LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: March 20, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 24H-032

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario Applicant

• and -

Derek Francesco Sorrenti Respondent

Before: Teresa Donnelly Heard: March 12, 2026, by videoconference

Appearances: Amanda Pinto and Bernadette Saad, for the applicant John Dent, for the respondent

Summary: SORRENTI – Motion to Amend Notice of Motion – Just prior to the hearing of its motion regarding deemed admissions, the Law Society sought to amend its notice of motion – The Lawyer had admitted about 117 paragraphs of the RTA and supplementary RTA and refused to admit about 280 paragraphs – The Law Society correspondence and the notice of motion and factum referred to only about 80 of those 280 paragraphs – The responding materials addressed the paragraphs specified only – The amended motion increased the number of refusal at issue from about 80 to about 280 – Omitting all of the 280 paragraphs at the outset was a mistake – The panel noted that it must consider the broader interests at stake, including the approximately 3,000 impacted clients, the public, and the legal professions – The amendment did not raise a new issue but expanded the same procedural relief originally sought – The panel permitted the amendment on terms that preserved fairness – The panel ordered that the original motion would proceed as scheduled and set out a timetable for exchanging materials on the amendments – The dates scheduled for the hearing of the allegations were vacated.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION TO AMEND A NOTICE

INTRODUCTION

1Teresa Donnelly:– On January 30, 2026, the Law Society filed a notice of motion seeking an order that the respondent is deemed to admit the truth of the facts in relation to approximately 80 refusals in a request to admit (RTA) and supplementary RTA. The motion was scheduled to be heard on March 12-13, 2026.

2On March 9, 2026, at 5:05 p.m., the Law Society amended its notice of motion to seek an order that the respondent is deemed to admit approximately 280 refusals in the RTA and supplementary RTA. Mr. Sorrenti objected to the amendment.

3On March 12, 2026, this issue was argued before me. As timelines for the filing of motion material had been set at a proceedings management conference (PMC) on December 1, 2025, the Law Society required leave to amend their materials. As a consequence, the onus was on it to establish the amendment should be allowed.

4On March 13, I ruled that the Law Society is permitted to amend its notice of motion on the following basis:

• The hearing of the original motion will proceed on March 13, 2026.
• The respondent will have until April 10, 2026, to file any responding material in respect of the amendment. The materials should address any costs sought by the respondent.
• The Law Society will have until April 17, 2026 to respond.
• The scheduling coordinator is to schedule a one-day motion hearing to take place after April 17, 2026.
• The scheduled hearing dates are vacated. The hearing of the application will be rescheduled after the disposition of the motion.

5These are the reasons for that decision.

BACKGROUND

6The Law Society filed a notice of application on March 7, 2024, alleging that between 2008 and 2019, Mr. Sorrenti represented 3,000 lender clients in loan transactions secured by syndicated mortgages and the transactions resulted in significant financial losses for the lenders. It is alleged that the respondent, contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct:

a. knowingly assisted in, encouraged, or facilitated dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct or, or alternatively took actions or failed to take actions that he ought to have known would assist in, encourage, or facilitate dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct;

b. misappropriated trust funds or otherwise dealt dishonestly with money received from his lender clients;

c. acted in conflicts of interest; and

d. failed to serve his lender clients.

7The allegations are serious. Disclosure is voluminous. The issues are complex.

8On April 10, 2025, an RTA was served by the Law Society on the respondent. It contained 389 paragraphs and was accompanied by a request to admit the authenticity of 1,606 documents.

9On June 10, 2025, the respondent responded to the RTA:

• admitting the authenticity of all 1606 documents;
• admitting 115 paragraphs in the RTA; and
• refusing to admit the balance of the fact assertions (274 paragraphs) on the following seven bases:
  • ambiguity of language of request is not susceptible to an admission (28 refusals);
  • respondent has insufficient direct knowledge to confirm accuracy of request (49 refusals);
  • mischaracterization of the facts (101 refusals);
  • characterization of facts, commentary, or summary of events imprecisely described and therefore not susceptible to an admission (78 refusals);
  • mischaracterization of facts and characterization of facts, commentary, or summary of events imprecisely described and therefore not susceptible to an admission (one refusal);
  • nonsensical request (16 refusals); and
  • assertion of a legal proposition not an assertion of fact (one refusal).

10On November 14, 2025, the Law Society wrote to the respondent identifying specific responses in the response to the RTA – namely paras 10-24; 26-33; 35-48; 50-57; 59-61; 63; 67-70; 74; 75; 80; 83; 84-86; 88; 95; 96; and 98-100 – as failing to comply with Rule 11.3(3) of the Law Society Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (Tribunal Rules). The Law Society asserted that these responses were "generic, fail to raise a specific objection to an asserted fact, and essentially seek to circumvent the deemed admissions rule." The Law Society requested that the respondent serve a proper response compliant with Rule 11.3(3) by November 24, 2025, failing which it would consider bringing a motion for deemed admissions and seeking costs. The letter was signed by both assigned counsel at the Law Society.

