LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Tribunal File No.: 25H-024
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
Singa Bui
Respondent
Before: Kathleen Lickers (chair), Suzanne Clément, Jennifer Gold
Heard: December 12, 2025, by videoconference
Appearances:
Chad Skinner, for the applicant
Nadia Liva, for the respondent
Summary:
BUI – Misappropriation – Deemed Admissions – Revocation - Based on the documentary evidence provided through a request to admit and the Lawyer’s deemed admissions, the panel found that the Lawyer had misappropriated money received in trust for matters relating to 13 clients – The Lawyer’s licence was revoked and she was ordered to reimburse the parties, or alternatively, repay the Law Society’s Compensation Fund – The Lawyer was also ordered to pay the Law Society $100,000 in costs.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1Kathleen Lickers (for the panel):– This is an application brought by the Law Society of Ontario alleging that Singa Bui (the Licensee) engaged in professional misconduct for her failure to conduct herself with integrity by misappropriating, or in the alternative misapplying, funds from money received in trust for matters relating to 13 clients.
2As a preliminary matter, for the evidentiary record, the parties agreed to rely upon the Law Society’s request to admit (RTA) and documents provided in support thereof. The parties agreed that, as the Licensee failed to respond to the RTA, the Licensee is deemed to admit for the purposes of the conduct proceeding, the truth of the facts and authenticity of documents mentioned therein: Rule 11.3(4) and (5) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Tribunal Rules).
3Jointly, the parties requested an order under Rule 13.3(2) of the Tribunal Rules to protect the personal and identifying information of any clients named in the RTA. We granted the order and accepted the Law Society’s redacted copy of the RTA for public purposes and redacted versions any documents filed as exhibits to protect clients and their privileged or possibly privileged documents, ensuring compliance with the order while minimizing any restriction on openness: Rule 13.3(2).
4Relying upon the admissions and corresponding documents of the Licensee, the Law Society submits that the Licensee has engaged in professional misconduct in matters involving the real estate transactions of 13 clients, misappropriating in excess of $12 million over an 18-month period.
5Based upon the documentary evidence provided through the RTA and the deemed admissions of the Licensee, we find the Licensee to have misappropriated money received in trust for matters relating to 13 clients. We order the revocation of her licence to practise law effective immediately and the reimbursement of the parties, or alternatively, repayment to the Law Society’s Compensation Fund. We also order the costs of this application.
6These are our reasons.
FACTS
7Singa Bui was called to the Ontario Bar in 2010, and practised real estate law with her husband, fellow licensee Nicholas Cartel. Together they operated the firm Cartel & Bui, LLP (the Firm) from 2014 to 2024. Singa Bui was the managing partner.
8The Licensee was suspended on an interlocutory basis on April 26, 2024. The Firm was placed under the trusteeship of the Law Society in May 2024.
9The Licensee is the subject of two Mareva orders (orders freezing her assets) issued by the Ontario Superior Court in January 2024. She was found in contempt of court in August 2024 for breaching the orders and sentenced to 20 days in jail.
10During a 2022 spot audit, the Licensee falsified trust account records by deleting transactions that revealed the misuse of trust funds. The Licensee admits that the trust account records provided to the Law Society’s spot audit check up program had been edited to remove transactions that may have alerted the Law Society to the misuse of the Firm’s trust accounts.
11The Licensee admitted that this falsified trust account record had the effect of misleading the Law Society about the status of the Firm’s trust account activity and that she hid transfers totalling approximately $362,771.83 for the period of May 31 to June 30, 2022.
12The Licensee answered the spot audit questionnaire for the Law Society to confirm that she and a staff member of the Firm were responsible for the day-to-day recordkeeping of the firm and completed weekly reviews of accounts and activities. The Firm operated two mixed trust accounts and only the Licensee and Cartel had signing authority. Trust cheques were signed by either herself or Cartel and she prepared the monthly trust reconciliations and client trust listing. The Licensee also answered that she reviewed monthly trust bank statements and that all withdrawals from trust at the Firm are supported by written authorization signed by a licensee.
13The Licensee stopped maintaining books and records for the Firm around August 2022. She and Cartel have been jointly investigated in relation to some of the complaints underlying this application. The Firm is not currently operating and the Licensee has no assets in her name; their residential properties are listed in Cartel’s name only.
