LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Tribunal File No.: 24H-044
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
Granville Nolley Cadogan
Respondent
Before: Malcolm M. Mercer (Chair)
Heard: in writing
Appearances:
Daniel Iny and Melanie Anderson, for the applicant
Respondent, on his own behalf
Lisa Freeman, for the third party Anthony Maniaci
Summary:
CADOGAN – Disclosure – The panel had ordered a document review to determine whether documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege and if so whether that disclosure was “absolutely necessary” for the Lawyer’s defence – Issues surrounding redactions were also addressed.
REASONS FOR DECISION RE PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS
1Malcolm M. Mercer:– Granville Nolley Cadogan is alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct in the following contexts:
Acting for borrowers in the following transactions:
a. while representing EM and DAM as borrowers in two mortgage transactions on their property on 11th Line in August 2017 and September 2017 respectively; and
b. while representing DF and CF as borrowers on three mortgage transactions on their property on H Road in 2017.
Acting for DF in a litigation matter beginning in 2015 in respect of the property on L Drive.
2The Law Society has conducted investigations of three other lawyers which factually involve these same matters:
Anthony Maniaci,1 who is now the subject of an ongoing conduct application. He acted for the mortgage lenders on the 11th Line and H Road properties.
Lawyer B,2 who acted for one of the mortgage lenders on the H Road property.
Lawyer C,3 who acted for DF and the co-owner on the sale of the L Drive property in 2015.
3In Law Society of Ontario v Cadogan, 2026 ONLSTH 20, I addressed the issue of disclosure to Mr. Cadogan of information obtained from investigations of other lawyers.
4However, the information from the Law Society investigations includes information that is possibly solicitor-client privileged. The clients of the other lawyers have neither consented, nor objected, to disclosure of their privileged information to Mr. Cadogan. As a result, I directed a review of documents said by the Law Society to be possibly privileged as follows:
whether the document (or portions thereof) is subject to solicitor-client privilege;
if privileged, (i) whether it appears that disclosure is “absolutely necessary” for Mr. Cadogan’s defence in this proceeding and (ii) if so, how to proceed;
whether any further redactions should be applied to properly protect solicitor-client privilege while enabling Mr. Cadogan’s review of the document; and
whether an order for disclosure to Mr. Cadogan is appropriate.
5The purpose of these reasons is to address issues of solicitor-client privilege in respect of information from Law Society investigations 2018-215802, 2018-225145, 2018-225146 and 2019-233478. These investigations deal with matters involving Mr. Cadogan.
6Investigations 2018-215802 and 2018-225146 were in respect of Mr. Maniaci’s conduct. The investigation report mentioned below also addresses investigations 2018-215802 and 2018-225146 as well as other investigations into Mr. Maniaci’s conduct (the other Maniaci investigations).
7Based on the information available to me, I do not conclude that any of the documents that I have found to be privileged, in these reasons, are absolutely necessary to Mr. Cadogan’s defence of this application.
8I have not considered the potential relevance of information in the Maniaci investigation report relating to the other Maniaci investigations as that is not the purpose of this review.
WHAT IS PRIVILEGED?
9Solicitor-client privilege broadly covers all communications made with a view to obtaining legal advice.
10As said in Descôteaux v Mierzwinski, 1982 CanLII 22 (SCC), confirmed in Maranda v Richer, 2003 SCC 67 at para 22:
In summary, a lawyer’s client is entitled to have all communications made with a view to obtaining legal advice kept confidential. Whether communications are made to the lawyer himself or to employees, and whether they deal with matters of an administrative nature such as financial means or with the actual nature of the legal problem, all information which a person must provide in order to obtain legal advice and which is given in confidence for that purpose enjoys the privileges attached to confidentiality. This confidentiality attaches to all communications made within the framework of the solicitor-client relationship, which arises as soon as the potential client takes the first steps, and consequently even before the formal retainer is established.
11While the privilege primarily applies to communications, facts can also be privileged.
12As said in Maranda at para 30:
The protection conferred by the privilege covers primarily acts of communication engaged in for the purpose of enabling the client to communicate and obtain the necessary information or advice in relation to his or her conduct, decisions or representation in the courts. The distinction is made in an effort to avoid facts that have an independent existence being inadmissible in evidence (Stevens, supra, at para. 25). It recognizes that not everything that happens in the solicitor-client relationship falls within the ambit of privileged communication, as has been held in cases where it was found that counsel was acting not in that capacity but simply as a conduit for transfers of funds (references omitted).
