LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: March 18, 2026
Tribunal File No.: 26H-001
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
Warren Arnold Singer
Respondent
Before: Mitchell Kitagawa (chair), Murray Klippenstein, Michelle Richards
Heard: January 16, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances:
Ian McKellar, for the applicant
Respondent, self-represented
Summary:
SINGER – Interlocutory Suspension – The Law Society received several complaints about the Lawyer failing to attend court, not communicating, and appearing intoxicated during virtual appearances – During the investigation it was discovered that the Lawyer had not reported criminal charges to the Law Society as required – Issues also arose as to the Lawyer’s capacity – The panel found there were genuine concerns establishing reasonable grounds that if the Licensee continued to practice he would pose a risk of harm to members of the public and to the public interest in the administration of justice – The Lawyer’s licence was suspended on an interlocutory basis.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUSPENSION OR RESTRICTIONS
1Mitchell Kitagawa (for the panel):– The Law Society of Ontario brings a motion for interlocutory suspension of the licence to practise law of Warren Arnold Singer (the Licensee) pursuant to s 49.27(1) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8 which states:
49.27(1) The Hearing Division may make an interlocutory order authorized by the rules of practice and procedure, subject to subsection (2).
(2) The Hearing Division may only make an interlocutory order suspending a Lawyer's licence or restricting the manner in which a Lawyer may practise law or provide legal services 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 the order is not made.
2The Licensee appeared at the hearing and gave evidence and made submissions. While the Licensee did not agree with all of the facts as presented by the Law Society, he did accept and agree that the evidence in the Law Society’s motion record would meet the threshold required to prove that 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 the order is not made. We will take this important concession and co-operation into account in our costs award.
3After considering the evidence and hearing the submissions of both parties, we were also independently satisfied that the Law Society has met the evidentiary burden to justify an interlocutory suspension of a licence to practise law.
4As a result, we ordered the following:
the Licensee’s licence to practice law be hereby suspended on an interlocutory basis effective immediately;
the Licensee shall comply fully with the Law Society’s Guidelines for Suspended Lawyers and Paralegals; and
there will be no costs ordered.
BACKGROUND
5The Licensee is 63 years old and was called to the Bar in 1991. He was a sole practitioner originally focusing on criminal law, but more recently began practising family law.
6The Licensee has a significant regulatory history with the Law Society which includes issues related to substance addiction, mixing trust funds with his general account, and practising while under suspension.
THE COMPLAINTS
Person A
7In support of its case, the Law Society proffered the affidavit of Nina Iwanowich, an investigator with the Law Society, sworn January 5, 2026.
8The investigator testified that, on October 16, 2025, an individual, Person A, filed a complaint with the Law Society. Person A was a self-represented litigant in a family law matter. The Licensee represented Person A’s ex-partner.
9Person A reported to the Law Society that, on June 10, 2025, the Licensee attended a trial co-ordinator’s meeting virtually. On the screen the Licensee appeared to be attached to an IV and there were nurses in the background. The Licensee said he was in a hospital on pain medication and that others should be mindful of his condition.
10Person A also alleged that on August 22, 2025, the Licensee showed signs of intoxication while attending a virtual court proceeding. The Licensee was argumentative and slurred his words. He repeatedly interrupted the judge and constantly asked people to repeat themselves.
11Person A also alleged that on October 14, 2025, at another virtual court hearing, the Licensee appeared wearing a sleeveless, white work-out type shirt. The presiding judge told the Licensee to turn off his camera and get dressed. After 20 minutes, the Licensee returned to the hearing wearing a shirt, tie and jacket. Person A believed the Licensee appeared to be intoxicated. The Licensee was argumentative, waved his arms, and appeared off balance when getting out of his chair.
12The judge’s endorsement for that hearing noted that the parties had failed to file a case conference brief as ordered in the previous appearance and observed that the Licensee failed to provide any reason as to why he did not comply with the order of the court. The court called the conference “a wasted appearance”. The judge also wrote “Today, while in court, the court expressed its concern about the way Mr. Singer presented in court and how he addressed the court. Counsel was reminded that he is an officer of the court. The court ordered the next appearance to be in person to maintain courtroom decorum.”
13Person A also stated that the Licensee then called Person A’s criminal lawyer at the time and the Licensee told her that his client (Person A’s ex-partner) was a liar and that he did not want to represent her any further.
14Person A told Ms. Iwanowich that the Licensee failed to attend at in-person court appearances on November 18, 2025 and January 2, 2026. Person A also provided Ms. Iwanowich with an affidavit from the Licensee’s client in which she deposed that she was unable to reach her lawyer.
