LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Tribunal File No.: 24H-032
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
Derek Francesco Sorrenti
Respondent
Before: Teresa Donnelly
Heard: March 13, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances:
Amanda Pinto and Bernadette Saad, for the applicant
John Dent, for the respondent
Summary:
SORRENTI – Motion – Request to Admit – Deemed Admissions – The Law Society served an RTA and supplementary RTA with over 400 paragraphs and 1,606 documents – The Lawyer admitted the authenticity of the documents and 117 paragraphs, refusing to admit the others – The request to admit process enhances efficiency and benefits both parties and Tribunal – The parties must make reasonable efforts to engage in the process meaningfully - Neither the LSO or the Lawyer substantively engaged with the individual requests – The panel adjourned the motion to permit the parties to remedy the deficiencies and a schedule for doing so was set.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION FOR ORDER RE DEEMED ADMISSIONS
INTRODUCTION
1Teresa Donnelly:– The Law Society seeks an order deeming the respondent to have admitted the truth of the facts in relation to approximately 80 refusals in a request to admit (RTA) and supplementary RTA. Although there were more than 250 refusals in total, the Law Society, in error, identified only some of them in its motion materials. As a result, this motion addresses only 80 refusals. The remaining refusals are to be addressed at a later date.
2The motion was heard on March 13, 2026. For the reasons that follow, I decline to make the order sought at this time. Instead, the motion is adjourned to permit the parties to remedy deficiencies in the request to admit process. The Law Society must particularize an evidentiary basis for certain requests, and Mr. Sorrenti must provide precise reasons for the remaining refusals, all within fixed timelines. The motion may be resumed after April 30, 2026, if necessary.
BACKGROUND
3The Law Society alleges that between 2008 and 2019, Mr. Sorrenti violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in acting for approximately 3,000 lenders in syndicated mortgage transactions that resulted in significant financial losses.
4The investigation that led to the allegations of professional misconduct was lengthy, the allegations are very serious, the issues involved are complex, and the evidence is voluminous with over 750,000 documents, hundreds of audio recordings, and approximately 18 video-recorded interviews.
5On April 10, 2025, the Law Society served an RTA on the respondent’s counsel. It contained 389 paragraphs and was accompanied by a request to admit the authenticity of 1,606 documents.
6On June 10, 2025, the respondent admitted the authenticity of all 1,606 documents and admitted 115 paragraphs in the RTA, but refused to admit the balance of the fact assertions (274) 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).
7On November 14, 2025, the Law Society took issue with the refusals, indicating they did not comply with Rule 11.3(3) of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Tribunal Rules).
8On November 19, 2025, counsel for Mr. Sorrenti responded, asserting that the response complied with the Tribunal Rules and that the refusals were necessary because the fact assertions were improper.1
9The Law Society redrafted the paragraphs identified as being nonsensical and served a supplementary RTA on November 28, 2025.
10On December 18, 2025, Mr. Sorrenti provided a response to the supplementary RTA which included two admissions and 16 refusals, for 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).
11On January 30, 2026, the Law Society filed a motion seeking an order that the respondent is deemed to admit the fact assertions in the approximately 80 refusals and an order of costs.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The Law Society
12The Law Society submits that by refusing to admit factual assertions on one of four standardized bases – ambiguity, insufficient direct knowledge, mischaracterization of facts, or imprecise characterization of facts – Mr. Sorrenti failed to comply with Rule 11.3(3)(c) and (4) of the Tribunal Rules. It argues that these categorical refusals are generic and fail to comply with the objectives of the Rule which are to, in a meaningful way, narrow down the issues to those in dispute. It asserts that Mr. Sorrenti did not meaningfully engage in the process by identifying the precise alleged deficiency with specific fact assertions and instead relied on four categories of blanket responses.
13The Law Society emphasizes that Rule 11.3 is intended to benefit both the parties and the Tribunal by facilitating a streamlined hearing focused on contested issues. It submits that this is particularly important in this proceeding given the volume of evidence.
14Relying on three decisions in Law Society of Ontario v Khan, cited below, the Law Society argues that a responding party must do more than identify a general defect in a request to admit. To comply with the Rule, the respondent must explain, in relation to each factual assertion, the nature of the alleged error, ambiguity, or imprecision so that the requesting party can assess whether the issue can be remedied. In the Law Society’s submission, my analysis must focus on the quality of the response, not on perceived deficiencies in the request to admit.
15On this basis, the Law Society submits that the refusals amount to an attempt to circumvent the deemed admissions rule and that, pursuant to Rule 11.3(4), the respondent should be deemed to have admitted the truth of the facts in the 80 refusals.