13Administrative information relating to the solicitor-client relationship is presumptively privileged. Administrative information includes, for example, the identity of the person paying the lawyer’s bills and information about the transactions in a lawyer’s trust account.
14The presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing (a) that there is no reasonable possibility that disclosure of the requested information will lead, directly or indirectly, to the revelation of confidential solicitor-client communications or (b) that the requested information is not linked to the merits of the matter in which the solicitor was retained and its disclosure would not prejudice the client: Kaiser (Re), 2012 ONCA 838 at para 30 and Canada (Attorney General) v Chambre des notaires du Quebec, 2016 SCC 20 at para 72; also Lecker v Lecker, 2024 ONSC 2939 at paras 14-18.
Positions and submissions
15By endorsement, I invited the Law Society, Mr. Maniaci, Mr. Cadogan, and Mr. Maniaci’s clients to advise of their positions and submissions with respect to presumptive privilege and whether the presumption was rebutted to any extent in the circumstances.
16The Law Society, Mr. Cadogan, and Mr. Maniaci responded. One of Mr. Maniaci’s clients has consented to disclosure to Mr. Cadogan. The remaining clients have neither objected nor consented. They did not respond.
17The Law Society’s position is that “the onus is on the individual seeking disclosure of presumptively privileged documents to establish that the presumption of privilege is rebutted” and that “absent an explicit challenge, the presumption of privilege should remain and cannot be rebutted”. As Mr. Cadogan has made no challenge to presumptive privilege, the Law Society’s position is that this ends the matter.
18Mr. Cadogan’s position is that the “innocence at stake” exception to solicitor-client privilege applies such that he is entitled to all of the subject documents without redaction. Mr. Cadogan cites only R. v McClure, 2001 SCC 14 and does not explain how this exception applies here.
19Mr. Maniaci’s position is that documents exchanged between lender and borrower are not privileged and that any documents which are a matter of public record are not privileged. With respect to any remaining documents, Mr. Maniaci notes that his clients have been notified and have not responded. He takes the position that “the presumption of privilege cannot be rebutted by the failure to respond to a request for submissions”. Mr. Maniaci agrees with the Law Society that the presumption of privilege over any documents which contain privileged information has not been rebutted.
Analysis
Innocence at stake
20Justice Major, for the court, in McClure established at para 42 that: “In some limited circumstances, the solicitor-client privilege may yield to allow an accused to make full answer and defence.” What Justice Major meant by “full answer and defence” is important.
21Justice Major prefaced his reasons at para 3 with the following:
Interests compete within our legal system. The policy justifying the existence of solicitor-client privilege might clash with an accused’s right under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make full answer and defence. This appeal raises the issue of whether the solicitor-client privilege of a third person should yield to permit an accused to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge, and, if so, when.
22At para 41, Justice Major provided the following important context for this conclusion:
Solicitor-client privilege and the right to make full answer and defence are principles of fundamental justice. The right of an accused to full answer and defence is personal to him or her and engages the right to life, liberty, security of the person and the right of the innocent not to be convicted. Solicitor-client privilege while also personal is broader and is important to the administration of justice as a whole. It exists whether or not there is the immediacy of a trial or of a client seeking advice.
23McClure addressed the right to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge and the use of solicitor-client privileged information in that context. McClure does not suggest, explicitly or by its reasoning, that solicitor-client privilege should yield in a case involving a licence to practise a profession.
24McClure establishes an “innocence at stake” exception to solicitor-client privilege. It does not establish a “licence to practise a profession at stake” exception. I do not accept Mr. Cadogan’s submission which would dramatically expand a limited exception to solicitor-client privilege.
Should a determination be made beyond applying the presumption
25I do not agree with the Law Society’s approach which I take to import an adversarial approach to the concept of presumptive privilege. The Law Society submits that, absent an adversarial challenge, the presumption cannot be rebutted. No authority is cited for this proposition.
26But as I read the authorities and consider the principles involved, it seems to me that the concept of presumptive privilege is substantive rather than procedural in nature. As said in Chambre des notaires du Quebec at para 73, “Whether a document or the information it contains is privileged depends not on the type of document it is but, rather, on its content and what it might reveal about the relationship and communications between a client and his or her notary or lawyer”.
