LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Tribunal File No.: 25H-100
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
Mark Benedict Skikavich
Respondent
Before: Sophie Martel (chair), Robert Adourian, Catherine Banning
Heard: February 2, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances:
Amrita Pal, for the applicant
Respondent, self-represented
Summary:
SKIKAVICH – Communications With Opposing Counsel – Failure to Serve – The Lawyer’s email to opposing counsel was abusive, offensive and unprofessional – Personally abusive and unprofessional communications interfere with the orderly administration of justice – The Lawyer ended his representation hours before a court appearance – He failed to provide any assistance to the client in respect of the upcoming court appearance thereby failing to advance her interests – The panel concluded that the allegations of professional misconduct have been proven and requested a hearing be scheduled to determine penalty and costs.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON FINDINGS
1Sophie Martel (for the panel):– This application concerns the conduct of Mark Bendict Skikavich (the Licensee) while representing a respondent mother in her family law matter between July 22 and August 2, 2022.
2The Licensee is alleged to have sent two written communications to opposing counsel on July 27, 2022, that were abusive, offensive and otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication.
3The Licensee is also alleged to have failed to serve his client to the standard of a competent lawyer in two respects. His abusive and offensive communications to opposing counsel contributed to the animosity between the parties and had the potential to prejudice his client’s interests. Furthermore, he failed to advance his client’s interest in an urgent motion scheduled to be heard on August 2, 2022. The Licensee ended his representation of the client mere hours before the scheduled motion.
4After considering the evidence and the parties’ submissions, we find that the Licensee engaged in misconduct as alleged. These are our reasons.
EVIDENCE
5The evidence consisted of a partial agreed statement of facts, an agreed document book and the Licensee’s testimony.
6The client (the mother and respondent in the family law matter) contacted the Licensee by phone on July 22, 2022, to represent her in a family matter. The issues included the negotiation of parental time for her two young children with their father, the applicant in the family law matter. The father was represented by Joelle Ruskin and Megan O’Neill (now Megan Romanoski) from the firm JJ Integrative Family Law LLP.
7The Licensee testified that during their phone conversation, the client was unable to effectively articulate her circumstances. She told him that the father never spent time with the children and was abusive to her. She described him as coming from a family of substantial means and believed that he would do anything to take the children away from her. She also discussed wanting to move to her mother’s house with the children because she feared living in the family home due to the father’s threatening and controlling behaviour. The Licensee testified that he agreed to consider helping her. Since she could not come to his office due to health issues, he arranged to meet her at the family home on July 27, 2022.
8According to the Licensee’s recollection, he spoke with opposing counsel after his conversation with the client on July 22, during which he asked them to send correspondence to him. The document book includes an email from Ms. O’Neill to the Licensee attaching a letter she had sent to his client earlier that day. The Licensee testified that he had never worked on any previous files with Ms. O’Neill.
9On July 26, 2022, Ms. O’Neill and the Licensee spoke on the phone. In his testimony, the Licensee described the conversation as civil. According to him, Ms. O’Neill described her law firm’s approach as collaborative with the goal of minimizing conflict. His recollection is that it is during this phone conversation that Ms. O’Neill shared the father’s belief that the mother wanted to move the children to her mother’s house. The Licensee testified that this was a “red flag” for him such that he came to believe that the father was listening to the mother’s phone calls and that Ms. O’Neill was using this information.
10On July 26, 2022, at 6:01 p.m., Ms. O’Neill sent the Licensee an email. She thanked him for his earlier call, asked him to confirm the children’s current location, shared her client’s desire to Facetime with the children that evening, and set out two parenting schedule proposals on an interim and without prejudice basis:
When we last connected, you were to confirm the location of the children. I have not heard from you but my client has reason to believe that [the mother] and the children are back in the home, please confirm as soon as possible.
If the children are home, as they should be, then my client would like to Facetime with the children at 6:30 pm tonight before their bedtime routines. The children are used to having [the father] involved in their every day care, including bedtime, and we do not want the children to have to go without his consistent love and support.
As a matter of immediate importance, we next need to determine a child focused interim and without prejudice parenting schedule that allows the children the same level of involvement with both parents that they enjoyed during the marriage. [The father’s] parenting schedule proposals are below:
a. The parties will parent in accordance with a 2-2-3 nesting schedule. The parent who is having parenting time will reside in the matrimonial home. The parent who is not having parenting time will reside outside of the matrimonial home. Both parents will leave the matrimonial home in good repair at the end of their parenting time; or
b. The parties will parent in accordance with a 2-2-3 schedule. [The father] will reside in his parent’s home and [the mother] will reside in the matrimonial home.