The respondent
16Mr. Sorrenti submits that the decision in Law Society v Murphy, 2024 ONLSTH 51, is persuasive and applicable, that his responses comply with that decision, and that the motion should therefore be dismissed. He argues that the refusals relate to factual assertions in the RTA and supplementary RTA that were not properly framed because they involved characterizations, summaries, mischaracterizations, ambiguity, or matters outside his direct knowledge. He emphasizes that admissions are binding and must be approached with caution and characterizes the deemed admissions mechanism under Rule 11.3(4) as a draconian remedy with significant consequences.
17Mr. Sorrenti further submits that, upon receiving his July responses, the Law Society should have sought clarification of the bases for the refusals and engaged in a dialogue aimed at resolving or narrowing those issues. At a minimum, he says the Law Society ought to have identified the documents said to support the factual assertions.
18He maintains that the refusals were not boilerplate, blanket, or generic, but were directed to each individual factual assertion. He denies any attempt to circumvent the request to admit process, asserting instead that his refusals identified deficiencies in the drafting of the requests. He submits that he meaningfully engaged in the process by admitting 118 factual assertions in the RTA and supplementary RTA and providing specific refusals consistent with Murphy and Rule 11.3. On that basis, he argues there is no foundation for deeming the disputed facts as being admitted.
THE LAW
19Rule 11.3 establishes a mechanism for parties to seek admissions regarding the truth of facts and the authenticity of documents. Any party may serve a request to admit, and the Rule prescribes timelines for a response. Per 11.3(3), the responding party:
… must, in relation to each fact and document mentioned in the request:
a. admit the truth of the fact or authenticity of the document;
b. specifically deny the truth of the fact or the authenticity of the document and set out the reason for the denial; or
c. refuse to admit the truth of the fact or the authenticity of the document and set out the reason for the refusal.
20Where a response is not served within the prescribed time, or does not comply with Rule 11.3, the responding party is deemed to admit the truth of the facts and the authenticity of the documents for the purposes of the proceeding: Rule 11.3(4). A party who does not attend the hearing on the merits is likewise deemed to admit them: Rule 11.3(5). Where a fact or document is denied or refused and later proven, that denial or refusal shall be considered in assessing costs: Rule 11.3(6). The Tribunal retains discretion to relieve a party from a deemed admission: Rule 11.3(7).
21The role of the Tribunal is not merely to referee compliance with Rule 11.3, although that may often be the appropriate approach to take. The Tribunal’s authority to manage and, where necessary, intervene in procedural compliance issues is grounded in its active case management mandate. Tribunal Rule 7.1 provides that:
The Tribunal applies active case management throughout the course of proceedings, so that, among other things:
a. proceedings move forward in a fair and timely way, in the public interest;
b. scheduled hearing time is used efficiently and effectively so the assigned hearing panel hears and decides the issues in dispute;
c. issues are identified early so the parties have the opportunity to fully prepare; and
d. adjournments are granted only due to unforeseeable and exceptional circumstances.
22Tribunal Rule 7.1 reflects the principle articulated by Justice Rowe in para 32 of Law Society of Saskatchewan v Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29, that legislatures have delegated authority to administrative decisionmakers to conduct proceedings in a manner that is prompt, flexible, efficient, and conducive to access to justice.
23Against this procedural framework, the interpretation of Rule 11.3 is informed by its own jurisprudence and by the jurisprudence developed under Rule 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. While Rule 11.3 is more onerous in requiring reasons for any denial or refusal, it is similar in language and purpose to Rule 51, and the jurisprudence interpreting that rule is instructive.
24In Glover v Gorski, 2013 ONSC 6578 at para 15, the court explained that the purpose of Rule 51 “is to limit the issues in dispute between parties and to dispense with the necessity of proving facts and documents that otherwise would need to be proven.” This contributes to the efficiency and rationalization of the proceeding: Leroux c Souligny, 2020 ONCS 272 at para 12.
25Rule 11.3 serves a similar purpose. It streamlines hearings by eliminating the need to call evidence on non‑controversial facts or documents and by focusing the hearing on matters genuinely in dispute. As explained in Law Society of Upper Canada v Abrahams, 2014 ONLSTH 64 at para 28, requests to admit play a particularly important role in Tribunal proceedings, where there is no formal response to a notice of application, by focusing the evidence and submissions on what is truly contested:
The Request to Admit process under Rule 20 [now Rule 11.3] is an important part of narrowing issues in the Law Society Tribunal’s process. It helps define the factual and legal issues that are in dispute, to ensure that the hearing focuses on those issues. The Rules do not provide for a response to the Notice of Application by a respondent and, in these circumstances, Requests to Admit are particularly important in focusing the evidence and submissions on what is truly in dispute, thereby using hearing time effectively and efficiently.