27The point of presumptive privilege is that, absent further information, accounting information and administrative information relating to the solicitor-client relationship is to be treated as privileged. To use the language of Lecker, such information “could only be disclosed if a court first determined solicitor-client privilege did not apply”. This is a substantive limitation. It depends on a factual consideration rather than whether an adversarial challenge is made.
28Having been provided with the client files and the investigative reports, it is possible to make determinations that are not possible otherwise. While it is important not to make determinations that are not available on the information provided, it seems to me to also be the case that determinations that can be made should be made so that disclosure that can be made is made.
29Also, while fully accepting Mr. Maniaci’s position that the presumption is not rebutted by the client’s failure to object, I consider that the absence of an objection makes it more appropriate for me to make a determination, if a determination can properly be made.
Consideration of whether solicitor-client privilege does not apply
30At this stage, I consider the nature of the retainer and the nature of the transactions recorded in the accounting records.
31With respect to presumptive solicitor-client privilege in respect of Mr. Maniaci’s files, the nature of the legal work done by him is important. Mr. Maniaci acted for mortgage lenders to Mr. Cadogan’s borrower clients. A mortgage loan ordinarily proceeds on the basis of a loan agreement. There will be an agreed loan amount. The lender’s lawyer will receive a net mortgage advance from the lender,4 the amount of which is determined by the loan agreement. Payments made by the lender’s lawyer out of the net mortgage advance, including legal fees, are to be in accordance with the loan agreement. None of this transactional information is confidential as between the lender and the borrower.
32A transactional retainer such as this is very different in terms of confidentiality than, for example, a criminal defence retainer.
33I conclude that the presumption of privilege is quite weak in this factual context. Given the nature of the retainer, it is very unlikely that solicitor-client confidential information will be revealed, directly or indirectly, by information as to receipt and disbursement of mortgage funds through Mr. Maniaci’s trust account.
34Beyond this general conclusion, I have considered whether disclosure of specific transactional records may reveal solicitor-client confidential information. I do not direct disclosure of any document where I am not satisfied that solicitor-client confidential information will not be revealed.
35While there may be cases where the presumption of privilege in records of trust transactions can be rebutted by the nature of the retainer, and this may such a case, I have examined documents on a document-by-document basis to assess whether the presumption is rebutted.
36I have examined the individual documents and the information identified by the Law Society as being possibly privileged. In each case where I have concluded that information need not be redacted, I have examined the information in context and am satisfied that disclosure of the information will not reveal solicitor-client confidential information.
REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS
37The Law Society has provided documents in which it has proposed redactions of information which it considers to be possibly privileged. Where I am satisfied that disclosure of the information will not reveal solicitor-client confidential information, I direct that the information need not be redacted.
The 11th Line property
The transaction
38Mr. Cadogan is alleged to have misconducted himself while representing EM and DAM in August and September 2017 as borrowers in two mortgage transactions on their property on 11th Line.
39Mr. Maniaci acted for GI and for DM as first and second mortgagee respectively.
40A mortgage in favour of GI was registered on August 23, 2017 for $80,000. Mortgage in favour of DM was registered on September 29, 2017 for $300,000.
41EM and DAM allege that they did not receive any monies advanced or make any payments. The mortgages are said to have been fraudulent.
42GI is the client who has consented to disclosure to Mr. Cadogan. Mr. Maniaci’s file for GI is Client File 6347.
Review of documents from the Maniaci investigation
43The Law Society has provided documents in respect of the 11th Line property obtained in the investigation of Mr. Maniaci’s conduct as follows.
2018-215802 - 2018-04-19 Record of Contact-Telephone Transcription
44I have been provided with a redacted and an unredacted version of 2018-215802 - 2018-04-19 Record of Contact-Telephone Transcription - A. Maniaci to P. Pereira.pdf.
45This document is a one-page record of contact between Mr. Maniaci and the investigator. There is no need to redact this document. I direct that this document be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan without redactions.
Maniaci Client File 6404 – 7127 (GI) 11th Line
46I have been provided with a redacted and an unredacted version of 2018-215802 - Client File 6347 - 7127 11th Line.pdf. This is a file for GI, who has consented to disclosure.
47I have reviewed the proposed redactions which are on pages 1, 109, 120-124, 165-180, and 191 of the document. There is only one note that I would have concluded might be privileged.
48However, given the consent of GI and the nature of the note, I direct that 2018-215802 - Client File 6347 - 7127 11th Line.pdf be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan without redactions.
