LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: April 14, 2026
Tribunal File No.: 25H-095
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
Robert Andrew Kominar
Respondent
Before: Natalia Rodriguez (chair), Annamaria Enenajor, Sabita Maraj
Heard: January 16, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances:
Kandace Forbes, for the applicant
Respondent, not present or represented
Summary:
KOMINAR – Practising While Suspended – Holding Out as Entitled to Practise – Failing to Co‑operate – Ungovernability – The hearing proceeded in the absence of the Lawyer – At the time of the hearing, the Lawyer was subject to two overlapping suspensions, for failing to pay a costs order and for failing to co-operate with an investigation – The panel found that the Lawyer held himself out as able to practise despite his suspension, and provided legal services while suspended – The panel found the Lawyer to be ungovernable – The Lawyer’s licence was revoked and he was ordered to pay $10,111 in costs to the Law Society.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1Natalia Rodriguez (for the panel):– The Law Society brought a conduct application against Andrew Kominar (the Lawyer) alleging several types of misconduct, namely, practising while suspended, holding himself out as entitled to practise law while suspended, failing to co-operate with the Law Society’s investigation, and breaching a Tribunal order.
2Despite communicating with Tribunal staff and the Law Society about the proceedings, the Lawyer did not attend the hearing and did not participate. We determined that he had been duly served with the notice of application, disclosure and other relevant documents and we continued with the hearing in his absence, under Rule 6.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Tribunal Rules).
3Based on a request to admit and document book, which the Lawyer was deemed to admit under Rule 11.3(5), as well as the affidavit of the Law Society investigator, we found professional misconduct as alleged.
4In the penalty phase, the Law Society argued that the Lawyer was ungovernable and therefore that his licence ought to be revoked. Given the Lawyer’s history of not complying with orders, and his inability or unwillingness to bring himself into regulatory compliance despite two overlapping indefinite suspensions, we found that the Lawyer was ungovernable and that the appropriate penalty was the immediate revocation of his licence to practise law, with reasons to follow.
5We also ordered $10,111 in costs to the Law Society.
FACTS
6The Lawyer was licensed in 1982.
Regulatory history
7In May 1990, by order of Convocation of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), the Lawyer was ordered to restrict his practice to practising law as an employee of another member of the LSUC, an employee of a corporation, an employee of the government, or acting as duty counsel. The Lawyer remains under that practice restriction.
8From April to July 2022, the Lawyer was administratively suspended due to non-compliance with continuing professional development requirements.
9In July 2022, a panel of the Hearing Division found that the Lawyer engaged in professional misconduct in that he failed to respond promptly and completely to Law Society investigations. An indefinite suspension was ordered pending his co‑operation, followed by a one-month definite suspension. He was ordered to fully comply with the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise (the Guidelines). The Lawyer was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.
10The Lawyer has never complied with that Law Society investigation and has remained suspended pursuant to that order since July 2022.
11The Lawyer did not pay the costs order from the July 2022 proceeding. He was therefore suspended under s 45.1 of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8 (the Act). He remains suspended pursuant to that section for failing to pay a costs award.
12In sum, the Lawyer is currently subject to two overlapping suspensions: one for failing to pay the costs order and one for failing to co-operate in the 2022 Law Society investigation.
Complaint from Client A and subsequent investigation
13On July 19, 2023, the Law Society received a complaint from Client A concerning the Lawyer.
Holding out as entitled to practise law while suspended
14The investigation uncovered information that suggested that the Lawyer was holding himself out as able to provide legal services while he was suspended.
15The Lawyer’s LinkedIn profile, as it was screen-captured on August 15, 2023, indicated that he is a “practicing lawyer and has been, for over a decade, a full time Arbitrator of accident benefit disputes with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.”
16The Lawyer’s professional website, screen-captured on August 15, 2023 and September 23, 2024, indicated that he provides services in areas including “Wills & Powers of Attorney” as well as “Notary Public Services”. On the “Wills & Power of Attorney” page, his website states, “We can help you with your estate planning needs.” On the “Notary Public” page, it states: “Our notary is a lawyer with over 30 years of legal experience, and is a member of the Law Society of Ontario. We can notarize any of your documents”.