The Mareva orders
14The Licensee is currently subject to two separate Mareva orders issued by the Ontario Superior Court. On January 2, 2024, Justice Akbarali issued a Mareva order against the Licensee, Cartel and the Firm to restrain them from dissipating their assets and requiring them to provide a sworn statement describing all of their assets within three days of service of the order.
15On January 10, 2024, a second Mareva order was issued against the Licensee, Cartel and the Firm by Justice Centa, again restraining them from dissipating their assets and to provide a sworn statement describing the nature, value and location of their assets worldwide.
16Multiple default judgments have been issued against the Licensee in civil proceedings associated with the Mareva orders. On June 20, 2024, the Licensee was the subject of a contempt motion before Justice Chalmers, who found the Licensee guilty of contempt for ignoring various court orders, including the two Mareva orders. On October 25, 2024, the Licensee was sentenced to 20 days in jail.
Client A (Flood’s Clients)
17On April 10, 2023, the Law Society received a complaint from a lawyer licensee, D. Flood, on behalf of three related clients, formerly represented by the Licensee as Client A (Flood’s Clients). The three clients had been formerly represented by the Firm to facilitate the sale of real estate, shares, and business assets. Cartel was handling the shares and assets sales on behalf of Flood’s Clients. The Licensee and her associate, JT, represented Flood’s Clients in the real estate sale.
18The complaint alleged that the Licensee and Firm had delayed the release of sale proceeds to Flood’s Clients for over a month without explanation and may have misapplied the funds properly belonging to Flood’s Clients.
19On February 17, 2023, the Firm accepted $2,538,422.25 into trust on behalf of Flood’s Clients.
20Prior to accepting funds on behalf of the Flood’s Clients, the Firm’s trust account had a balance of $26,802.69. The Firm also accepted an initial deposit from Flood’s Clients of $142,462. Neither the Licensee nor the Firm released any funds to Flood’s Clients on February 17, 2023. The end of day balance on February 17, 2023 of the Firm’s trust account was just $978,521.
21The Firm’s trust account should have held the full amount accepted into trust on behalf of Flood’s Clients at the end of the day on February 17, 2023. Instead, there was a shortfall of more or less $1,702,362 in relation to Flood’s Clients alone.
22The removal of Flood’s Clients’ funds from trust was without authorization.
23On March 3, 2023, the Licensee requested and obtained a mortgage discharge statement in relation to Flood’s Clients’ properties from BCU Financial but did not make any payments to discharge the mortgages between March 3 and 6, 2023.
24On March 10, 2023, the Licensee sent two certified cheques, of $92,669.19 and $5,925.95 respectively, to BCU Financial to pay out the outstanding mortgages held by BCU in relation to Flood’s Clients.
25At the end of the day on March 10, 2023, the Firm’s trust account balance was $35,087.20, but should have been at least $2,439,827.11 just for the amount that should have been held for Flood’s Clients. The Licensee had removed the majority of Flood’s Clients’ funds from trust without authorization.
26On March 17, 2023, Cartel initiated three wire transfers to Flood’s Clients in the total amount of $960,000, but none were successful due to errors in the transmission information.
27At the end of the day on March 17, 2023, the Firm’s trust account held just $450,251.09. Even without the errors, the wire transfers would not have cleared due to insufficient funds in the trust account.
28On March 22, 2023, one of Flood’s Clients contacted Cartel to inquire into the status of the missing funds. Cartel advised that all of the funds would be transferred on that day and March 23. On March 22, 2023, Cartel forwarded $126,000 to some of Flood’s Clients from funds held in trust. No further funds were sent that day.
29Also on March 22, 2023, Flood advised Cartel that he had been retained to assist his clients in accessing their funds held in trust by the Firm. In an email Flood requested details of all wire transfers to date, reasons why the wire transfers had failed, and an explanation of what efforts had been made to resend the funds. Cartel did not respond to any of the requests.
30At the end of the day on March 22, 2023, the Firm’s trust balance was just $409,220.11 but should have held $2,313,827.11 for Flood’s Clients.
31On March 23, 2023, Cartel emailed Flood to confirm the amounts owing and promised to send all outstanding funds and wire confirmations by March 24. Cartel requested Flood’s Clients execute directions prior to their funds being released. Flood raised concerns with this new requirement when Cartel had already promised to release the funds owing. Nevertheless, Flood’s Clients complied and sent the signed directions, but no payments were made that day.
