bank account for mortgage arrears. He contacted CIBC and learned that his mortgage had not been discharged. He spoke to Ms. Albano and Ms. Laguisan.
49After speaking with Client A, Ms. Laguisan spoke to Ms. Albano who advised there was an issue with CIBC and that the bank would refund the monies taken from Client A’s account due to their error. Ms. Laguisan also spoke to Ms. Nejal who requested and was supplied with Client A’s documents.
50On March 27, 2025, the bank credited Client A with the amount taken for the mortgage arrears payment. Ms. Laguisan understood Ms. Albano had spoken to the bank about the error and they had corrected it. Ms. Laguisan later learned Client A’s refund had come from an MVN trust cheque dated March 27, 2025, apparently signed by Ms. Nejal, that was posted to Client B’s ledger.
51Ms. Nejal testified that on March 31, 2025, she reviewed Client A’s physical file and met with Ms. Albano, who did not remember if Client A’s mortgage was ever paid. Ms. Nejal asked why Client A’s trust ledger in PC Law showed a balance of about $441,105.47. Ms. Albano said she had not updated the client trust ledgers because she planned to enter it directly in CosmoLex. Ms. Nejal did an online search of the firm’s bank account and determined that that amount had never been paid out.
52Ms. Nejal asked Ms. Albano to request an updated payout statement from CIBC. It showed $428,002.24 was owing. Payment was made from Client A’s trust account and the mortgage was discharged. As a result of the payment, Client A’s trust account was $1,256.85 in arrears. Ms. Nejal transferred funds from the firm’s operating account to cover the overdraft.
53Client A’s file included a number of documents that post-dated closing, none of which would have been required if all disbursements had been paid as required on closing. Ms. Laguisan denied knowing about or signing these documents which include:
A December 2, 2024 CIBC fax to MVN of a new mortgage discharge statement for a closing on December 2, 2024. There was no copy in the MVN file.
A December 13, 2024 undertaking to pay out the CIBC mortgage and other charges on closing, allegedly signed by her.
A February 20, 2025 letter to CIBC allegedly signed by Ms. Laguisan requesting a discharge statement for a fictitious closing on February 27, 2025.
A March 28, 2025 letter to CIBC, allegedly signed by her, requesting a discharge/payout statement for March 31, 2025. Ms. Nejal advised that she needed the information to discharge the mortgage but the use of this form was a mistake.
An April 2025 (undated) letter to the CIBC, allegedly signed by Ms. Laguisan, enclosing a cheque for $428,002.24 being the amount required to discharge the existing mortgage.
54The Law Society submits that these post-closing letters, ought to have put both licensees on notice there was a problem. However, there is no evidence that Ms. Laguisan reviewed the file or that Ms. Nejal discussed those letters with her. Ms. Nejal testified that she did not look carefully at them and could not remember discussing them with Ms. Laguisan.
55Ms. Nejal testified that for some time afterwards, she believed the delayed discharge was a one-time mistake and that Ms. Albano had simply forgotten to finalize the discharge. She said she had worked with Ms. Albano for a long time and had no reason to distrust her. Unaware of the forged letters, Ms. Laguisan saw no reason to disagree with Ms. Nejal.
Client B transaction
56In reviewing MVN’s files during the investigation, Ms. Andrusko became aware that there may have been misapplication or misappropriation in respect of Client B’s mortgage loan agreement with TD Bank for a $1,000,000 mortgage to pay out two existing mortgages.
57The scheduled closing date was December 17, 2024. Ms. Laguisan was the assigned lawyer. She has little recollection of the transaction, having given birth about 10 days earlier. The December 13, 2024 undertaking to pay the existing mortgage on Client B’s sale bears an undecipherable signature but no lawyer’s name. The December 17 request for funds appears to have been signed by Ms. Laguisan, who denies seeing or signing either document or authorizing anyone to sign on her behalf.
58On closing, the Trust Ledger Statement shows receipt of funds, and payment to discharge the first and second mortgage in full. In fact, the National Bank mortgage was not paid out in full. There was a payment of $780,299.97 (about $110,000 less than the amount owing) apparently to National Bank. On subsequent review of the cheque, signed by Ms. Nejal, who was in the Philippines at the time, the payment was not to National Bank, but to Home Trust company. Ms. Laguisan testified she has no knowledge as to why the National Bank mortgage was not paid out in full and why a payment was made to Home Trust instead. Ms. Laguisan denies signing or authorizing signature on various letters or requests for post-closing updated mortgage amounts on this file. Ms. Nejal denies signing the trust cheque.