Maniaci Client File 6404 – 7127 (DM) 11th Line
49I have been provided with a redacted and an unredacted version of 2018-215802 - Client File 6404 - 7127 11th Line.pdf.
50I have reviewed the proposed redactions which are on pages 1, 3-6, 22-23, 25‑27, 119-120, 124-131, 165-184, 191, 252, and 256 of the document:
a. Page 1 includes notes on a file opening summary which need not be redacted.
b. Pages 3 to 6 contain a report to the client which should be redacted.
c. Pages 22 and 23 include notes which should be redacted.
d. Pages 25 to 27 are a copy of a Form 9D Investment Authority which should be redacted.
e. Page 119 is a client ledger in respect of a mortgage loan, which need not be redacted.
f. Page 120 is a Direction re Trust Funds which should be redacted.
g. Pages 124 to 131 are copies of trust disbursement records which need not be redacted.
h. Pages 165 to 184 appear to be drafts of documents to be signed by EM, DM and Mr. Cadogan. These documents should be redacted.
i. Page 191 is an acknowledgement and direction which should be redacted.
j. Pages 252 and 256 include notes which should be redacted.
51I direct that this document, redacted in accordance with the above, be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
2018-225146 - 2018-12-24 Letter from A. Maniaci to P. Pereira
52I have also been provided with a redacted and an unredacted version of 2018-225146 - 2018-12-24 Letter from A. Maniaci to P. Pereira.pdf.
53This three-page letter from Mr. Maniaci need not be redacted. While the letter refers to the amount of Mr. Maniaci’s legal fee, the client file discloses Mr. Maniaci’s fee was for the account of the borrowers, as is normal in mortgage loans. Accordingly, the amount of the fee is not confidential information.
54I direct that this document be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
The H Road property
The transaction
55In April 2017, the H Road property was purchased by DF and CF for approximately $700,000. Mr. Cadogan acted on the purchase. Lawyer B acted for the lenders to DF and CF, who loaned $820,000 secured by a first mortgage.
56On December 21, 2017, Mr. Maniaci registered mortgages against the H Road property in favour of four individuals for $500,000 and a corporation for $565,000. The mortgage loan of $820,000 was replaced.
57The total amount of the mortgages given in December 2017 is said to have exceeded the value of the property. Unusually large mortgage fees are said to have been taken. DF and CF allegedly signed the mortgage documents without understanding what they signed and without explanation from Mr. Cadogan.
Review of documents from the Maniaci investigation
58The Law Society has provided documents in respect of the H Road property obtained in the investigation of Mr. Maniaci’s conduct as follows.
Maniaci Client File 1 - 6533 - 9 [H] Rd
59I have been provided with redacted and unredacted versions of 2018-225146 - Client File 1 - 6533 - 9 [H] Rd.pdf.
60I have reviewed the proposed redactions which are on pages 2, 3, 21, 33-38, 57-60, 82, 83, and 85 of this document:
a. Pages 2 and 3 are a client ledger in respect of a mortgage loan, which need not be redacted.
b. Page 21 contains handwritten notes which should be redacted.
c. Pages 33 to 37 contain copies of cheques and bank drafts which need not be redacted.
d. Page 38 is an irrevocable direction which should be redacted.
e. Page 57 is an acknowledgment and direction which should be redacted.
f. Pages 58 to 60 are trust disbursement records which need not be redacted.
g. Pages 82 and 83 are copies of bank drafts, which need not be redacted.
h. Page 85 contains a handwritten note, which need not be redacted.
61I direct that this document, redacted in accordance with the above, be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
Maniaci Client File 2 - 6533 - 9 [H] Rd
62I have been provided with a redacted and an unredacted version of 2018-225146 - Client File 2 - 6533 - 9 [H] Rd.pdf.
63I have reviewed the proposed redactions which are on pages 2-5 and 45-52 of this document:
a. Page 2 is a report to the client, which should be redacted.
b. Pages 3 to 5 are a Form 9E Report on the Investment, which should be redacted.
c. Pages 45 to 49 are client instructions and acknowledgments, which should be redacted.
d. Pages 50 to 52 are a Form 9D Investment Authority, which should be redacted.
64I direct that this document, redacted in accordance with the above, be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
Maniaci Client File 3 - 6533 - 9 [H] Rd
65I have been provided with a redacted and an unredacted version of 2018-225146 - Client File 3 - 6533 - 9 [H] Rd.pdf.