In either option, we further recommend that the parties involve a parenting professional to assist with the implementation of the schedule and any issues that may arise. We have previously recommended Risa Ennis for this role. I would add Laurie Stein as another option.
I understand that it is late in the day but would appreciate your timely response given the time sensitive issues raised above.
11In his testimony, the Licensee described Ms. O’Neill’s correspondence as a “strong email” and that it was obvious that she wanted to take control of situation and set the terms of agreement. He viewed this as being contradictory to their earlier phone conversation when she had described her approach as collaborative. He was of the view that Ms. O’Neill was trying to trick him by first stating that her law firm’s approach was collaborative and then taking control of the situation. Furthermore, even though he had not asked his client if she had shared her thoughts with the father about taking the children to her mother’s house, he was suspicious that the father was listening to the conversations between the Licensee and the mother. He testified that his suspicions were confirmed when he later read opposing counsel’s motion materials (discussed later).
12On July 27, 2022, at 10:11 a.m., the Licensee responded to Ms. O’Neill’s email with multiple profanities and accusations as follows:
I would normally respond with more decorum than this but you and your actions on this matter are so deplorable that you deserved to be called every rotten name under the sun.
Firstly go fuck yourself and your client you duplicitous piece of shit, how dare you!!! I know you and your client have been monitoring my client and our solicitor client privileged conversations. And I know you are playing game asking me questions you already know in an attempt to hide your despicable actions. Don’t bother denying it as I know you will as you have no ethics.
Firstly No my client will not be providing any addresses where the children are not permanently residing!!
Secondly no a 2-2-3 schedule in not going to happen your client is trying to get out of child support, not happening.
No your client cannot have e access to the children as the internet is being disconnected to stop your spying on my client and her movements.
As a result of you and your clients actions my client is now feels your client is not acting in good faith and as such it is best that this be dealt with in a different way.
Your firm holds itself out as a collaborative law firm how full of shit are you? lying to the world and without any form of ethics you’re a disgrace to the legal profession.
This matter is unlikely to resolve now due solely to you, your law firm and your clients actions. Congratulations for fucking this up. You fucking dumb ass!!
Here is what is going to happen:
Your client will immediately provide a form 13.1 so that we can calculate interim child and spousal support that your client will pay immediately as well as retroactive, you are to provide this by July 29, 2022. 4:00pm. It better be accurate down to the penny, and your client and you better not hide any assets or money of any type.
Your client will sign an agreement that the mom has sole possession of the matrimonial home and will continue to pay the support / bills for the home until such time as the home can be sold. It will be put up for sale immediately. And yes your client will consent to the sale of the home.
Your client will agree to a restraining order or I will advise my client to contact the police and file charges against your client for his actions.
Your client will provide a signed agreement that he will not abduct the children from the mother and will acknowledge that she is the primary care giver and custodial parent, and decision maker of the children.
Third after all this is received we will discuss parenting time.
You should be ashamed of your actions!
[sic]
13The Licensee did not have instructions from his client to send the above letter. As noted above, the letter makes various requests regarding child and spousal support, possession and sale of the matrimonial home, custody, and a restraining order. The Licensee did not have specific instructions from his client on these matters other than she had expressed wanting to have primary or sole custody and wanted to claim child support. In his testimony, he explained that it is unreasonable to expect a client to approve every word of a communication between counsel.
14The Licensee regrets having sent this letter and agrees that it was inappropriate and unprofessional. On August 2, 2022, he sent a written letter of apology to Ms. O’Neill.
15On July 27, 2022, the Licensee attended the client’s home for their meeting. After their meeting, as he approached the street where his motorcycle was parked, he testified that a vehicle came charging at him as if intending to strike him. The Licensee then jumped onto the curb, The vehicle turned around and again accelerated toward him but stopped at the last minute. The Licensee testified that he was terrified and feared for his life. The driver of the vehicle then took pictures of him. The Licensee later learned that the vehicle, which had the name of the father’s business on it, was driven by the father.
16After the interaction, the Licensee sent another letter, in bold type, to Ms. O’Neill on July 27, 2022:
I will provide you this caution once and only once. Your client showed up to try and intimidate me today after a meeting with my client. It is clear that your client is monitoring my client it is to end now.
IF anything that was discussed between myself and my client comes into court, I will file a multimillion dollar lawsuit against you and your firm.