59It appears that, at a minimum, $109,295, or possibly the full amount of the first mortgage, remains outstanding. Ms. Laguisan testified that she was unaware of that shortfall. The current ledger shows a residual amount in Client B’s trust account, some of which was used for payments of small amounts to National Bank in February, March and April 2025. On closer examination, the cheques, signed by Ms. Nejal, were for payments to other unrelated individuals. Ms. Laguisan testified she had no knowledge of those payments, or of other cheques drawn on Client B’s account post-closing.
60On April 2, 2025, TD Bank requested a reporting letter on the transaction. Ms. Laguisan denies seeing the letter or signing the subsequent report. On April 4, 2025, MVN wrote to National Bank seeking a new payout statement, allegedly because Client B was arranging a new mortgage. Ms. Laguisan denies signing the letter. A handwritten note on the letter indicated the response should be to Ms. Albano. There is no further documentation on the mortgage payout.
61On June 12, 2025, Client B’s mortgage was paid out with a cheque bearing Ms. Laguisan’s signature. Ms. Laguisan said she did not knowingly sign the payout for Client B’s mortgage. Ms. Albano told her the disbursement was for another matter closing that day.
62At present, the LSO investigation is hampered by the failure of MVN to produce trust reconciliations and source documents.
Clients E, F
63On September 12, Client E filed a complaint against Ms. Nejal respecting a transaction closing June 30, 2025. In July, Client E learned that the existing mortgage was not paid out on closing. The client emailed Ms. Albano. Ms. Nejal responded that a certified cheque was on its way. No cheque was sent. As Ms. Nejal was in the Philippines from May 30 to July 25, 2025, Ms. Laguisan would have been the responsible lawyer on closing. Client E’s information, however, is that he dealt only with Ms. Albano.
64On September 26, 2025, counsel for Client F emailed Ms. Nejal, Ms. Laguisan and Ms. Albano respecting an undischarged mortgage on the sale of Client F’s property which closed July 10, 2025, before Ms. Nejal returned to the office. We do not have further information on the file.
Other possible mishandling
65Ms. Laguisan testified that, as the extent of the irregular transactions in different client trust accounts became clear, she undertook to summarily review real estate files from several years before she had joined the firm. She said she was alarmed at seeing what appeared to be the same pattern of irregular trust account transactions as had been seen with Clients A and B. There appeared to be a pattern of re-directing clients’ funds to pay for another client’s disbursements. With the assistance of counsel, she provided copies of these documents to the Law Society.
66In response, Ms. Nejal expressed her concern but advised she has been focused on reviewing and responding to investigative requests relating to the review period, September 1, 2024 to April 30, 2025. She testified that she had instructed her other law clerk to gather all sale and refinancing files for the review period. She said that she has not provided additional documents to the Law Society as she does not yet understand what has gone on and will report her findings to the LSO and the police when she can do so.
ANALYSIS
67Section 49.27(2) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c. L.8 (the Act) permits the panel to make an interlocutory order suspending or restricting the licensee’s licence if: there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, or to the public interest in the administration of justice, if an order is not made.
[t]he existence of a serious risk of potential harm need not be demonstrated on the balance of probabilities. The degree of risk need not be very likely or even probable. The potential harm need not be substantial although it must be to members of the public or the public interest.
69S. 49.27(2) of the Act limits when an order can be made but does not specify that or what order should be made. It makes little sense to order an interlocutory suspension that might last for a lengthy time when, if proven, the misconduct would typically warrant a short suspension. Further, the strength of the evidence supporting the misconduct is a factor to consider and balance in determining whether a suspension or restrictions are appropriate.2
Significant risk of harm
70We find that the facts of this case present reasonable grounds to believe there is a serious risk of harm to the public and the public interest in the administration of justice if an order is not made. Ms. Nejal does not dispute this conclusion.
71The Law Society alleges and the respondents admit there has been misapplication of client trust monies in the context of real estate transactions. We have details of complaints about transactions for Clients A and B. Besides late mortgage payouts, both files show active efforts to mislead the mortgagee into thinking the closing was upcoming when the date had passed. Client B’s file shows trust cheques bearing Ms. Nejal’s signature on dates when she was in the Philippines, to pay disbursements to unrelated parties after closing.
72We are advised of at least two additional complaints from clients E and F about mishandling of trust monies in two other files. Further, Ms. Laguisan has provided evidence to the Law Society that the mishandling may have extended back to transactions in 2021.
73Despite Client A’s concern being raised in April 2025, followed by Client B and other matters being identified after the May 14 office attendance, there is still no clarity as to why the mortgages were not paid out on closing, the extent of the misapplication and whether in fact there has also been misappropriation.