17His profile on the site JusticeNet, as of August 15, 2023, indicated that his practice areas include “Estate” and “Family Mediation”.
18On September 23, 2024, the Lawyer’s information on the Family Dispute Resolution Institute of Ontario (FDRIO) Directory listed “Estates & Elder” among the Lawyer’s areas of practice. Under the “About Me” section of the FDRIO Directory, it states: “I have been a lawyer, mediator, university professor and arbitrator for 40 years.”
Practising while suspended
19Client A engaged the Lawyer in or about September 2022 because she had separated from her husband and wanted to go through mediation. On September 2, 2022, the Lawyer sent Client A draft wording for a letter introducing himself so she could send it to her husband. It read in part, “Although I have been a family lawyer and law professor for a long time, my practice is now in family mediation….”
20Client A and her husband met at the Lawyer’s office, which was his home, for mediation meetings. In her complaint to the Law Society, Client A indicated that the Lawyer had a sign outside of his home indicating that he prepared legal documents relating to Wills and Powers of Attorney.
21During the first meeting, Client A’s husband paid the Lawyer in cash. The purpose of the meetings was to negotiate a separation agreement. On October 18, 2022, the Lawyer provided Client A’s husband with a copy of the first draft of the separation agreement.
22On October 19, 2022, the Lawyer sent Client A and her husband a draft separation agreement. In the covering email, the Lawyer states,
I am attaching a draft of an agreement for you both to consider. It deals with property equalization and spousal support.
I have heard a bit from both of you and have changed it a bit from the hard copy [Client A’s husband] took with him yesterday to reflect the clarification [Client A] wants regarding the starting date for exclusive possession of the home.
This is ONLY a draft. It has no binding effect until you both fully agree to its terms. We can amend it any way you want. You then can take it to a lawyer for ILA before making a final decision if you choose….”
23On January 19, 2023, the Lawyer sent an email to Client A discussing the issue of her husband’s tax return. He states,
Do you want to see the draft [tax return] as a basis for starting discussions again.
Clerly [sic] any final agreement would have to be based on sharing all final financial information.
Your income situations as we have discussed relate to spousal support.
We still need to create a plan for dealing with the house and separating investments and personal property.
Does it make sense to check in about these plans and in the meantime we can update income information?
24The Lawyer prepared an invoice for Client A dated February 2, 2023, for $3,720, half of which was paid by Client A and the other half by her husband. In an email to Client A, the Lawyer discusses the breakdown of the invoice. He states that he prepared the first agreement, which took at least four hours, resulting in $900 in charges.
Additional activity soliciting legal work while suspended
25Nextdoor is a social networking website and phone app that allows people to connect with other individuals or business users in their neighbourhood. It is through this app that Client A first connected with the Lawyer in September 2022.
26On April 12, 2022, the Lawyer posted to Nextdoor introducing himself as “a lawyer and have worked in private practice, been a law professor for over a decade and these days primarily assist people to avoid needless conflict and expense through family mediation.”
27On December 13, 2022, someone named Joseph posted to Nextdoor asking, “Does anyone know of a reasonable priced Lawyer for Wills and Power of Attorney?” The Lawyer responded to the post shortly thereafter saying,
Hi I am a semi retired lawyer/mediator in Millgrove.
I help folks do this all the time.
Depending on circumstances about 350 for a couple or 250.for [sic] an individual.
Give me a call.
Robert Kominar
He then provided his phone number. Joseph responded, “Robert, Thanks I will call you this week”.
28On March 8, 2023, the Lawyer replied to a post from someone looking for “a retired Lawyer who does Wills for a reasonable price.” In his response, he said, “sure” and asked the poster to send him “some information” the next day.
Failure to co-operate
29On March 12, 2024, the Law Society investigator assigned to the Lawyer’s file, Nicole Daniel, sent requests for information and documentation to the Lawyer through LSO Connects, the online portal through which the Law Society communicates with licensees.