Cartel’s short-term private mortgages
32On March 24, 2023, Cartel and the Licensee arranged a collateral private mortgage on the Licensee’s mother’s investment property in Toronto. This short-term private mortgage was obtained without the Licensee’s mother’s knowledge or consent.
33On March 24, 2023, Cartel arranged for a short-term private mortgage against two of his solely-owned properties in Toronto in the amount of $1,200,000. The Licensee acted as counsel for Cartel on these short-term private mortgages.
34On March 24, 2023, Cartel’s short-term private mortgage proceeds were deposited into the Firm’s trust account. Shortly after this deposit, the Licensee wired $1,280,884.29 to Flood in trust for Flood’s Clients.
35The Licensee admits that without the addition of Cartel’s mortgage funds to the Firm’s trust account, the Firm would have been unable to reimburse Flood’s Clients on March 24, 2023. On March 24, 2023, the Firm’s trust account was still in a shortfall of approximately $800,000, as the balance was just $219,173.86 when at least $1,032,942.82 should still have been held in trust for Flood’s Clients.
Client A’s funds still missing then finally paid
36On March 24, 2023, Flood repeatedly followed up with Cartel about the status of the outstanding funds owing his clients. Cartel advised that the Licensee as “managing partner” would send all outstanding funds that afternoon, but all communications were intended to mislead. Cartel sent multiple emails claiming the Licensee was at the bank and would confirm the wire transfers “soon,” even though she had not left her home. At approximately 7:00 PM, the Licensee finally called Flood and later emailed at 8:14 PM with a wire transmission agreement and receipt showing a partial transfer of $1,280,884.29, explaining that the bank was closing and the remainder would be sent Monday.
37At 9:07 PM, Flood sent an email to the Licensee advising that his clients were of the view that their funds had been stolen by the Licensee, Cartel, and the Firm, and stressed the need for the remainder of funds to be wired no later than Monday morning, March 27, 2023. At 10:36 AM on March 27, Flood confirmed he had received a wire transfer of $1,280,884.29 on behalf of his clients. That evening the Licensee emailed Flood a copy of a further wire payment agreement but did not include a receipt for the transfer as had been promised and no further funds were wired March 27, 2023.
38Flood’s Clients were eventually transferred the remainder of their funds from the Firm’s trust account on March 31, 2023.
39The Licensee admits that she used Flood’s Clients trust funds to pay other client’s trust obligations, to pay personal expenses for herself and Cartel, to pay business expenses for the Firm, and for Cartel’s class action practice.
Client B
40On May 18, 2023, Client B filed a complaint against the Licensee.
41Client B had jointly retained the Licensee alongside her three siblings (collectively the Parties) in February 2023 to assist with the sale of their parent’s home. One of the Parties was a United States resident and their portion of any sale proceeds required a 25% non-resident tax withholding payable to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
42The sale of the parent’s home closed on April 11, 2023, and the Firm received $1,305,868.64 as the proceeds of sale. The same day, the Firm withdrew $1,828 in fees and disbursements from the funds received. The Firm still held approximately $1,304,039 in trust for the Parties. No funds were issued to the Parties on April 11, 2023.
43On April 11, 2023, the Licensee signed an undertaking to hold $342,500 in trust until May 30, 2023, when the funds would be remitted to the Canada Revenue Agency. This undertaking required the Licensee to provide proof of remittance to the CRA within five business days after payment was made.
44On April 27, 2023, Client B emailed the Licensee asking for an update on when the funds being held by the Firm would be dispersed to the Parties. On May 6 and again on May 10, the Parties inquired into the disbursement of the proceeds of sale. In the May 10 email, Client B advised the Licensee that they had obtained legal advice and were aware the Firm was improperly withholding too much for the payment of non-resident taxes. The Firm should have only held back $85,625.
45On May 30, 2023, the Licensee was in breach of the undertaking she signed on April 11, 2023 to remit funds to CRA. On June 15, 2023, the Licensee issued a certified cheque to CRA to pay $70,875 owing for the sale of the Parties’ parents’ home. Of the $342,500 held back from the proceeds of sale, only $70,875 was remitted to CRA.
46On June 16, 2023, the Licensee prepared and issued a trust ledger statement to the Parties. This statement inaccurately stated that $240,384.93 had already been paid to the Parties and the Firm was still holding back $271,625 for non-resident taxes.