11On November 19, 2025, Mr. Dent responded, asserting that the response to the RTA complied with the Tribunal Rules and that the "basis for each refusal is specific to the paragraph in question." He further asserted that "the refusals were necessary due to the fact that the paragraphs in question were not properly drafted as requests to admit."

12Following receipt of that letter, the Law Society attempted to remedy the paragraphs in the RTA which the respondent had identified as being nonsensical by drafting a Supplementary RTA containing 18 paragraphs. On November 28, 2025, Mr. Dent was served with the Law Society's Supplementary RTA.

13On December 18, 2025, Mr. Sorrenti provided a response to the supplementary RTA which included two admissions and 16 refusals to paragraphs 1-5; 7-12; and 14-18, with one of the following three reasons:

• ambiguity of language of request is not susceptible to an admission (three refusals);
• mischaracterization of the facts (four refusals); and
• characterization of facts or summary of events imprecisely described and therefore not susceptible to an admission (nine refusals).

14On December 1, 2025, at a PMC, hearing dates were set commencing April 20, 2026 and concluding June 19, spanning 19 full days and three half-days. At the same time, a schedule was set for motions (three were contemplated – two by the Law Society, including one on deemed admissions, and one by Mr. Sorrenti). The Chair directed that the motion materials for all contemplated motions be filed by January 30, 2026; responding materials be filed by February 20, 2026; and all motions to be heard on March 12 and 13, 2026.

15In the end, on January 30, 2026, the Law Society filed only its notice of motion seeking deemed admissions and identifying the respondent's responses to paragraphs mentioned in its letter of November 14, 2025, as well as to paragraphs 1-5; 7-12; and 14-18 in the Law Society's supplementary RTA, as being in issue. In para 6 of the notice of motion, the Law Society twice specifically referred to the respondent's refusal to admit 81 factual assertions as being in issue.

16The Law Society's factum filed at the same time specified:

• Para 1 – the respondent's refusal to admit 81 fact assertions and providing boiler plate reasons.
• Para 3 – the Law Society sought an order that the respondent is deemed to admit the truth of the 81 facts.
• Para 6 – the issue involved 65 fact assertions for which there were refusals in the original RTA.
• Para 7 – the Law Society reiterated its position in its November 14, 2025 letter to the respondent that the Response to the RTA in paras 10-24; 26-33; 35-48; 50-57; 59-61; 63; 67-70; 74; 75; 80; 83; 84-86; 88; 95; 96; and 98-100 were not in compliance with Rule 11.3(3) of the Tribunal Rules.
• Para 9 – the respondent's response to the Supplementary RTA, which included refusals to 16 fact assertions at paras 1-5; 7-12; and 14-18, was also in issue.
• Para 10 – twice refers to 83 paragraphs of refusals being in issue on the motion.
• Paras 12 and 15 – refer to 81 refusals as being in issue.
• Para 17 – refers to the 65 refusals in the original RTA and 16 from the Supplementary RTA for a total of 81 refusals as being in issue.
• Para 18 – sought the following specific order: a) an order determining that the Respondent is deemed to admit the truth of the facts in relation to paragraphs 10-24; 26-33; 35-48; 50-57; 59-61; 67-70; 74; 75; 80; 83-86; 88; 95-96; and 98-100 in the Law Society's RTA; b) an order determining that the Respondent is deemed to admit the truth of the facts in relation to paragraphs 1-5; 7-12; and 14-18 in the Law Society's Supplementary RTA; and c) an order for costs of this motion to be payable forthwith.

17The factum was signed by both assigned Law Society counsel; the same counsel who had signed the November 14, 2025 letter.

18On February 20, 2026, responding materials were filed by counsel for Mr. Sorrenti. Those materials addressed the paragraphs specifically identified in the Law Society's factum. The respondent's factum asserted that the refusals were properly made as the fact assertions the Law Society is seeking are "characterizations of facts, mischaracterizations of facts, summaries of events or groups of events that are imprecisely described; are ambiguous; or are outside the direct knowledge of the Respondent, and therefore are not susceptible to an admission."