30Ms. Daniel made several requests, including for the following documents:
a complete copy of all interim and/or final accounts for the matters/transactions under investigation;
complete electronic copy of the original client file(s) for the matters/transactions under investigation;
client trust ledgers in accordance with By-Law 9, and the supporting documentation to support each transaction listed;
written representations addressing all of the regulatory issues identified for investigation;
all Trust Receipts and Disbursements Journals from April 2022 onward;
general bank statements including an image of the front and back of cashed cheques for all general accounts in accordance with By-Law 9;
trust bank reconciliations and comparisons, client trust listings and corresponding trust bank statements;
a list of all active client files;
a list of all closed client files;
a list of all clients for whom the Lawyer has done estate or notary public work since April 21, 2022;
a list of all Wills in the Lawyer’s possession; and
a list of all Powers of Attorney in the Lawyer's possession.
31The same day, Ms. Daniel sent the Lawyer a portal message, advising him of the complaint and alerting him to the requests for information and documents that had been sent to him. She advised him that she expected to receive the materials requested no later than by April 2, 2024.
32On May 8, 2024, Ms. Daniel sent a follow up portal message, advising the Lawyer that she had not received any response to the requests. She informed him that the new deadline to produce the documents and information was May 22, 2024.
33On June 14, 2024, Ms. Daniel sent another message to the Lawyer, advising him that she had not received a complete response to the requests and that the new deadline was June 24, 2024. She informed him that if he failed to fully respond by this deadline, she would refer the matter to the Proceedings Authorization Committee (PAC) and recommend disciplinary proceedings, with no further notice to him.
34On June 18, 2024, Ms. Daniel’s assistant phoned the Lawyer at his business number and left him a voicemail, letting him know that she was calling about the portal messages and asking him to return her call.
35On September 17, 2024, Ms. Daniel phoned the Lawyer at home and left a voicemail advising that there were messages in his portal account that required his attention. She asked the Lawyer to contact her if he had any questions.
36On October 16, 2024, Ms. Daniel called the Lawyer’s work and home phones and left voicemails on each. She advised him that he was the subject of an investigation, that he had not responded to her investigative requests for information and documents, and requested a call back.
37Finally, on November 1, 2024, two individuals from Investigation Services visited the Lawyer at his address in Hamilton. As they approached the property, the Lawyer came out and greeted them. He confirmed to them he was the Lawyer. He was advised that Ms. Daniel was trying to reach him and had been unable to do so; the home visit was to deliver the correspondence personally. The Lawyer accepted the envelope he was given containing Ms. Daniel’s various portal messages and requests for information and documents. The Lawyer was asked to reach out to Ms. Daniel, to which he stated he would.
38To date, the Lawyer has not provided any information or documentation requested by Ms. Daniel and has not responded to any of Ms. Daniel’s communications.
ISSUES
39The issues on this application are the following:
Has misconduct been established?
If misconduct is established, what is the appropriate penalty?
What is the appropriate disposition as to costs?
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Preliminary issue – proceeding in the absence of the Lawyer
40As mentioned at the outset, the Lawyer did not attend the hearing. He was not represented by counsel and did not file any materials. As a preliminary matter, we considered whether we should nevertheless proceed in his absence.
41Rule 6.7 of the Tribunal Rules states:
Where notice of an appearance has been given to a party and the party does not attend or does not participate, the panel may proceed in the absence of the party or without the party’s participation. The party will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.
42We reviewed the affidavit of Daryna Haiduk, legal assistant in the Litigation Services Department of the Law Society. The affidavit and its exhibits indicate the Lawyer was duly served with the Law Society’s materials and was aware of the hearing.
43For example, he made an adjournment request to the Tribunal, which was granted on November 3, 2025. In the adjournment request, the Lawyer stated, “I accept that such an adjournment would be pre-emptory.”
44At the next scheduled PMC on November 24, 2025, the Lawyer did not attend but he advised by email that this conduct hearing should be scheduled “in the early new year”, to which the Law Society agreed. Accordingly, the hearing was scheduled for January 16, 2026.
45The Lawyer had notice of the hearing. He requested an adjournment which, if granted, he accepted would be “pre-emptory”. At his request, this hearing was scheduled for January 2026. We therefore decided to proceed in his absence.
Misconduct
46There are four allegations of misconduct against the Lawyer, all of which we have found to be established.