47The June 16 trust ledger statement had the effect of confusing the Parties into thinking that $271,625 may still be owing to the CRA despite the non-resident withholding tax already having been paid. It also had the effect of assisting the Licensee in continuing to hold the Parties’ funds in trust to cover trust shortages on other unrelated matters.
48On June 19, 2023, the Licensee prepared and issued another trust ledger statement to the Parties. Again, it inaccurately stated that $240,384.93 had been paid to each of the Parties and the Firm was still holding back $271,625 for non-resident taxes. Again, the statement had the effect of misleading the Parties.
49On June 21, 2023, the Licensee issued four bank transfers from trust of $240,384.93 each, one to each of the Parties, totalling $961,539.72. This payment followed Client B filing her complaint to the Law Society. The Firm still held $271,625 in trust, improperly held back for non-resident tax payments. Despite multiple requests for an explanation or documentation, the Licensee did not provide an answer.
50The Licensee admits that the $961,539.72 disbursed to the Parties on June 21, 2023 was taken from funds deposited into the Firm’s trust account by other clients.
51The Licensee admits that she used the Parties’ trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and to pay the business expenses of Cartel’s class action practice.
Client C
52Client C retained the Licensee in July 2023 to handle the sale of his home, which closed on August 28, 2023. The Firm received $857,731 in trust and deducted fees of approximately $24,051, leaving approximately $833,680 to discharge two mortgages and pay Client C’s equity.
53The Licensee signed an undertaking to pay out the mortgages but failed to do so. On August 31, 2023, the Licensee prepared a trust statement ledger falsely showing that both mortgages had been paid and wired $119,189.94 to Client C, misleading him about the status of his obligations.
54Between September and October 2023, Client C repeatedly emailed the Licensee for updates after TD Bank reported arrears in the mortgages. The Licensee admitted there were errors and promised to resolve the matter but took no action until October 23. On October 23 she paid one mortgage ($161,894.19), and paid the second mortgage on October 25 ($556,610.20), after interest charges of $4,023.80 had accrued. The Licensee paid this interest with funds that were taken from other clients’ trust funds without authorization.
55The Licensee admits that she used Client C’s trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and to pay the business expenses of Cartel’s class action practice.
Client D
56Client D retained the Licensee in August 2023 to close a property sale and discharge a mortgage of about $729,636. The sale closed on September 29, 2023, and the firm received $1,406,683.99 in trust. The Licensee signed an undertaking to pay out the mortgage immediately but failed to do so. By the end of the day, the trust account held only $54,823.84, reflecting a shortfall of over $1.35 million related to Client D alone. Despite repeated assurances and misleading trust ledger statements claiming the mortgage was paid, the Licensee only paid out Client D’s equity on October 13, and never discharged the mortgage as promised.
57The delay caused additional mortgage payments and interest charges to be owed, which the Licensee covered using other clients’ trust funds without authorization. Even after multiple follow-ups in November, the mortgage remained unpaid, and the Licensee continued to mislead Client D and his lawyer. Ultimately, the mortgage was resolved through a title insurance claim, not by the Firm.
58The Licensee admits that she used Client D’s trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, and to pay business expenses of the Firm.
Client E
59Client E retained the Licensee in October 2023 to handle the sale of her property and discharge a mortgage of about $320,677.32. The sale closed on October 30, 2023, and the firm received $625,420.95 in trust. The Licensee signed an undertaking to pay the mortgage immediately but failed to do so. By the end of October 31, the trust account balance had dropped to $436,295.55, reflecting a shortfall, even though the full amount should have remained in trust. On November 1, the Licensee issued a misleading trust ledger statement claiming the mortgage had been paid.
60Instead of paying the mortgage, the Licensee disbursed equity to Client E and made other payments, leaving insufficient funds to meet obligations related to Client E. When Client E followed up on November 15, the Licensee admitted the mortgage was unpaid and promised to correct the error, but never did. The mortgage remained outstanding and was eventually resolved through a title insurance claim.
61The Licensee admits that she used Client E’s trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and to pay the business expenses for Cartel’s class action practice.