IF your client shows up EVER again anywhere near me it will not go well, and I will have him charged by the police.
I better no ever see your client again other than in court or with you present.
[sic]
17The Licensee does not agree that this letter was threatening or otherwise improper. He testified that it was a statement of consequences to opposing counsel for refusing to adhere to rules of professional conduct.
18On July 28, 2022, on the father’s behalf, Ms. O’Neill filed an urgent motion requesting that the children reside with the father on an interim basis. The motion materials rely on the father’s affidavit. The affidavit sets out the father’s concerns about the mother’s mental health struggles and how they interfere with her parenting. The affidavit also attaches the Licensee’s correspondence to Ms. O’Neill and describes the interaction between the Licensee and the father in front of the family home. The affidavit describes this interaction differently than the Licensee’s testimony. The father’s affidavit indicates that he had decided to drive by the family home to confirm that the children were okay and to collect some of his things. As he approached the home, there was a man with a helmet on the road in front of the house. He crossed his arms, blocked his car and did not identify himself. The father was intimidated by his actions and left. The affidavit includes a picture of a man dressed in black wearing a motorcycle helmet with his hands crossed standing in front of a vehicle.
19Even though the father’s affidavit refers to the Licensee as the mother’s counsel, it does not appear that the father’s motion materials were served on the Licensee. His name and address do not appear on the motion form that lists the parties. The Licensee testified that he first heard of the motion when he received an email from opposing counsel on August 2, 2022.
20On July 29, 2022, a written court appearance took place before Justice Finlayson; neither party was present. Justice Finlayson issued an endorsement on July 29, 2022, and scheduled a videoconference appearance for August 2, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. The endorsement provides for the return of the children to the care of the father:
This motion material is concerning. The Court is also extremely surprised and disappointed at the contents of unprofessional correspondence attached to the father’s affidavit, emanating from the lawyer who is either assisting or representing the Respondent mother, and that has been sent to Ms. O’Neill and others in her firm.
The test for urgency is met. The children are to be returned to the care of the father and shall remain with him at the paternal grandmother’s residence on a without prejudice basis pending further Order of this Court. Parties to appear before me by zoom on Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:30 PM.
A copy of this Endorsement shall be sent to the parties, and to Mr. Skikavich.
21July 29, 2022 was a Friday. The following Monday, August 1, 2022, was the civic holiday and the courts were closed. Due to an administrative error, the parties did not receive Justice Finlayson’s endorsement until the morning of August 2, 2022. The documentary evidence indicates that the trial co-ordinator sent the endorsement to Ms. Ruskin and Ms. O’Neill (the father’s lawyers) on August 2, 2022, at 9:02 a.m. but did not copy the mother or the Licensee. Ms. Ruskin forwarded the endorsement to the mother and the Licensee on August 2, 2022, at 10:06 a.m.
22In her email to the Licensee, Ms. Ruskin indicated that in accordance with the endorsement, the father would pick up the children at 1:00 p.m. that day.
23The Licensee replied at 10:24 a.m. to advise that the children would not be ready today and that arrangements could be made after today’s date. The Licensee testified that he spoke with his client prior to sending this email.
24Ms. Ruskin replied that the mother’s refusal to have the children ready for pick up was contrary to the endorsement and that the children were to be transitioned to the father’s care prior to the 4:30 p.m. attendance. She reiterated that they expected the children to be ready at 1:00 p.m.
25At 11:27 a.m., the Licensee sent his written apology to Ms. O’Neill for his prior letters and his use of inappropriate language. He also advised that he was terminating his services to his client and would have no further communications with her from this point on.
26At 1:54 p.m., the Licensee sent Ms. O’Neill an email seemingly meant for his client since it is addressed to the mother. The email states that he has had to end his representation of her due to a conflict of interest. He further indicates that he will no longer take her calls or speak to her about the matter and will attend court that day to advise of same.
27The Licensee could not recall when nor how he advised the client that he was terminating his representation on August 2, 2022. He believes that the email mistakenly sent to Ms. O’Neill was a confirmation of a verbal conversation with the client. He does not recall if he advised that she could tender evidence for the upcoming court appearance nor if he advised that she could request an adjournment of the proceeding. He did not refer her to any other lawyer because that is not part of his practice. He said that he typically advises clients to contact Legal Aid. He did not consider acting as a resource for her in a possible adjournment request.
28The Licensee explained that he terminated the relationship because of what he viewed to be a conflict of interest. He explained that due to the father endangering his life and opposing counsel acting inappropriately, he did not feel that he could dispassionately represent the client such that continuing to act for her would not be in her best interest. He felt it appropriate to cut off all communications once his decision had been made.