Holding out as entitled to practise law
47The first allegation is that, since September 2, 2022, the Lawyer has held himself out as entitled to practise law while his licence was suspended, contrary to s 26.1(2) of the Act Rule 7.6-1.2(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
48Rule 7.6-1.2 reads,
A lawyer whose licence to practise law is suspended shall comply with the requirements of the by-laws and shall not
(a) practise law;
(b) represent or hold himself or herself out as a person entitled to practise law; or
(c) represent or hold himself or herself out as a person entitled to provide legal services.
49The Lawyer’s licence has been suspended since April 2022. The evidence indicates that he has continually held himself out as able to practise law since that time, be it on the Nextdoor app, LinkedIn, his personal website, or other websites on which he advertised his services.
50The Lawyer advertised mediation services but, in addition, advertised legal services, such as drafting wills, estate planning, and notarizing documents. He continued to refer to himself as a “lawyer” or a “practicing lawyer”.
51In particular, in September 2024, his website stated, “Our notary is a lawyer with over 30 years of legal experience, and is a member of the Law Society of Ontario. We can notarize any of your documents.” A member of the public encountering this website would rightly assume that the Lawyer was able to provide the legal services he was advertising.
52In addition, it is clear the Lawyer was holding himself out as providing legal services or as entitled to practise law because he did, in fact, provide those services despite his suspension status.
53This allegation has been established.
Practising while suspended
54The second allegation is that from September 2, 2022 to May 12, 2023, the Lawyer practised law while his licence was suspended, contrary to s 26.1(1) of the Act and Rule 7.6-1.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
55The Act defines what constitutes providing “legal services”:
(5) For the purposes of this Act, a person provides legal services if the person engages in conduct that involves the application of legal principles and legal judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person.
(6) Without limiting the generality of subsection (5), a person provides legal services if the person does any of the following:
Gives a person advice with respect to the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of the person or of another person.
Selects, drafts, completes or revises, on behalf of a person,
i. a document that affects a person’s interests in or rights to or in real or personal property,
ii. a testamentary document, trust document, power of attorney or other document that relates to the estate of a person or the guardianship of a person,
iii. a document that relates to the structure of a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership or other entity, such as a document that relates to the formation, organization, reorganization, registration, dissolution or winding-up of the entity,
iv. a document that relates to a matter under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada),
v. a document that relates to the custody of or access to children,
vi. a document that affects the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person, other than the legal interests, rights or responsibilities referred to in subparagraphs i to v, or
vii. a document for use in a proceeding before an adjudicative body.
Represents a person in a proceeding before an adjudicative body.
Negotiates the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person.
56With respect to Client A, the Lawyer purported to provide mediation services in her family law matter. However, he did more than provide mediation services; at some point, he crossed the line into providing legal services. For example, he drafted a separation agreement – a legal document that affects “the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person” – for which he was paid.
57In addition to drafting the agreement, it appears that the Lawyer was giving Client A advice regarding equalization, spousal support, and other family law matters. For example, in the context of her husband’s tax return, he wrote, “We still need to create a plan for dealing with the house and separating investments and personal property.” The Lawyer was therefore negotiating the legal interests, rights, or responsibilities of Client A, in relation to her separation, which falls under the definition of “legal services” in the Act.
58It does not appear that the Lawyer indicated his licence was suspended in any communications with Client A. She subsequently reached out to the Law Society on July 19, 2023, to inquire about “the present status of [the Lawyer] with the Law Society”.
59In her complaint, Client A wrote, “I have had dealings with this lawyer and he is telling me he has retired and is practicing as a family law mediator, also has a sign outside his home for doing legal documents for Will, POA [Powers of Attorney].”