Client F
62Client F and their co-purchaser retained the Licensee in October 2023 to close a residential property purchase scheduled for December 1, 2023. On November 20, they deposited $2,155,000 into the Firm’s trust account for the transaction. However, the funds were never forwarded to the seller, and the purchase did not close. By the end of November 20, the trust account balance for Client F was only $1,182,097.90, reflecting a shortfall of nearly $973,000. At no point after that date did the trust account hold sufficient funds to complete the purchase.
63Despite repeated assurances from the Licensee and later Cartel, the transaction failed, and the buyers’ deposit was deemed forfeited on December 14, 2023. Cartel offered to personally cover losses and even bid on the property, but the clients had already retained new counsel. This matter ultimately led to a Mareva order freezing the Licensee’s assets.
64The Licensee admits that she used the trust funds of Client F and their co-purchaser to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and to pay the business expenses for Cartel’s class action practice.
Client G
65Client G retained the Licensee to handle the sale of her home, which closed on September 29, 2023, with $960,868.95 deposited into trust. The Licensee undertook to pay off an outstanding mortgage held by First National Financial for $315,010.39 immediately but failed to do so. Despite repeated assurances and misleading communications, the mortgage remained unpaid for months. By the end of September 29, the trust account balance had dropped to $54,823.84, reflecting a shortfall of over $261,000. First National Financial repeatedly contacted the Firm, warning of arrears and the urgency of receiving upcoming payments, but received no response.
66Cartel later took over the file in December, promising resolution, but the mortgage was never discharged. Ultimately, the debt was covered through a title insurance claim.
67The Licensee admits that she used Client G’s trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and to pay the business expenses for Cartel’s class action practice.
Client H
68Client H and a co-owner retained the Licensee in September 2023 to handle the sale of their matrimonial home and discharge a mortgage of about $560,000. The sale closed on October 5, 2023, and $1,371,777.22 was deposited into trust. The Licensee undertook to pay out the mortgage immediately but failed to do so. A trust ledger statement issued on October 31 falsely stated that the mortgage had been discharged. By early November, the trust account should have held over $1.1 million, but it contained only $625,829.65, reflecting a shortfall of nearly $497,000.
69Despite repeated follow-ups from the client and their family lawyer, the Licensee and later Cartel made multiple unfulfilled promises. On November 20, the Licensee paid Client H’s equity using funds from another client. The mortgage was never discharged and was eventually resolved through a title insurance claim.
70The Licensee admits that she used Client H’s trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and to pay the business expenses for Cartel’s class action practice.
Clients I and J
71Clients I and J were private lenders who retained the Licensee to facilitate a $308,000 private mortgage in December 2022. The funds were advanced to a borrower, and in late November 2023, the Licensee was retained again to discharge the mortgage and return the funds. On December 1, 2023, the borrower’s counsel sent $313,150.23 to the Firm’s trust account for payout to Clients I and J. Despite this, the Licensee never released the funds to them as directed. Instead, Cartel discharged the mortgage on December 5, 2023 without paying the lenders, leaving them uncompensated.
72By December 4, the Firm’s trust account was frozen, and the lenders’ money remained unpaid.
73The Licensee admits that she used the trust funds of Clients I and J to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay personal expenses of her and Cartel, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and to pay the business expenses for Cartel’s class action practice.
Client K
74Client K retained the Licensee in October 2023 to close a property sale and discharge a mortgage of $560,914.75. The sale closed on October 27, 2023, and $1,170,825.19 was deposited into trust. The Licensee undertook to pay off the mortgage immediately but failed to do so. Instead, she paid Client K’s equity and an outstanding writ, then issued a November 1 trust ledger statement falsely stating the mortgage had been discharged. By that time, the trust account balance had fallen to $233,133.46, far below what should have been held in trust for Client K.
75The mortgage remained unpaid for months and was eventually resolved through a title insurance claim in April 2024.
76The Licensee admits that she used Client K’s trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, to pay business expenses of the Firm, to pay the business expenses for Cartel’s class action practice.
Client L
77Client L retained the Licensee in June 2023 to assist with a property purchase and discharge an existing mortgage of $383,221.99. On September 14, 2023, Client L deposited $634,024.99 into trust, but by the end of that day, the trust account held only $70,226.10, indicating a major shortfall. The Licensee undertook to pay off the mortgage immediately but failed to do so. A trust ledger statement issued on October 6 falsely stated that the mortgage had been discharged. Despite repeated follow-ups in October and November, the Licensee finally admitted delays but continued to mislead the client.