Client B
15Ms. Ivanowich’s affidavit also detailed a second complaint, this one received by the Law Society from a client of the Licensee, Client B. Client B had retained the Licensee to act on an estate matter on June 25, 2021. On May 11, 2025, she learned that the Licensee was admitted to The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and could not represent her at a hearing the following day. On May 12, 2025, another lawyer appeared as agent for the Licensee. This lawyer informed Client B that the Licensee had surrendered his licence to practise law.
16Over the course of the retainer, Client B claims that she paid the Licensee a total of $124,505 but did not receive any accounts from the Licensee to detail the work and the cost of it. The investigator alleges that on July 18, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the Licensee to deliver his accounts within 14 days of service of the order but he has not complied. The matter remains under active investigation by the Law Society.
Client C
17In her affidavit, Ms. Iwanowich reported another complaint that she received in November 2025 from Client C. Client C had retained the Licensee in May 2022 on a family law matter. She complained that in the more than three years of the retainer, the Licensee had sent one demand letter which took 18 months to prepare. Client C stated that she also went months without being able to contact the Licensee and that she has suffered financial loss and emotional stress as a result of his conduct. The Law Society is currently investigating this complaint.
Unreported criminal charges
18As part of a capacity investigation, Ms. Iwanowich interviewed the Licensee by way of a video call on October 30, 2025. She found that the Licensee “continuously went off topic and interrupted me repeatedly.” Despite this behaviour, the Licensee disclosed that he could take care of himself physically; that he has about 15 cases; that he practises criminal and family law; that he maintains a trust account; that while not living with his spouse, he uses her apartment as his office, and that while he could not control his alcohol consumption prior to October 2024, he had been sober for the past year, although he had consumed alcohol on some occasions during that time. He also said that he was admitted to CAMH in October 2025 as a result of a “false call” made by his wife with respect to his mental health status.
19During that same interview, the Licensee informed the investigator that he had pled guilty to an impaired driving charge in 2021 which he had reported to the LSO “as he always does”. Ms. Iwanowich then looked further into his past criminal charges and found that on November 26, 2024, the Licensee was charged with s 264 (1) of the Criminal Code, Criminal Harassment. He failed to appear in court on December 9, 2025, and there was a warrant for his arrest at that time. There was no record of his reporting this charge to the Law Society and he did not mention it during his interview on October 30, 2025.
20In the course of investigating his past criminal charges, Ms. Iwanowich learned from the Brampton courthouse that the Licensee had been charged with assault and forcible confinement on April 26, 2014. He pled guilty on December 11, 2014. On February 15, 2020 he was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving with a blood-alcohol concentration over 0.08%. The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge and the Licensee pled guilty to the blood-alcohol concentration charge. There was no record to indicate that these charges had been reported to the Law Society.
Capacity issues
21As part of the capacity investigation, Ms. Iwanowich interviewed a lawyer, Rob Christie, who had shared offices with the Licensee. Mr. Christie told Ms. Iwanowich that the Licensee had been assaulted and had his jaw broken in November 2024 and that this appeared to have been a catalyst for unpleasant and argumentative behaviour. Mr. Christie also told the investigator that the Licensee would discuss “things inappropriately with his clients” and that one of the Licensee’s clients may have recorded a conversation in which the client thought the Licensee was probably intoxicated. Mr. Christie did not listen to the recording.
22Mr. Christie said that he did not see any alcohol or drug-related issues while he shared an office with the Licensee, but he did state that the Licensee was acting “off”. The Licensee admitted to Mr. Christie that he had mental health issues and that he would stop practising law. In April or May 2025, Mr. Christie “kicked out” the Licensee from the office.
23Ms. Iwanowich attempted to interview the Licensee’s spouse, but she was unable to do so.
24Upon the conclusion of her October 30, 2025 interview with the Licensee, Ms. Iwanowich sent the Licensee a list of questions by email. She asked that they be answered by November 11, 2025. On November 10, 2025, she spoke by phone with the Licensee and granted him an extension to answer the questions to November 18, 2025. On November 18, the Licensee emailed the investigator to state that he would provide the answers to her the next day but he did not do so and, in a series of emails, eventually indicated that he would send the responses on November 20, 2025. Again, they were not received, and Ms. Iwanowich granted another extension to November 28, 2025, which was acknowledged by the Licensee. On December 2, the Licensee left a voicemail with Ms. Iwanowich to the effect that he would send his responses by email. They were never received and Ms. Iwanowich did not hear from the Licensee after receipt of that email.