26Those purposes were elaborated on in Law Society of Ontario v Khan, 2021 ONLSTH 47 at para 32, where the Tribunal emphasized that, when used properly and in good faith, the rule enhances efficiency and benefits both parties and the Tribunal:
The objective of Rule 11.3 is to identify facts and documents over which there should be no dispute as to truth or authenticity. When used properly and in good faith, the rule enhances the efficiency of Tribunal proceedings by narrowing the issues that require determination. It benefits both the parties and the Tribunal by identifying those facts and documents that may be easily acknowledged, that may be uncontentious, or for which admissibility may be conceded, so that the parties need not spend time proving them or the Tribunal adjudicating them.
27The Appeal Division confirmed this approach in Law Society of Ontario v Khan, 2023 ONLSTA 17 at para 29, observing that the request to admit process does not impair a party’s right to make full answer and defence, but is a procedural tool designed to narrow the issues while leaving the burden of proof unchanged.
28The Divisional Court upheld that decision in Law Society of Ontario v Khan, 2024 ONSC 3092, emphasizing the importance of making reasonable efforts to engage meaningfully in the request to admit process.
29The jurisprudence also addresses the qualitative requirements of the process. A request to admit must itself comply with Rule 11.3 and be properly drafted: Murphy, at para 16. As explained in Murphy at para 22, statements that amount to inferences, characterizations, commentary, or imprecise summaries of events are not proper factual assertions and are not capable of admission.
30There is a corresponding obligation on the responding party to comply with Rule 11.3. This requires a careful consideration of each asserted fact and a response that assists in defining the issues in dispute “so that the other side and the panel understand what is in dispute”: Abrahams at para 29.
31Whether a party denies or refuses to admit a fact or document, Rule 11.3 requires that the reason for doing so be set out with sufficient particularity to focus the parties on the issues in dispute. Consistent with the approach under Rule 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the responding party must respond with particularity and detail its position: Engels v Richard Killen & Associates Ltd., 2002 CanLII 49496 (ON SC) at para 11.
ANALYSIS
32I do not accept either the Law Society’s or Mr. Sorrenti’s diametrically opposed interpretations of Rule 11.3 as applicable in this case. The Law Society submits that the Tribunal should assess only the adequacy of the responses, without regard to the factual assertions in the requests to admit. Mr. Sorrenti argues the opposite – that the Tribunal should focus on the propriety of the requests rather than the categorical nature of his responses. While such an approach was appropriate in Murphy, it is not the proper approach on the facts of this case. Nor is the Law Society’s position. Depending on the circumstances, it may be sufficient to examine only the request or only the response. This is a case where both must be examined.
33In my view, Rule 11.3 contemplates a potentially iterative process. One party identifies a precise factual assertion and seeks an admission. The responding party must either admit the fact, specifically deny it, or refuse to admit it while clearly explaining the reason for the denial or refusal. That explanation must identify the specific defect or concern with the particular fact asserted so that the requesting party can understand the issue and, where possible, remedy it through clarification or amendment. A categorical response asserting ambiguity, imprecision, or mischaracterization, without specifically identifying the problematic aspect of the assertion, does not satisfy the Rule.
34Part of the difficulty in this case arises from the manner in which the Law Society framed its requests. The Law Society served an RTA and supplementary RTA seeking more than 400 admissions, together with a separate request to admit the authenticity of 1,606 documents. However, for many fact assertions, the RTA did not cross‑reference the documents or evidence said to support the particular factual assertion, leaving many assertions unsupported within the RTA itself.
35While such an approach may be workable in cases involving limited evidence, it is problematic in a proceeding of this scale and complexity. In order to elicit meaningful and substantive responses, requests to admit must be drafted with sufficient clarity and particularity. Where documents or other evidence supports a factual assertion, they should be identified so the responding party can review the material and respond in a focused and informed manner.
36The request to admit process serves an important purpose and requires thoughtful, meaningful engagement by all parties. It permits the identification of issues over which there should be no dispute, narrows the matters requiring adjudication, and allows the evidence to focus on genuinely contentious issues, thereby avoiding unnecessary proof of non‑controversial facts.