78The mortgage was never paid and was ultimately resolved through a title insurance claim in 2024.
79The Licensee admits that she used Client L’s trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her and Cartel’s personal expenses, to pay business expenses of the Firm, to pay the business expenses for Cartel’s class action practice.
Solomon’s Clients
80Solomon, a lawyer, complained on behalf of non-resident clients (Solomon’s Clients) after the Licensee failed to remit $465,000 in holdback funds for Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in taxes owing following the sale of their property on September 19, 2023. The Licensee undertook to retain and remit these funds but did not do so. Instead, she paid Solomon $1,304,243.34 for the balance of sale proceeds, leaving the trust account with only $159,839.68 when it should have held at least $450,000, reflecting a shortfall of over $305,000.
81Despite repeated follow-ups in November and December, the Licensee provided no proof of payment to CRA and ignored requests for updates. CRA clearance certificates obtained in January 2024 confirmed no taxes were outstanding, yet the Licensee never released the funds to Solomon or CRA.
82The Licensee admits that she used Solomon Clients’ trust funds to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay personal expenses for herself and Cartel, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and to pay the business expenses for Cartel’s class action practice.
Misappropriation
83The Law Society brings this application alleging that the Licensee failed to act with honour and integrity by misappropriating funds held in trust for real estate matters relating to 13 clients. The Licensee admits to this misconduct in matters relating to each of the 13 clients.
84The Rules of Professional Conduct define professional misconduct to include “misappropriating or otherwise dealing dishonestly with a client’s or a third party’s money or property”.
85Rule 2.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires “A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity.”
86When this duty includes a lawyer holding monies in trust, Tribunal jurisprudence has been very clear to interpret this duty such that trust and integrity are central. “It is no exaggeration to say that it is fundamentally important that lawyers act honestly.”: Law Society of Ontario v Wilkins, 2021 ONLSTA 15 at para 70.
87The Tribunal has defined misappropriation to mean “the knowing unauthorized use of client property by a lawyer or paralegal for their own purposes, on the basis that the knowledge may be actual knowledge, wilful blindness or recklessness”: Wilkins, paras 82 and 103.
88The Licensee has admitted to misappropriation. Based upon the deemed admissions, the Licensee failed to act with honour and integrity by misappropriating:
$2,538,422.25 accepted into trust for Client A;
$1,304,039 accepted into trust for the Parties;
$833,680 held in trust for Client C;
$1,406,683.99 accepted into trust for Client D;
$625,420.95 accepted into trust for Client E;
$2,155,000 accepted in trust for Client F;
$960,868.95 accepted in trust for Client G;
$1,371,777.22 accepted into trust for Client H;
$313,150.23 accepted into trust for Client I and J;
$1,170,825.19 accepted into trust for Client K;
$634,024.99 accepted into trust for Client L; and
$465,000 accepted into trust for Solomon’s Clients.
89The Licensee has also admitted that in every matter but for Flood’s Clients and Client F, she gave and breached an undertaking to either discharge an existing mortgage or remit taxes to CRA from the proceeds of each sale accepted into trust. This breach of trust and undertaking compounded the overall trust shortfall and was part of the pattern of misuse of client funds for unrelated purposes.
90The Licensee has admitted that in each client matter she used funds received into trust by the Firm to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients, to pay for her personal expenses, to pay for the personal expenses of her husband Cartel, to pay business expenses of the Firm, and, in most cases, to pay the business expenses of Cartel’s class action practice.
91We accept the admissions of the Licensee on each particular and find the Licensee failed to act with honour and integrity by misappropriating funds accepted into trust on behalf of each of her 13 clients, as alleged.
PENALTY
92The Law Society seeks an order of revocation based upon our findings of misappropriation. As stated earlier, the Tribunal defines misappropriation to mean “the knowing unauthorized use of client property by a lawyer or paralegal for their own purposes.” We find the panel’s definition in Wilkins important because as it also states, “the knowledge required for misappropriation should include actual knowledge, wilful blindness or recklessness … client protection and the reputation of the professions require that no distinction be made between actual knowledge, wilful blindness and recklessness”: Wilkins, para 100.