66I have reviewed the proposed redactions which are on pages 2, 6-13, and 18 of this document:
a. Page 2 is a report to the client, which should be redacted.
b. Pages 6 to 8 is a Form 9E Report on the Investment, which should be redacted.
c. Pages 9 to 11 are a Form 9D Investment Authority, which should be redacted.
d. Pages 12 and 13 are client instructions and acknowledgments, which should be redacted.
e. Page 18 is a confirmation of insurance coverage, which need not be redacted.
67I direct that this document, redacted in accordance with the above, be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
Review for documents from the Lawyer B investigation
68The Law Society has provided documents obtained from Lawyer B.
69Lawyer B acted for the lender who made a mortgage loan to DF and CF when 9 [H] Rd was purchased in April 2017. Mr. Cadogan acted for DF and CF in this transaction. Mr. Maniaci did not act for the lender or the borrowers.
70The mortgage lender has not been given notice of this motion and has not been invited to provide submissions. This transaction is of limited apparent significance to the allegations against Mr. Cadogan. I have not determined whether solicitor-client privilege did not apply to presumptively privileged documents. I proceed on the basis that presumptively privileged documents obtained from Lawyer B are privileged.
Lawyer B Client File 17-2464 - 9 [H] Rd
71I have been provided with a redacted and an unredacted version of Client File 17-2464 - 9 [H] Rd.pdf.
72I have reviewed the proposed redactions which are on pages 2, 4-8, 10-17, 33-35, 39-55, 91, and 99-107 of this document:
a. Page 2 is a file opening summary which need not be redacted.
b. Pages 4 and 5 contain a copy of the investigative letter to Lawyer B and should be redacted as not being disclosable information from the investigation.
c. Pages 6 to 8 contain information with respect to trust disbursements in the mortgage loan transaction, which should be redacted.
d. Pages 10 to 17 contain copies of solicitor’s accounts, statements and reports which should be redacted.
e. Pages 33 to 35 contain a Form 18B Report on The Investment which should be redacted.
f. Pages 39 to 55 contain a copy of a title insurance policy. There is no need to redact this insurance policy.
g. Page 91 contains a draft policy issuance summary which should be redacted.
h. Pages 99-107 contain Form 9D Investment Authorities and related lawyer client communications which should be redacted.
73I direct that this document, redacted in accordance with the above, be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
The L Drive Property
The retainer
74DF jointly owned the L Drive Property with another person. Mr. Cadogan acted for DF in an application for partition and sale of the L Drive property.
75The L Drive Property was sold in August 2015. Lawyer C acted for DF and the other owner on the sale.
76Mr. Cadogan is alleged to not have accounted for $3,000 in holdback funds from the sale of the L Drive Property. These funds were paid to him in trust for DF in February 2016.
77The other owner has not been given notice of this motion and has not been invited to provide submissions. The sale transaction itself is of limited apparent significance to the allegations against Mr. Cadogan. I have not determined whether solicitor-client privilege did not apply to presumptively privileged documents. I proceed on the basis that presumptively privileged documents are privileged.
Review for documents from the Lawyer C investigation
78The Law Society has provided documents obtained from Lawyer C. I have been provided with a redacted and an unredacted version of DSZ Client File.pdf.
79I have reviewed the proposed redactions which are on pages 2, 24, 237, 239, 256, 257, 267, 268, 270, 271, 310, 326-330, and 335-351 of this document:
a. Page 2 is a checklist of steps to be taken in a sale transaction. There is no need to redact this page.
b. Page 24 is Lawyer C’s statement of account to DF and the other vendor. This information is presumptively privileged and should be redacted.
c. Page 237 is a transactional email between lawyers. There is no need to redact the notes on this page.
d. Page 239 contains account numbers for two utilities. There is no need to redact this information.
e. Pages 256, 257, 267, 268, 270, and 271 contain client instructions which should be redacted.
f. Page 310 is a parcel register with a handwritten note regarding an outstanding change. There is no need to redact the note on this page.
g. Pages 326 to 328 are two trust ledger statements dated August 20, 2015 and June 18, 2019. The individual entries in the trust ledger statements should be redacted other than the entries which relate to payments to Mr. Cadogan, in trust.
h. Pages 329 and 330 contain a statement of account which should be redacted.
i. Pages 335 to 340 are copies of trust cheques which, other than the cheque to Mr. Cadogan, should be redacted.
j. Pages 341 to 342 contain a retainer agreement which should be redacted.
k. Pages 343 to 351 contain client identification information which should be redacted.