37Although preparing and responding to requests to admit can require a significant investment of time, requiring uncontested matters to be proven at hearing would consume the same amount of time, if not more, and would be disruptive and inefficient. As observed in Mullin v Allstate Insurance Co., 2013 ONSC 2867 at para 32, the request to admit process ultimately promotes efficiency rather than undermining it.
38To achieve these purposes, the request to admit process may require collaboration, communication, and co-operation between the parties. That was required and did not occur here.
39The RTA contained 389 paragraphs, few of which were supported by specifically identified documents or evidence. Cross‑referencing factual assertions to supporting documents would have promoted clarity, enabled the respondent to understand the evidentiary basis for each request, and facilitated more meaningful responses.
40The respondent’s responses, in turn, relied on standardized categories of refusal, such as ambiguity, without identifying which aspect of a particular assertion was said to be ambiguous or otherwise objectionable. As a result, the responses did not meaningfully engage with the substance of individual requests or distinguish between facts that were genuinely contentious and those that might reasonably have been admitted with clarification. Without this detail, the Law Society was unable to assess how the concerns could be addressed.
41Following receipt of the response to the RTA, the Law Society took no steps for four months. When it did respond, it asserted that the responses were non‑compliant with the Rules and demanded proper responses, failing which it indicated it would seek deemed admissions and costs.
42The respondent’s counsel responded by maintaining that his responses were compliant and asserting instead that the requests to admit were improperly drafted. As a result, neither party substantively engaged with the individual requests, undermining the issue-narrowing function of the process.
43Meaningful engagement was limited and occurred most clearly during this motion when the respondent provided examples illustrating the basis for his refusals under each category. These examples identified what he says is imprecise, ambiguous, outside his direct knowledge, mischaracterized or an imprecise characterization of facts in a representative sample of the fact assertions.
44For example, the respondent refused to admit para 14 of the RTA, which asserted that “Between 2008 and 2019, BDMC’s head office was at 25 Brodie Dr., Suite #8, Richmond Hill, Ontario.” The Law Society viewed this as non‑contentious, but the respondent refused to admit it, citing a lack of direct knowledge. The Law Society submitted that direct knowledge is not required for an admission and that the respondent should have identified what was contentious, if anything, about the assertion.
45At the hearing, the Law Society referred to three documents from Mr. Sorrenti’s files that it submitted establish that from 2012-2019, BDMC operated out of the identified address. This example highlights several issues with the request to admit process. First, although the documents were referenced at the hearing, they were not associated with the fact assertion in the RTA. Second, the documents relied upon did not establish the full scope of the fact assertion, including the entire timeframe or that the address was that of BDMC’s head office.
46The respondent maintained that, had the Law Society identified the supporting documents in the RTA, he could have assessed the assertion more meaningfully, particularly in a case involving over 750,000 documents, of which 1,606 were admitted as authentic. He also submitted that the Law Society could have sought specific clarification or information from him about the basis of his refusal rather than proceeding directly to a motion, and that the process, as conducted, was not collaborative.
47This example demonstrates that at least part of the fact assertion was non‑controversial and that, with clarification, it could be amended to be capable of admission. This is an instance where had the related documents or evidence been clearly cited in the RTA alongside the fact assertion, it may have facilitated a more meaningful response. Earlier collaboration between the parties would likewise have assisted in narrowing the issue.
48In addition, there is no requirement that a fact assertion be within the direct knowledge of the respondent. Where it is not in the direct knowledge of the respondent, the reference to particular documents to support the fact assertion is even more important. For example, had the Law Society made the same fact assertion and referenced the corporate documents of BDMC, that fact would be capable of admission even if it was outside the direct knowledge of the respondent.
49Another example of what happened at the hearing demonstrates the importance of the need for a more collaborative process. In the RTA, the Law Society sought an admission to the following fact assertion: “55. Prior to becoming involved with Fortress, the Respondent provided legal advice to Petrozza and Rathore in respect of various personal matters and business matters.” The respondent refused to admit this on the basis that it was an imprecise characterization and not susceptible to admission.
50At the hearing, the Law Society referred to five documents from the respondent’s files (which were included in the 1,606 documents whose authenticity was admitted), that it submitted demonstrate a solicitor-client relationship between the respondent and Petrozza and/or Rathore on various matters. The Law Society questioned what was imprecise about the assertion in the RTA. Was it the word “various” or “personal” or “business”? Is it a combination? Is it the timeframe “prior”? The refusal to the request did not elaborate.
51The respondent explained at the hearing that the imprecision lay in the language – “legal advice,” “various,” and “personal and business matters” –which he said mirrored the deficiencies identified in Murphy. He maintained that the fact assertion was too broad and required greater specificity, noting that he had admitted other paragraphs addressing particular legal services.