93This definition confines the application of the term misappropriation to cases of dishonesty and thus to cases where presumptive revocation is appropriate. The panel in Wilkins sought to harmonize “the definition of misappropriation with the approach taken in our jurisprudence”, “to require comparable dishonesty, a fundamental breach of the solicitor-client trust relationship, and a loss or risk of loss of client property” and in so doing reflect “the common thread that public confidence requires that lawyers who act with actual knowledge, who act with deliberate ignorance and who persist in the face of known danger of the consequences, be treated in like manner.”: Wilkins, paras 104-105.
94Professional misconduct involving proven dishonesty gives rise to presumptive revocation. In Law Society of Upper Canada v Abbott, 2017 ONCA 525, at para 20, the Court of Appeal quoted with approval Law Society of Upper Canada v Mucha, 2008 ONLSAP 5, and its citation of the following passage from the reasons of Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Bolton v Law Society, [1993] EWCA Civ 32 at para 14:
Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Lapses from the required high standard may, of course, take different forms and be of varying degrees. The most serious involves proven dishonesty, whether or not leading to criminal proceedings and criminal penalties. In such cases the tribunal has almost invariably, no matter how strong the mitigation advanced for the solicitor, ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
(Emphasis in Mucha)
95In Law Society of Ontario v Manilla, 2021 ONLSTA 25, the appeal panel at para 42 stated resumptive revocation in cases of misappropriation this way:
…at issue is whether “in the public interest, the profession can accept the continued licensing of a person who has shown himself to be willing to participate, for personal gain, in stealing someone else’s money; does the member have the moral character to continue to be in a position of trust?”
96As was said by the panel in Law Society of Ontario v Humphreys, 2025 ONLSTH 105 at para 32, “the trust account cannot be used as personal line of credit in which to withdraw funds.” Here, the Licensee used millions of dollars in client funds to pay for her and her husband Cartel’s personal expenses, business expenses of the Firm, the business expenses of Cartel’s class action practice, and to cover shortfalls owing to other unrelated clients.
97The Licensee, through legal counsel, made no submissions on this presumptive penalty.
98The Licensee has admitted misappropriation. That she has failed “to have discharged her professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness” is plain. She took her clients’ trust funds without authority in 13 separate matters, over an 18-month period. This conduct is dishonest and applying the definition of misappropriation here, we order the revocation of the Licensee’s licence to practise law effective immediately.
99The Law Society also seeks an order requiring the Licensee to reimburse the former clients involved in this application for the amounts at issue for each of them, or alternatively, to require the Licensee to reimburse the Law Society’s Compensation Fund for any amounts paid out to the former clients of the Licensee as victims of her proven misconduct. There are currently two claims paid and three claims pending with the Law Society Compensation Fund.
100The Licensee makes no submissions regarding the Law Society’s request regarding the Compensation Fund but emphasizes to us that our decision to make this order is a matter of discretion and we should exercise this discretion in favour of the Licensee.
101Her counsel notes that the Licensee faces a number of default judgements and much of her property is not registered in her name. The Licensee has provided no evidence regarding her ability to pay nor were we provided with copies of the default judgements.
102Section 35(1)(14) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8, authorizes us to issue “An order requiring the licensee to pay to the Society, for the Compensation Fund, such amount as the Hearing Division may fix that does not exceed the total amount of grants made from the Fund as a result of dishonesty on the part of the licensee.”
103We agree that such an order is appropriate in this case.
104For these reasons, we ordered the revocation of her licence to practise law effective immediately and the reimbursement to the affected former clients or the Compensation Fund as requested.
COSTS
105The Law Society submitted its bill of costs. The costs incurred by the Law Society, including investigation and the interlocutory suspension sought in April 2024, total over $115,000, but the Law Society asks us to award $100,000. This is a substantial amount.
106The Law Society’s request for costs began with the principle that the professions generally should not bear the costs of discipline proceedings: Law Society of Upper Canada v Baker, 2006 ONLSHP 21 at para 12.
107Further, a panel should be guided by the approach taken in Law Society of Ontario v Perrelli, 2018 ONLSTH 80 at para 48:
Find an appropriate general range, considering key litigation steps including pre-hearings, the length of the hearing and the work product of Law Society representative(s).
Determine a place within the range by taking into account:
a. the complexity of the case;
b. any conduct of the parties during the Tribunal process that lengthened the proceedings;
c. any financial hardship that affects the ability of the licensee to pay; and
d. any other factors to the case.