19In preparing for the hearing of the deemed admissions motion, the Law Society realized that its motion materials sought deemed admissions only in respect of paragraphs up to para 100 of the RTA and all the refusals in the supplementary RTA. As originally drafted, the Law Society materials did not seek deemed admissions in respect of the refusals in paras 101-389 of the RTA. As a result, on March 9, 2026 the Law Society filed an amended notice of motion seeking:

1. An order determining that the Respondent is deemed to admit the truth of the facts in relation to all paragraphs 10-24; 26-33; 35-48; 50-57; 59-61; 67-70; 74; 75; 80; 83-86; 88; 95-96; and 98-100, in the Law Society's RTA for which he provided refusals excluding paragraphs 105, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 153, 154, 161, 182,185, 201, 230, 288, 309, and 329; and

2. An order determining that the Respondent is deemed to admit the truth of the facts in relation to paragraphs 1-5; 7-12; and 14-18 in the Law Society's Supplementary RTA:

20The amended notice of motion was served on the respondent at 5:05 p.m. on Monday, March 9, 2026, with an accompanying email that stated "The amendments in the Notice of Motion and Factum were required to correct the facts. We trust that you will not take issue with these corrected facts. If you do have any issue with these corrections, we suggest requesting a PHC with Mr. Mercer tomorrow or Wednesday." This motion was scheduled to be heard on Thursday and Friday of the same week.

21The effect of the amended motion was to increase the number of refusals for which the respondent was alleged to be deemed to admit the truth of the facts, from approximately 80 to approximately 280 refusals.

22The Law Society's position is that, in limiting the deemed admissions request to paragraphs up to 100 in the RTA and the 16 refusals in the supplementary RTA in its November 14, 2025 correspondence and January 30 motion materials, it made an error. Mr. Sorrenti concedes that the Law Society made a mistake. I accept and find that this was a mistake made by the Law Society first in November 2025 and carried forward in its motion materials filed January 30, 2026.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

The Respondent

23Mr. Sorrenti submits that the amended motion materially alters the substance of the motion and significantly increases his jeopardy in the proceeding. He argues that, in the context of a fully contested hearing where (if successful) the Law Society seeks revocation of his licence, the relief sought is much greater, the stakes are entirely different, and the motion is of a fundamentally different character. He contends that the deemed admissions now sought would impair his ability to refute or lead evidence. He further states timelines were set for the exchange of motion materials which were fair to the parties given the complexity of the proceeding. Those timelines were met. They should not now be reopened to allow the filing of the amended motion.

24He further states that in November 2025 the Law Society took the position that only specific, enumerated refusals were in issue. That position was reiterated in its notice of motion and factum, which asserted repeatedly that 81 refusals were in issue. He submits that he was entitled to rely on that position, did so, and structured his responding materials accordingly.

25He opposes the Law Society being permitted to proceed on the amended motion on the basis that it does not correct a drafting or typographical error. He submits it constitutes a substantive amendment that adds approximately 200 refusals to the original motion and is, in effect, a new motion over three times the scope of the original.

26He acknowledges that it is impossible to say if the Law Society would have originally brought a broader motion whether his responding materials would have differed. However, he submits that given the significantly increased consequences, he would have considered marshalling additional evidence and contemplated what other steps could be taken to protect his interests. He contends that, in the short time between the filing of the amended motion and the scheduled hearing of the original motion, he would be unable to respond meaningfully. He states that responding would require a detailed review of approximately 200 additional paragraphs, cross-referencing them to the original responses, selecting representative examples for each category of refusal, and applying the relevant jurisprudence. He estimates that this work would require at least 20 days and that allowing the amended motion to proceed after March 12-13, 2026 would necessitate an adjournment of the merits hearing, particularly given other impending hearing-related deadlines and an inability to prepare for the merits hearing as a result of having to respond to and prepare for the amended motion.

27On the issue of prejudice, the respondent concedes that adjourning the hearing and permitting the amended motion to proceed would not result in actual prejudice to himself. However, he submits that it would cause inconvenience and costs, including disruption to witness scheduling, the need to secure new hearing dates, and additional financial cost associated with responding to the amended motion.

The Law Society

28The Law Society's position is that it made a mistake. Although efforts were made to trace how the error occurred, it cannot explain it. The error originated in November, was carried forward in its notice of motion and was not discovered until preparation for the March 12 motion hearing. While not justifying the mistake, it provided context, including that one counsel was off on medical leave from April until September 2025, and that there has been significant work involved in managing and preparing for the motions, hearing, and other aspects of the case.

29The Law Society is in a difficult position when describing the impact of the error. On the one hand, it characterizes it as an embarrassing error made by the two senior counsel assigned to the proceeding which was not identified by them until shortly before the hearing date of the motion.

30On the other hand, it asserts that from Mr. Sorrenti's perspective the Law Society's error had to be "obvious and glaring". Although it did not detect the error itself, its position is it should have been "glaringly" obvious to Mr. Sorrenti that the Law Society did not say what it meant in its November 14, 2025 letter and January 30, 2026 motion material. It says he should have known that the Law Society really meant to seek deemed admissions on all refusals, not only on the ones specifically and repeatedly enumerated. It submits that it does not make sense that it would only seek deemed admissions in respect of refusals in the paragraphs up to 100, that the respondent must have wondered why the Law Society stopped there. The respondent should have reached out to the Law Society to inquire why.