29The Licensee attended the 4:30 p.m. court appearance to advise that he was no longer representing the mother. He did not stay for the whole motion.
30On August 2, 2022, Justice Finlayson issued another endorsement directing that the children be transferred to the father that evening before their bedtime and authorizing police enforcement if the mother did not transfer the children. The endorsement notes that the mother had not filed any materials, provided conflicting answers as to when she would transfer the children, and that she stated she wanted an adjournment and the opportunity to speak with duty counsel. The endorsement adjourned the matter to August 12, 2022.
Licensee’s testimony and credibility
31The Licensee was confrontational and evasive during his testimony before us. He accused Law Society counsel of playing games even though her cross-examination was not improper. He refused to answer many of the Law Society’s questions in cross-examination about his correspondence to opposing counsel on July 27, 2022. He claimed to have no knowledge of many uncontroversial facts. For example, he refused to admit that the parties were at the initial stages of separation when he was asked to assist the mother. He frequently interrupted Law Society counsel and the panel.
32During his testimony and submissions, the Licensee also made multiple accusations against Justice Finlayson, describing his conduct and orders as disgraceful and a disgrace to the Bench.
33Given the vagueness of the Licensee’s answers and his own admitted lack of recollection, we have concluded that he did not have any conversations of substance with his client on August 2, 2022, prior to ending his representation of her.
MISCONDUCT FINDINGS
34At various times during his evidence and submissions, the Licensee indicated that he was representing the mother and that she was his client. At other times, he indicated that he had not yet been retained, was assisting her and was “considering” representing her.
35We note that the definition of a “client” in the Rules of Professional Conduct includes a person who: a) consults a lawyer and on whose behalf the lawyer renders or agrees to render legal services; or b) having consulted a lawyer, reasonably concludes that the lawyer has agreed to render legal services on their behalf.
36From the moment the mother contacted the Licensee on July 22, 2022, and the Licensee agreed to meet with her and engage in communications with opposing counsel, it is reasonable to accept that the mother reasonably concluded that the Licensee had agreed to render legal services on her behalf. The mother was the Licensee’s client as of July 22, 2022.
37We note that the Licensee himself referred to the mother as his client in his communications to Ms. O’Neill on July 27, 2022. Furthermore, his email of August 2, 2022, addressed and sent to Ms. O’Neill but meant to be for the mother, states that he is ending his “representation” of her, which suggests that until that moment, he was representing her. Finally, we note that our conclusion that the mother was the Licensee’s client is in keeping with the agreed statement of facts, which states that the Licensee represented the mother, albeit briefly, between July 22 and August 2, 2022. The agreed statement of facts refers to the mother as “Client A.”
Abusive, offensive and unprofessional communications
38Rule 7.2-4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, “A lawyer shall not in the course of professional practice send correspondence or otherwise communicate to a client, another legal practitioner, or any other person in a manner that is abusive, offensive, or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer.”
39The Licensee’s first email of July 27, 2022, was abusive, offensive and unprofessional. The Licensee used multiple profanities. Additionally, among other inappropriate comments, he referred to opposing counsel as a “duplicitous piece of shit,” “a disgrace to the legal profession,” and “a fucking dumb ass.” Such language is beyond inappropriate, veering towards violent.
40Even if the Licensee thought opposing counsel’s email to him was “controlling” and not co-operative (an impression that is not borne out by the wording of the email), it was inappropriate for him to respond with profanities and unfounded accusations. The Licensee also accused opposing counsel of having no ethics and of monitoring his privileged conversations. It was entirely unreasonable for the Licensee to jump to the conclusion that his privileged conversations were being listened to just because opposing counsel was aware of the mother’s plan to remove the children to her mother’s house. The Licensee never made any inquiries with his own client as to whether she shared her plan with the father.
41The Licensee’s second email of July 27, 2022, was also abusive, offensive and unprofessional, especially when viewed in the context of his previous email that same day. Even if the events in front of the family home occurred as he described them (a finding that it is not necessary for us to make), the Licensee could have simply raised these events with opposing counsel in a factual way. It was unprofessional to threaten a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the law firm, again based on unfounded suspicions that the law firm was somehow monitoring his solicitor-client conversations. It was also threatening to state that if the father ever showed up anywhere near him, “it will not go well.”