74The question is whether the significant risk of harm arises from the actions of one or both respondents and what order, if any, should be made. We have separated the analysis of the evidence for each of the respondents.
Ms. Nejal
75The Law Society submits that Ms. Nejal has shown a lack of integrity in this matter. We agree. Ms. Nejal was responsible for the books and records and for the firm’s finances. She has not updated the trust reconciliations for over a year and cannot provide source documents for her firm’s financial transactions. She cannot say whether money is missing from trust. She cannot explain why the mortgages for Clients A and B were not paid off on closing as required. She cannot explain numerous trust cheques allegedly signed by her while she was in the Philippines. Her assurances of co-operation with the Law Society have not resulted in progress. The Law Society is in the same position as it was in May 2025.
76The Law Society acknowledges that there is some evidence that Ms. Albano may have been the culprit in the mishandling of trust monies. Nonetheless, as managing partner, Ms. Nejal was responsible for the books and records and finances of the firm. She testified that she maintained responsibility for the firm’s books and records throughout her six-month suspension and worked actively on both between October 1 and November 22, 2025 when she was in the office before she left for the Philippines. She has not updated the books and records since that time.
77Ms. Nejal’s failure to get to the bottom of the Client A problem; failure to provide requested information, source documents and trust reconciliations to the Law Society; and her lack of urgency arouse suspicion that she might have been complicit. Ms. Nejal resolved the Client A complaint but said she accepted Ms. Albano’s explanation that she forgot to write the mortgage payout cheque. Ms. Nejal said she reviewed the file but was focused on resolving the problem, not determining the cause. She had no credible explanation for her failure to note and inquire about letters to the mortgagee requesting a discharge statement for an alleged closing after the payout date. She did not explain her signature on the cheque repaying Client A’s arrears from Client B’s trust account.
78On the Client B matter, Ms. Nejal has not credibly explained the numerous cheques signed by her while she was in the Philippines. She denied signing the cheques, leaving pre-signed trust cheques for Ms. Albano or authorizing Ms. Albano to sign on her behalf. It is unlikely that her long-time law clerk signed multiple cheques she knew would come to Ms. Nejal’s attention without obtaining her authorization.
79Ms. Nejal submits that she was a dupe of her law clerk and that there is no credible or compelling evidence of dishonesty. She accepts there is evidence of failure to supervise and to maintain books and records. She does not challenge that these circumstances present a significant risk to the public and the public interest in the administration of justice.
80We find that there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant risk of harm to the public and the public interest in the administration of justice if an order is not made against Ms. Nejal. She acted without integrity in failing to maintain and update her books and records, respond to the Law Society’s request for documents required to complete its investigation and explain her signature on suspicious trust cheques.
81Although it is early in the investigation and her theory that Ms. Albano is the ultimate culprit may turn out to be true, there is strong evidence that Ms. Nejal may have been complicit in the wrongdoing. She has shown no sign of trying to solve the mishandling problem or assist the Law Society in so doing. She discontinued trust reconciliations, turned over her real estate practice to her law clerk and left an untrained associate in charge. These facts suggest Ms. Nejal may have had some level of knowledge and/or complicity in the wrongdoing.
What order should be made?
82Tribunal jurisprudence emphasizes that if an order is made, it should be the least restrictive sufficient to address the risk of harm.3 The current restrictions dated October 7, 2025 against both respondents prohibit them from receiving, disbursing or otherwise dealing with trust funds, and from practising real estate law.
83The Law Society submits that, given the evidence that Ms. Nejal was complicit in the mishandling, or at least extraordinarily lax in her supervision of Ms. Albano, and negligent in her attention to financial reporting obligations, we should issue an interlocutory suspension on Ms. Nejal’s licence to practise law.
84Ms. Nejal submits that the current restrictions on her practice are sufficient to protect the public and the public interest in the administration of justice. There is no evidence that she has failed or breached them in the last four months.
85The Law Society does not accept the wording of the restrictions currently in place. Ms. Nejal is willing to work with the Law Society to adjust terms as required.In our view, an order suspending Ms. Nejal’s licence is required to protect the public and the public interest in the administration of justice. Law Society regulations requiring licensees to maintain proper and updated financial records and to comply with Law Society requests for information are public protection measures. Ms. Nejal has failed to comply with financial accounting obligations since October 31, 2024, and with Law Society requests for information since at least August 2025, if not earlier.