31The Law Society submits that the amendment is not substantive but rather is a correction of facts. Its position is that the respondent should have been in a position to argue the amended motion on March 12 or 13 as his factum already addressed the relevant issues and categories of refusals (characterizations of facts; mischaracterizations of facts; summaries of events or groups of events that are imprecisely described; ambiguous fact assertions; or are outside the direct knowledge of the respondent). In its submission, all the refusals were categorical, and the amendment merely expands the number of refusals in issue. It argues that the amendment does not change the analysis of the categories of refusals or the effect of the refusals.

32The Law Society submits that the impact on the respondent of permitting the amendment is minimal, if any, as the amendment concerns factual corrections rather than substantive issues. It notes that the hearing dates were scheduled on December 1, 2025, on the basis that the hearing would be fully contested. It acknowledges that it made a serious mistake on a case that involves serious allegations involving thousands of the members of the public. It takes the position it is a mistake that should not be capitalized on. In its submission, to deny it an ability to advance a motion that could streamline the hearing is contrary to the public interest.

ANALYSIS

33The Law Society made a mistake in drafting its notice of motion. The issue before me is what should the impact be of that mistake. Should an honest drafting error preclude the Law Society from pursuing a motion that has the potential to narrow the issues, focus the parties on the issues in dispute, and streamline the hearing, or should the respondent be insulated from any consequences flowing from the Law Society's error?

34This issue cannot be considered in isolation from the context or nature of the proceeding. Mr. Sorrenti faces extremely serious allegations of professional misconduct involving thousands of members of the public. Those allegations must be resolved fairly, efficiently, and in a timely manner. They matter not only to Mr. Sorrenti and the Law Society but to some 3,000 impacted clients, the public, and the legal professions. This broader perspective is reflected in Rule 1.1a of the Tribunal Rules, which states that one of the purposes of the Rules is to "establish fair processes that consider the interests of the public, the legal professions, individual licensees and licence applicants".

35In determining whether leave to amend should be granted, I cannot consider only Mr. Sorrenti's interests. I must consider the broader interests at stake and what constitutes a fair hearing from the perspective not only of Mr. Sorrenti but also from that of the Law Society and the public. This broader public dimension of professional discipline has also been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in Law Society of Saskatchewan v Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29 at para 88:

The public at large expects a professional who is guilty of misconduct to be effectively regulated and properly sanctioned. A professional misconduct hearing involves more than the interests of those affected; rather one needs to consider 'the effect of the individual's misconduct on both the individual client and generally on the profession in question. This public dimension is of critical significance to the mandate of professional disciplinary bodies': Adams v. Law Society of Alberta, 2000 ABCA 240, 266 A.R. 157, at para. 6.

36In addition, I have considered the timing and scope of the amendment, the explanation offered for it, and the potential prejudice to the respondent. I am satisfied that the amendment did not raise a new issue but rather expanded upon the same procedural relief originally sought. The amended motion continues to concern whether the respondent should be deemed to admit facts arising from refusals in the request to admit process.

37At the same time, the scale of the amendment was significant. Expanding the motion from approximately 80 refusals to approximately 280 refusals materially alters the breadth of the case the respondent is required to meet. Proceeding with the amended motion without affording the respondent a meaningful opportunity to respond would be procedurally unfair.

38Weighing these considerations, I concluded that it was appropriate to permit the amendment, but only on terms that preserved fairness to both parties and met the purposes of the Tribunal Rules – namely the establishment of fair, efficient, timely, understandable, flexible, transparent, and effective processes that ensure a just resolution of the allegations of professional misconduct against Mr. Sorrenti. In particular, the respondent must be afforded sufficient time to file responding materials addressing the amended notice of motion, including any claim for costs arising from the late amendment. The Law Society must, in turn, be afforded an opportunity to reply.

39Given the need for additional written materials and oral submissions, it was necessary to vacate the previously scheduled hearing dates. The hearing cannot fairly proceed until the amended motion has been determined.

ORDER

40For these reasons, I ordered:

The Law Society is permitted to amend their Notice of Motion on the following basis:

• The hearing of the original motion will proceed on March 13, 2026.
• The respondent will have until April 10, 2026, to file any responding material in respect of the amendment. The materials should address any costs sought by the respondent.
• The Law Society will have until April 17, 2026 to respond.
• The scheduling coordinator is to schedule a one-day motion hearing to take place after April 17, 2026.
• The scheduled hearing dates are vacated. The hearing of the application will be rescheduled after the disposition of the motion.