60In Law Society of Upper Canada v De Teresi, 2009 CanLII 5780 (ON SC) at para 13, the court found that “[a] reasonable person looking at the appellant’s conduct would conclude that he was acting as a lawyer.” In this case, the Lawyer advertised the ability to do legal work (e.g. drafting wills and other legal documents); he drafted a legal document for a client and charged money for those services. A reasonable person looking at all of the circumstances would assume they are acting in their capacity as lawyer, even if they cloaked their services as “mediation” services. As stated by the court in R. v Woods, [1961] O.W.N. 27 (Ont. Co. Ct.), “I do not think it could be argued that a man who said, ‘I am not a dentist, but I will fill your teeth,’ was not holding himself out as a dentist.”1
61It does not change the fundamental character of the services provided by the Lawyer that the Lawyer encouraged Client A and her husband to get independent legal advice with respect to the agreement. In his draft letter to Client A’s husband, the Lawyer wrote, “Although I have been a family lawyer and law professor for a long time, my practice now is in family mediation as it truly is a better and more satisfying way for people to resolve separation problems.” Client A and her husband would have understood they were dealing with an experienced lawyer who had shifted his practice to mediation services. It does not appear either one did get independent legal advice.
62As in Law Society of Ontario v Avruskin, 2024 ONLSTH 54, the work the Lawyer did in relation to Client A’s matter “involved the application of knowledge, skills and judgment that are typical of the services provided by a licensee.”2 In particular, the services he provided involved the application of knowledge, skills and judgment that were typical of the services provided by a family law lawyer.
63In the context of Client A’s separation, the drafting of a separation agreement and the advice regarding financial aspects of a separation by someone who held himself out as a lawyer in good standing, amounts to practising law while suspended, in contravention of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
64This allegation has been established.
Breach of a Tribunal order
65The third allegation is that the Lawyer breached a Tribunal order when he failed to comply with obligations resulting from a suspension. Specifically, he failed to comply with the July 20, 2022 Tribunal order that required the Lawyer to abide by the terms of the Guidelines.
66The Guidelines prohibit a suspended lawyer from practising law or providing legal services. The Guidelines only allow suspended lawyers to engage in limited activities adjacent to their practice: for example, assisting their clients in transferring their files, suggesting referrals to another lawyer if the client requests such a referral, and collecting and rendering accounts for work already completed.
67The Guidelines also require suspended lawyers to remove all signage from their premises designating the space as a “law office”, as well as all references to the suspended lawyer as a “barrister”, “solicitor”, “lawyer” or Law Society “licensee”, “notary public”, “commissioner for taking oaths”, “commissioner for taking affidavits” or any similar expressions that the suspended lawyer is able to practise law. Those words must also be struck out from any stationery, forms, websites, accounts, and business cards referencing the suspended lawyer.
68Suspended lawyers must also disconnect their phone line and enable a voice message as well as an out of office email message advising those contacting them that their law office is closed until further notice (or, in the case of a definite suspension, when it will reopen) and providing the contact information of another lawyer who clients can call to inquire about their files.
69Finally, suspended lawyers are prohibited from, among other things, the following:
creating new solicitor-client relationships;
accepting new legal work for existing clients;
notarizing documents or commissioning affidavits; or
giving other licensees undertakings with respect to any legal matter.
70One of the purposes of the Guidelines is to make it clear to the public that the suspended lawyer cannot practise law or provide legal services. The measures in the Guidelines are meant to protect the public from inadvertently engaging the services of a licensee who is suspended. In this case, the Lawyer does not appear to have done any of the mandatory actions required of a suspended lawyer and he also appears to have engaged in prohibited actions. Consequently, Client A was unaware that he was a suspended lawyer.
71The evidence demonstrates that the Lawyer did not abide by the Guidelines, in breach of the July 2022 order. While suspended, he maintained signage outside of his office indicating he could notarize documents and draft powers of attorney. His website continued to indicate that he was a lawyer, that he was capable of providing legal services, and that he was a member of the Law Society of Ontario. As noted, we have found that he provided legal services to Client A while suspended, also in contravention of the Guidelines and the July 2022 Tribunal order.
72This allegation has been established.
Failure to co-operate with a Law Society investigation
73The fourth allegation is that the Lawyer failed to co-operate with a Law Society investigation.