52As a result of the lack of clarity in the fact assertions and responses, and the absence of meaningful engagement prior to the hearing, a full day of Tribunal time was consumed addressing issues of imprecision in fact assertions that appear, in large measure, to concern non‑contentious facts. This dispute illustrates how the absence of clarity and collaboration in the request to admit process can undermine the issue narrowing function of the process and lead to inefficiency.
53In few cases is the request to admit process more important than in this proceeding, which involves serious allegations of professional misconduct affecting approximately 3,000 investors. The scale and complexity of the case require a streamlined and focused hearing. Where facts are non‑contentious or conceded, they must be meaningfully addressed in advance to avoid unnecessary proof, increased cost and complexity, and adjudication of matters that are not genuinely in dispute.
54I do not accept that the deemed admissions rule is a draconian remedy. It is a practical remedy which accords with the interpretive provisions of the Rules and applies when one party circumvents the application of the rule by either refusing to respond or responding in a way that does not comply with the rule. It furthers efficient, streamlined, focused proceedings.
55Nor do I accept that Mr. Sorrenti’s conduct in making refusals is analogous to the circumstances in Khan, where the respondent sought to entirely circumvent the deemed admissions rule and resisted any meaningful attempt to efficiently introduce non‑controversial evidence. In contrast, Mr. Sorrenti admitted 117 factual assertions in the RTA and supplementary RTA and admitted the authenticity of all 1,606 documents for which the Law Society sought admissions. While the adequacy of his refusals is at issue, the record demonstrates an effort to engage with the process rather than an intention to defeat it.
56Having considered the evidence and submissions, the applicable law, and the length and complexity of the anticipated hearing, I conclude that treating Mr. Sorrenti’s refusals as deemed admissions is not the appropriate result at this time. In my view, the deficiencies in the request to admit process arose from a lack of meaningful engagement by both parties, and fairness requires that each be afforded a further opportunity to properly engage with the process in a manner consistent with the purpose of Rule 11.3.
57This active case management approach is consistent with Khan, where the respondent was afforded multiple opportunities – both by the Law Society and by the Tribunal – to respond meaningfully to the RTA. In the circumstances of this proceeding, a further opportunity should be extended to both the Law Society and to Mr. Sorrenti to encourage meaningful engagement with the request to admit process, consistent with its purpose. This conclusion does not foreclose the availability of the deemed admissions remedy should meaningful compliance not occur.
58With respect to the refusals in which Mr. Sorrenti stated that he had insufficient direct knowledge to confirm the accuracy of the asserted facts, if the Law Society seeks an order deeming those refusals admissions, it must, by April 10, 2026, provide the respondent with an evidentiary foundation for each such request, including specific identification of any document or witness statement said to support the asserted fact. Mr. Sorrenti must respond to the request to admit those paragraphs by April 30, 2026.
59With respect to the balance of the refusals at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Sorrenti must identify with precision the specific defect, concern, or limitation that prevents him from admitting each asserted fact by April 30, 2026. Generalized or categorical responses do not suffice. The purpose of this requirement is to permit the Law Society to assess whether the identified concern can be addressed through clarification, amendment, or additional particularization.
60While I appreciate that this will be a time‑consuming process, the 20‑day hearing in this proceeding, which was scheduled to commence on April 20, 2026, was adjourned on March 13, 2026. As a result, the preparation time previously allocated for the hearing, together with the now‑available hearing time, can and should be used by counsel to focus on streamlining the proceeding and ensuring that the evidence adduced at the hearing is directed to matters that are genuinely in issue. This approach accords with both the spirit and purpose of the request to admit process, which is intended to encourage parties to take the time necessary to identify admissions in advance, narrow the issues, and promote a fair and efficient hearing.
ORDER
61For these reasons, I make the following order:
- This motion is adjourned for further argument on the following basis:
a. With respect to the refusals in which Mr. Sorrenti stated that he had insufficient direct knowledge to confirm the accuracy of the asserted facts, if the Law Society seeks an order deeming those refusals admissions, it must, by April 10, 2026, provide the respondent with an evidentiary foundation for each such request. Where a factual assertion is said to be supported by a document or witness statement, that material must be specifically identified. Mr. Sorrenti must respond to the request to admit those paragraphs by April 30, 2026.
b. With respect to the balance of the refusals at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Sorrenti must identify with precision the specific defect, concern, or limitation that prevents him from admitting each asserted fact by April 30.
c. If required, a date for the continuation of the motion should be set for a date after April 30, 2026.