42In cross-examination, the Licensee testified that while he suspected his conversations with his client were being spied upon, he only became sure of this when he received the father’s motion materials. At the time that he sent his emails on July 27, 2022, he did not have the motion materials since he only received notice of the motion on August 2, 2022. Furthermore, it was unreasonable for him to accuse opposing counsel without inquiring with his own client what information she herself may have shared with the father.
43As submitted by the Law Society, personally abusive and unprofessional communications interfere with the orderly administration of justice.
Failing to serve the client to the standard of a competent lawyer
44Rule 3.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer shall perform any legal services undertaken on a client’s behalf to the standard of a competent lawyer. The commentary to that rule states that a lawyer should refrain from conduct that may interfere with or compromise their capacity or motivation to provide competent legal services to the client. Rule 3.2-1, which is to be read in conjunction with Rule 3.1-2, addresses quality of service and states that a lawyer has a duty to provide courteous, thorough, and prompt service to clients. The quality of service required of a lawyer is service that is competent, timely, conscientious, diligent, efficient and civil.
45The Law Society alleges that the Licensee failed to serve his client to the standard of a competent lawyer in two respects:
by sending communications to opposing counsel which contributed to the animosity between the parties and had the potential to prejudice his client’s interests; and
by failing to advance his client’s interest with respect to an urgent motion to decide the place of residence of his client’s children, scheduled to be heard on August 2, 2022.
The Licensee’s communications
46We agree that the Licensee’s abusive, offensive and unprofessional emails to opposing counsel, sent without his client’s authorization, contributed to the animosity between the parties and had the potential to prejudice his client’s interests. This correspondence prompted opposing counsel to file an urgent motion on July 28, 2022, the day after the Licensee’s abusive communications, requesting that the children reside with the father on an interim basis. The motion materials included the Licensee’s communications. The Licensee’s unprofessional communications featured prominently in Justice Finlayson’s endorsement finding that the test for urgency was met and ordering that the children be returned to the care of the father.
Failing to advance the client’s interests at the urgent motion
47We agree that the Licensee was placed in a very difficult situation in respect of the urgent proceeding of August 2, 2022, at 4:30 p.m. He does not appear to have been initially served with the urgent motion materials, such that he was unable to respond prior to the written court appearance of July 29, 2022. He then did not receive Justice Finlayson’s endorsement and notice of the August 2, 2022 appearance until 10:06 a.m. on August 2, 2022. This meant that he only had just over six hours to act. He had little time to discuss the motion with his client, file materials, and decide whether and how best to continue to represent her. However, while his circumstances were difficult, more importantly, so were those of his client, who was already facing an order to return the children to the care of the father with a possible further order confirming or varying that order following the proceeding of August 2, 2022.
48While it is not specifically cited in the notice of application, the Law Society referred us to Rule 3.7-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that a lawyer shall not withdraw from representation of a client except for good cause and on reasonable notice to the client. Even when a lawyer may have good cause to withdraw from representation, this must be done on reasonable notice. Because of his unprofessional communications, which prejudiced his client’s interests, the Licensee was likely going to be unable to continue representing the mother in the long term. However, abruptly terminating his assistance and advising the client that he would not even take her calls left her in a vulnerable position. Even if he may not have been able to continue to advance the mother’s matter in the longer term, a few hours’ notice was insufficient for her to do anything, including consulting an alternate lawyer, to protect her interests.
49We note that it is well-established that particulars in a notice of application are not to be treated like criminal indictments. The failure to plead the most applicable rule will not preclude a finding of professional misconduct as long as the licensee had a fair opportunity to respond to the substance of the allegations being made: Law Society of Upper Canada v Dmello, 2013 ONLSAP 5 at para 108. In this case, the Licensee had the opportunity to respond to the allegation in respect of his decision to end his representation of the client hours before a court appearance.
50We conclude that the Licensee did not provide the client with reasonable notice about ending his representation. Additionally, he failed to provide his client with any assistance in respect of the upcoming court appearance such as explaining how she might seek an adjournment, file materials, or seek alternative representation. By advising that he would not even take her calls, he prevented her from asking any questions she may have had about the process and steps she should or should not take such as the transfer of the children’s care to the father in accordance with the order. The Licensee thus failed to advance his client’s interest with respect to the urgent motion.
51Accordingly, we find that the Licensee failed to perform the legal services undertaken on his client’s behalf to the standard of a competent lawyer.
CONCLUSION
52For these reasons, we conclude that the allegations of professional misconduct have been proven.
53The Tribunal Office shall schedule a hearing to determine penalty and costs.