80I direct that this document, redacted in accordance with the above, be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
The Maniaci Investigation Report and interview transcripts
Interview with Mr. Maniaci
81The Law Society has provided excerpts from the transcript of an investigative interview with Mr. Maniaci.
82I have reviewed proposed redactions to pages 1-7, 11-20, 24, 25, 39-48, 55-57, and 65 in this document:
a. PDF Page 1 (Transcript page 238), at the top, refers to client handwriting on a document, which should be redacted.
b. The balance of PDF page 1 and the top of PDF page 2 (Transcript pages 238 and 239) address Mr. Maniaci’s preparation for the interview. This portion may be redacted as irrelevant.
c. The bottom of PDF page 2 to the top of PDF page 4 (Transcript Pages 239 to 241) address client communications and instructions, which should be redacted.
d. The bottom of PDF page 4 and top of PDF page 5 (Transcript pages 241 and 242) address information regarding a payment reflected in the client trust ledger, which should be redacted.
e. PDF pages 6 and 7 (Transcript pages 243 and 244) address client communication, which should be redacted.
f. PDF page 11 and the top of PDF page 12 (Transcript pages 248 and 249) address client communication, which should be redacted.
g. The bottom of PDF page 12, PDF page 13 and the top of PDF page 14 (Transcript pages 249 to 251) address irrelevant matters. This portion may be redacted as irrelevant.
h. The bottom of PDF page 14, PDF page 15 and the top of PDF page 16 (Transcript pages 251 to 253) address client communication, which should be redacted.
i. Lines 16 and 17 on PDF page 16 (Transcript page 253) address the contents of a client communication, which should be redacted.
j. PDF pages 17 to 20 (Transcript pages 254 to 257) address client instructions, which should be redacted.
k. PDF pages 24 and 25 (Transcript pages 261 to 262) address client communications, which should be redacted.
l. PDF pages 39 to 48 (Transcript pages 276 to 285) address client communications and instructions, which should be redacted.
m. PDF pages 55 to 57 (Transcript pages 292 to 294) address client instructions and the trust ledger, which should be redacted.
n. PDF page 65 (Transcript page 302) mentions names of complainants, which may be redacted.
83I direct that this document, redacted in accordance with the above, be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
Interview with the officer/director of GI
84The Law Society has provided excerpts from the transcript of an investigative interview with an officer/director of GI. GI was a mortgagee of the 11th Line Property for whom Mr. Maniaci acted.
85I have reviewed the following proposed redactions in pages 1, 4, 5, and 6 in this document. In light of the consent from GI, no redactions are required.
86I direct that this document be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
The investigation report
87The Law Society has provided a copy of the investigation report with respect to Mr. Maniaci’s conduct.
88I have reviewed the following proposed redactions in this report:
a. The Law Society proposes to redact information in respect of cases not involving Mr. Cadogan. I need not address these redactions as relevance rather than privilege is the basis for the proposed redaction.
b. The Law Society also proposes to redact information that is not the fruits of its investigations but rather analysis, comment, and opinion. I need not address these redactions as relevance rather than privilege is the basis for the proposed redaction.
c. The overall findings with respect to case 2018-215802 (which is in respect of the 11th Line Property) are found at pages 12 to 16 of this report. The information on page 13 regarding a trust disbursement need not be redacted. The proposed redactions on pages 15 and 16 should be made, being in respect of client communications and instructions.
d. The overall findings with respect to case 2018-225146 (which is in respect of the H Road Property) are found at pages 30 to 33 of this report. The proposed redaction on page 31 should be made, being communication and instruction. The redactions on pages 32 and 33 are of analysis of information rather than reporting information obtained. These redactions may be made.
e. The overall analysis with respect to all cases is found at pages 53 to 58 of the report. These redactions may be made.
89I direct that this document, redacted in accordance with the above, be disclosed to Mr. Cadogan.
ORDER
90The Law Society shall make disclosure to Mr. Cadogan in accordance with the directions given above.
Footnotes
- Investigations 2018-215802 and 2018-225146.
- Investigation 2018-225145.
- Investigation 2019-233489.
- It could be in some cases that the source of the mortgage advance, if not from the lender, would be confidential information as was the fees payor in Kaiser. But there is no apparent reason to suspect that this is such a case.