74To show professional misconduct for failure to respond or co-operate, the Law Society must show on a balance of probabilities that,
the Law Society communicated with the licensee, requesting a response; and
the licensee failed to act in good faith to respond (i) promptly and (ii) completely, given all the circumstances.3
75The words “good faith” are included in the test to recognize that it is not necessarily misconduct merely because the licensee did not provide the documents quickly. If the licensee did not respond due to factors beyond the licensee’s control, there may not be a finding of misconduct. The Law Society, however, is not required to establish an intention to frustrate or hamper an investigation. In most circumstances, the panel can draw an inference from delay itself.4
76The Lawyer is clearly aware of the investigation because he was told about it verbally and he was given an envelope with Ms. Daniel’s correspondence. That correspondence included various document requests necessary to complete the investigation.
77To date, the Lawyer has not provided any information or documentation requested by Ms. Daniel and has not responded to any of Ms. Daniel’s communications. We do not have any evidence before us that would establish that the lack of communication is due to factors beyond the Lawyer’s control.
78This allegation has been established.
PENALTY
79Having found that all four allegations of misconduct against the Lawyer have been established, we now consider the appropriate penalty.
80As noted at the outset, the Law Society’s position was that the Lawyer was ungovernable and that we should revoke his licence to practise. We found that ungovernability had been made out in this case. Consequently, at the conclusion of the hearing, we revoked the Lawyer’s licence.
81Ungovernability refers to the point at which the licensee’s conduct in past and present disciplinary proceedings, taken together, is sufficiently serious that revocation (or permission to surrender) is warranted because the licensee has made it clear, generally despite previous consequences, that they will not follow the rules.5
82The two-part test for determining ungovernability asks the following questions:
(1) Is the nature, duration and repetitive character of the licensee’s present and past misconduct sufficiently serious that it suggests an unwillingness or inability to be governed by the Law Society, notwithstanding progressively increased penalties for repeated incidents of misconduct?
(2) If so, in light of all of the circumstances, is revocation appropriate? This involves balancing the nature of the misconduct and disciplinary history against mitigating factors including:
a. any character evidence;
b. the existence of remorse and a recognition and understanding of the seriousness of the misconduct;
c. evidence that the licensee is willing to be governed by the Society;
d. medical or other evidence that explains (although does not excuse) the misconduct;
e. the likelihood of future misconduct, having regard to any treatment or other remedial efforts undertaken; and
f. the licensee’s ongoing co-operation with the Society in addressing the outstanding matters that are the subject of the misconduct and other regulatory matters.6
83The seriousness of the past or present misconduct can be a consideration in the first part of the test. However, even relatively minor misconduct will lead to revocation or permission to surrender in circumstances where the licensee has shown, through his or her repeated actions and despite disciplinary penalties, an inability or unwillingness to be governed by the Law Society. While there is no fixed definition, ungovernability is aimed at addressing circumstances in which the licensee “did not get the message from his [or her] previous discipline history.”7
84In this case, the Lawyer has a significant discipline history which makes his current noncompliance particularly troubling. He is subject to two overlapping suspensions, neither of which appear to have deterred him from continuing to call himself a lawyer, offering legal services, and providing those services.
85Although it does not form the basis of any allegation from the Law Society, recall that, in 1990, the Lawyer was ordered to restrict his practice to practising law as an employee or as duty counsel. The Lawyer has remained under that practice restriction for over 35 years. The current facts suggest that he has not adhered to that practice restriction.
86The Lawyer’s prior misconduct can be characterized as relatively minor. He failed to respond promptly and completely to Law Society investigations, he failed to file his CPDs as required, and he did not pay a costs award.
87The current misconduct, however, is significantly more serious. Failure to comply with the Guidelines and practising law while suspended strike at the heart of the Law Society’s ability to regulate the professions: if the Law Society cannot ensure that suspended licensees stop practising, this blunts a key tool to protect the public effectively. It also significantly impacts the public’s confidence in the legal professions and in the Law Society’s ability to regulate licensees.
88The Lawyer continues to refuse to engage in the Law Society’s investigation, in its regulatory process, and in the Tribunal process. This refusal has been ongoing since at least July 2022. By his conduct, the Lawyer has made it clear that he is either unwilling or unable to follow the rules of his profession and to be governed by the Law Society.
89We have no difficulty in concluding that the nature, duration and repetitive character of the Lawyer’s present and past misconduct is sufficiently serious that it suggests an unwillingness or inability to be governed by the Law Society, as required by the first part of the Shifman test.