108In support of its substantial request, the Law Society drew our attention to Law Society of Ontario v Stewart, 2023 ONLSTH 153, for that panel’s summary at para 85 of a comparable range of decisions considering multiple allegations and/or applications, complicated or numerous RTAs, and the length of the hearing.
109The general range of costs orders from this summary in Stewart falls between $125,000 and $200,000. The Law Society’s request of $100,000 in this proceeding therefore falls a little lower than this range.
110The closest comparator in terms of duration, the Law Society work product, and the proceedings (including the need for an interlocutory suspension) is Law Society of Ontario v Hosseini, 2022 ONLSTH 90, a two-day hearing in which the licensee did not participate. The panel awarded $125,000 in costs.
111In her submissions on costs, counsel for the Licensee drew our attention to the exercise of our discretion to award costs and that a Licensee need not be ordered to pay all of the costs incurred by the Law Society. In this case, counsel for the Licensee submitted that the conduct hearing has been efficient as far as there has been no need to call witnesses and proceeded based on deemed admissions.
112Regarding the need for an interlocutory motion, counsel submitted that the Licensee was prepared to give an undertaking not to practise and did not contest that motion, which also proceeded efficiently.
113Regarding the range of comparable cases submitted by the Law Society, counsel for the Licensee submitted that in misappropriation cases with a joint submission, while not as significant in value as this matter, costs were reduced by half.
114Finally, the Licensee did not submit any evidence regarding her ability to pay; rather, her legal counsel only referenced the existence of default judgments ordered against her in other proceedings and her inability to pay those judgments. Counsel requested we discount the Law Society’s request by half owing to the efficiency of these proceedings and the deemed admissions averting the need for the Law Society to prove it case.
Conclusion as to costs
115In this application, while the hearing was completed in a single day and the Licensee participated through legal counsel, the Law Society’s work product, including multiple RTAs and documentary disclosure that facilitated the basis of the evidentiary record for our finding of misappropriation of trust funds from 13 clients, was substantial. Further, an interlocutory suspension in April 2024 was sought and obtained after a hearing and costs of that proceeding were reserved to us.
116The hearing panel found reasonable grounds to believe that there was a significant risk of harm to members of the public or the public interest in ordering the interlocutory suspension of the Licensee in April 2024. This suspension was based upon the Law Society’s investigation at that time into misappropriation alleged in the case of three clients: Law Society of Ontario v Bui, 2024 ONLSTH 39. As the Law Society investigation continued, allegations of misappropriation extended to ten additional clients by the time of the hearing. This investigation was the work product of the Law Society that they include in their request for costs.
117We agree that the deemed admissions of the Licensee resulted in an uncontested hearing; however, a contested hearing would have increased the costs of proceedings. Without any evidence of her inability to pay, we are unable to substantiate how the exercise of our discretion should result in a greater discount than what the Law Society has provided.
118For these reasons, we award the Law Society $100,000 in costs.
ORDER
119At the conclusion of the hearing, we ordered:
The respondent’s licence is revoked, effective immediately.
The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Former Lawyers Whose Licences Have Been Revoked or Who Have Been Permitted to Surrender Their Licences.
The respondent shall immediately pay to the Compensation Fund (the Fund) the following amounts:
a. In relation to CAS-75714-V3M0H0:
i. Fund Claim CAS-139934-L1L0V5, the amount of $85,625.
ii. Fund Claim CAS-139940-B4R7J5, the amount of $85,625.
iii. Fund Claim CAS-139954-S2Q0L1, the amount of $85,625.
iv. Fund Claim CAS-142923-B9Y1Z9, the amount of $14,750.
b. In relation to CAS-142226-C1K0N5:
i. Fund Claim CAS-143409-H1Y5K8, the amount of $465,000.
- The respondent shall pay to the Compensation Fund any amount paid by the Fund after the date of this order in relation to:
a. CAS-138830-Y6X8Y3, Fund Claim CAS-139702-F0H3M3, to a maximum of $500,000;
b. CAS-139728-F3H8N9, Fund Claim CAS-143775-T1M3C7, to a maximum of $500,000; and
c. CAS-139976-J9F5T1, Fund Claim CAS-143589-F9F3N6, to a maximum of $4,045.41.
- The respondent shall immediately pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $100,000. Interest shall accrue on any unpaid portion of that amount at a rate of 4% per year.