86The Law Society is in the same position it found itself in May 2025 when it attended her office. Ms. Nejal has shown herself unwilling to practise in accordance with professional obligations that protect the public. Further, when there is evidence of dishonesty or serious concerns about a lawyer’s integrity, a suspension rather than restrictions is typically ordered.4 We have already found that Ms. Nejal acted without integrity. The evidence that she may have participated in serious misconduct, including mishandling or even misappropriation, is strong. If she is found to have participated in fraud, her licence will be most likely be revoked. If she is found to have abdicated responsibility for her practice or failed to supervise her employees (possibly going back to 2021), she faces a lengthy suspension, particularly given her discipline history. All these factors support a suspension rather than restrictions.
Ms. Laguisan
87The Law Society concedes that Ms. Laguisan is in a different position in the significant risk of harm analysis. Unlike Ms. Nejal, Ms. Laguisan was not responsible for MVN’s books and records. She had signing authority on the trust account but few cheques show her signature. However, she was the responsible lawyer on closings for Clients A and B.
88Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Ms. Laguisan did not know about or participate in the delayed payout of mortgages for Clients A and B, or the mishandling of trust funds thereafter. We accepted that she did not know about and did not sign post-closing documents suggesting she knew or was complicit in the non-payment and mishandling.
89We accept Ms. Laguisan’s explanation that she fell short in staying on top of client closing reports in real estate transactions for Clients A and B, given the circumstances at the time.
90In January 2024, Ms. Laguisan was a newly called lawyer, hired to do family law, not told about Ms. Nejal’s discipline proceeding in February or aware that her senior was almost certain to be suspended, leaving her in charge of the firm. In March 2024, she was told she had to take on the firm’s real estate practice for which she had no training. Ms. Nejal walked her through two real estate transactions and told her she could rely on Ms. Albano.
91Further, the sales for Clients A and B closed weeks before and weeks after the birth of her first child. We found Ms. Laguisan’s admission that she fell short on her responsibility to review the closing documents in both files to be sincere and compelling. We accept her evidence as truthful.
92The Law Society maintained that after Ms. Laguisan learned in April 2025 that Client A’s mortgage had not been paid off, she should have been alert to possible malfeasance in closing Client F’s transaction at the end of June. We know the transfer showed her name as the lawyer, but have no signature and no evidence to connect her to the transaction.
93Further, we accept Ms. Laguisan’s evidence that in April 2025, she believed the non-payment was a mistake made by Ms. Albano, as Ms. Nejal had concluded. Ms. Laguisan had no reason to doubt Ms. Nejal’s conclusion. Ms. Laguisan was the junior and inexperienced in real estate. She was unaware of the post-closing letters and cheques on her files and of the many cheques signed by Ms. Nejal while she was in the Philippines. She was unaware that Client A’s mortgage arrears were paid from Client B’s trust account. She believed the refund was made by the bank on account of their mistake.
94In our view, Ms. Laguisan was honest and straightforward in her testimony. Her evidence that she relied on Ms. Albano was consistent with her own inexperience and Ms. Nejal’s description of her law clerk’s responsibilities. The timing of her maternity leave and frank admission that she was overwhelmed with all the firm responsibility and being a new mother was compelling. We accept her explanation that, in all the circumstances, she relied too much on staff and did not do a proper job of review and oversight.
95Although there is evidence before us that Ms. Laguisan may not have been competent respecting two real estate transactions, on the evidence we cannot conclude that she was likely dishonest. She has been co-operative with the Law Society but hamstrung by Ms. Nejal’s failure to update the books and records. On her own initiative, she undertook to review earlier files to determine if there was similar mishandling in those files as well.
96In these circumstances, we conclude that Ms. Laguisan’s actions do not provide reasonable grounds for believing that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, or to the public interest in the administration of justice, if an order is not made.
CONCLUSION
97For these reasons, on January 23, 2026, we made the following orders:
In respect of Marilou Nejal:
Effective January 23, 2026, Ms. Nejal’s licence is suspended on an interlocutory basis.
Ms. Nejal 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.
The costs of this motion in respect of Ms. Nejal are reserved to the panel presiding at the hearing of any application to which the motion relates.
In respect of Jan Jewel Laguisan:
The motion is dismissed.
The restrictions on Ms. Laguisan’s licence to practise law, ordered on September 22, 2025, are terminated effective immediately.
If Ms. Laguisan and the Law Society are unable to agree on costs of this motion, then they will each provide written submissions of no more than three pages; the party seeking costs by three weeks after the date that reasons are released and the responding party by two weeks thereafter.
Footnotes
- Law Society of Upper Canada v Ejidike, 2016 ONLSTH 69 at para 55
- Ejidike paras 67-69
- Law Society of Ontario v Cardin, 2018 ONLSTH 98 at para 55; Law Society of Upper Canada v. Marusic, 2016 ONLSTA 22 at para 42
- Law Society of Ontario v Harrison, 2024 ONLSTH 24 at paras 186, 187 and 214.