90The second part of the Shifman test requires us to consider any mitigating factors that may indicate whether, in all of the circumstances, a finding of ungovernability is appropriate.
91The factors outlined in Shifman presuppose, to some extent, evidence from the licensee. In this case, the Lawyer did not attend the hearing or file any evidence or materials. We therefore have no character evidence, no evidence of remorse or of a recognition and understanding of the seriousness of the misconduct. We also do not have any evidence of medical or other evidence explaining the misconduct.
92The record does include an email dated November 24, 2025 from the Lawyer to the Tribunal, which was then forwarded to the Law Society. This is the email in which the Lawyer requested a conduct hearing “in the early new year”. In the email, the Lawyer raises physical and mental health issues and indicates that “there are answers to all of the concerns the [Law] Society has” but that he does not “have the support necessary to convey them.”
93Absent any medical evidence, we cannot give any weight to the Lawyer’s unsworn, self-serving, untested out-of-court self-reporting of medical issues.
94Likewise, in Law Society of Ontario v McKee, 2022 ONLSTH 71, the Law Society alleged that the lawyer was ungovernable and the lawyer did not attend the hearing. The panel noted it had received an email and correspondence from the licensee suggesting the lawyer may have been experiencing health problems that bore on his conduct. The panel concluded it could not accept that as evidence affecting its analysis under the second question in Shifman:
This e-mail and correspondence referred to earlier suggest that the Lawyer may be experiencing health problems that bear on his conduct. However, in the absence of any medical evidence, it is not possible for us to give weight or significance to such uncorroborated self-reporting.8
95There is no evidence the Law Society was aware of any mental or physical medical conditions during the investigation or at any time prior to the onset of the Tribunal process. There is no evidence the Lawyer requested accommodations to allow him to fulfill his regulatory obligations, including co‑operating with the Law Society.
96There are no mitigating factors for us to consider. All the evidence we have points to a lawyer who is unwilling or unable to be governed by the Society and whose likelihood of misconduct is high.
97Having found the Lawyer to be ungovernable, the appropriate penalty is loss of licence.9 In this case, as between permission to surrender and revocation, the appropriate penalty is revocation. Permission to surrender in cases of ungovernability should be considered based on “substantial evidence as to the mitigating factors which are to be considered in the second part of the Shifman test.”10 As noted, there are no mitigating factors here. To allow a lawyer to surrender his licence in these circumstances would send the wrong message to the public and the professions.
98We therefore found that immediate revocation of the Lawyer’s licence to practise law was the appropriate penalty.
COSTS
99The Law Society claimed costs in the sum of $10,111. The Law Society’s bill of costs includes the time spent by discipline counsel, investigation counsel and a law clerk.
100The Law Society submits the costs claimed are fair in the circumstances and fall within the range of costs typically awarded in ungovernability cases in which the licensee fails to appear at the hearing.
101In Law Society of Ontario v Saskin, 2021 ONLSTH 8, the panel reviewed costs awards in similar cases and determined that “the ‘starting point’ for costs in cases where the licensee does not attend the hearing and is found ungovernable is $10,000.”11
102We see no reason to depart from that starting point in this case. Consequently, we ordered costs in the amount of $10,111.
Order
103We therefore ordered:
The respondent’s licence is revoked, effective immediately.
The respondent shall comply 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 pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $10,111 within 30 days of this order. After 30 days, interest shall accrue on any unpaid portion of those costs at a rate of 4.0% per year.
Footnotes
- Cited in De Teresi, at para 14.
- Avruskin, at para 58.
- Law Society of Upper Canada v Ghobrial, 2014 ONLSHP 5 at para 13.
- Law Society of Ontario v Diamond, 2018 ONLSTA 11 at para 9.
- Law Society of Upper Canada v Ebagua, 2014 ONLSTA 40 at para 43.
- Law Society of Upper Canada v Shifman, 2014 ONLSTA 21 at para 25.
- Law Society of Upper Canada v Hicks, 2005 ONLSHP 2 at para 42.
- At para 51.
- Ebagua, at para 41.
- Law Society of Ontario v Taylor, 2023 ONLSTH 154 at para 21.
- At para 62.