25Ms. Iwanowich sought and was provided with a consent on the part of the Licensee for her to access his medical records from CAMH for the period of May to October 2025. The medical records, which were reviewed by us but not put on the public record due to health privacy, provided details of his mental health issues during that period.
LAW SOCIETY’S POSITION
26The Law Society submits that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a significant risk of harm to the public and the public interest in the administration of justice if the Licensee is allowed to continue to practice.
27The Law Society submits that there is evidence that the Licensee may have been and still is incapacitated due to his significant health problems, which may be connected to the manner in which he served his clients. It also takes the position that the complaints raised by clients of the Licensee, although still under investigation, are indicative of behaviour that could be considered a risk of harm to the public and the public interest in the administration of justice.
28The Law Society also points to the failure on the part of the Licensee to report criminal charges to the Law Society as evidence of a lack of integrity, which it says is further proof that his continuing to practice would reduce the confidence of the public interest in the justice system.
THE LICENSEE’S POSITION
29As mentioned, the Licensee appeared at the hearing and candidly and realistically admitted that the evidence before the Tribunal would meet the reasonable grounds threshold to prove that an interlocutory suspension is justified.
30At the hearing, despite being warned several times, the Licensee interrupted Law Society counsel repeatedly. Albeit not delivered in a hostile tone, his interjections were tangential and meandering and it was difficult to discern the points he was trying to make. The same is true of his submissions. He objected to some of the facts in the affidavit of the investigator but then seemed to suggest that it was only because he wanted to ensure that we were cognizant of the fact that the investigations had not been concluded and therefore, they were still just allegations.
ANALYSIS
31As mentioned above, pursuant to s 49.27(1), there are two circumstances in which a panel may suspend a licensee’s licence to practise law on an interlocutory basis. The first is where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is significant risk to the members of the public and the second is where there is risk of harm to the public interest in the administration of justice if the order is not made.
32The standard of proof for these circumstances is “reasonable grounds” which is described as being higher than a “mere suspicion” but lower than a “balance of probabilities” in Law Society of Upper Canada v Ejidike, 2016 ONLSTH 69 at para 54. In Law Society of Upper Canada v Marusic, 2015 ONLSTH 81 at para 61, establishing “reasonable grounds” is seen as a low evidentiary threshold. We conclude that “reasonable grounds” have been made out both for significant risk to the members of the public and for risk of harm to the public interest in the administration of justice if the order is not made.
33It is clear, by virtue of his medical records and by his admissions to the investigator, that the Licensee has suffered from mental health issues and substance addiction. The symptoms have been observed by clients, a colleague, a party to litigation in which he was involved, and the court. Some of the behaviour was of such seriousness that it became the subject of complaints to the Law Society and appeared in court endorsements. As such, there are genuine capacity concerns establishing reasonable grounds that if the Licensee continued to practice he would pose a risk of harm to members of the public.
34The Law Society has also shown that the public interest in the administration of justice could be harmed if the Licensee’s licence was not suspended. The Law Society provided evidence that the Licensee has failed to abide by court orders. An example was the court’s endorsement of October 14, 2025 in which the Licensee was ordered to file a brief for a hearing and did not do so. A second was when the court ordered that he pass his accounting records to his client; again, he did not comply. There was also evidence that he failed to report criminal charges to the Law Society as required by s 2 of By-Law 8. The Law Society also introduced evidence of a lack of respect for the court by failing to appear at a hearing in an appropriate manner. Finally, the Law Society states that there is a warrant out for the Licensee’s arrest for failing to appear at a criminal harassment hearing.
35Based on the evidence and the Licensee’s own acknowledgement, we ordered that the licensee’s licence to practise law be suspended on an interlocutory basis.
36As to costs, the Tribunal’s jurisprudence has long considered that one of the factors relevant to costs is whether the Licensee adopted an approach or positions that tended to shorten the hearing. In this case, the Licensee did not respond or contact the LSO from December 2, 2025, until the hearing. However, on the day of the hearing, he candidly admitted that his conduct met the test for an interlocutory suspension (although it is also true that he did so only after a long and thorough investigative process by the Law Society). While failing to remain in contact with the LSO and co-operating with it is not acceptable, we also recognize that the Licensee has gone through a long and painful journey in his personal and professional life, and we credit his acknowledgement at this hearing, which shortened the hearing and assisted us. In those circumstances, we do not think it is appropriate to award costs against the Licensee.
ORDER
37On January 16, 2026, we ordered:
Commencing immediately, the respondent’s licence is suspended on an interlocutory basis.
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.
There are no costs ordered with this motion.