LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: May 5, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 26H-026

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario Applicant

• and -

Cedric Yaacov Laurent Nahum Respondent

Before: Malcolm M. Mercer (Chair), Edward Choi, Michelle Richards

Heard: April 13, 2026, by videoconference

Appearances:

Elaine Strosberg, for the applicant Kristian Borg-Olivier, for the respondent

NAHUM – Motion for Interlocutory Suspension or Practice Restriction – In the underlying conduct application, the Law Society alleges that the Lawyer failed to respect the requirement of human rights laws against an employee – He communicated in an abusive, offensive manner – He posted sexualized drawings resembling others on social media – However, there was no evidence of harm, directly or indirectly, from the members of the public who were said to have been harmed – The panel noted that the passage of time has addressed previous concerns about the posts – The panel found no authority to order an interlocutory suspension or practice restriction and the Law Society’s motion was dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUSPENSION OR RESTRICTIONS

1Malcolm M. Mercer (for the panel):– The Law Society seeks an interlocutory order suspending or restricting the licence of Cedric Yaacov Laurent Nahum.

2Mr. Nahum is the subject of a conduct application that has recently been filed. The application followed an investigation of the complaint of AA which was made in May 2023.

3The evidence on this motion was from the investigator and from Mr. Nahum. Through the investigator’s evidence, the complaint of AA and Mr. Nahum’s response are in evidence, as are transcripts of interviews with AA, Mr. Nahum, and BB (identified below) which took place in January 2025.

THE EVENTS OF 2021

4In 2021, AA was a law student. She was employed by Mr. Nahum during the summer of 2021 and continued to work for him on a part-time basis during the fall of 2021.

5BB is a lawyer. He started sharing space with Mr. Nahum in September 2021. Mr. Nahum had known BB for some years. BB had been a summer student and had articled at a firm where Mr. Nahum had worked. As Mr. Nahum put it, they became close and BB became Mr. Nahum’s protégé. They worked very closely together and over the years BB became Mr. Nahum’s best friend.

6During the fall of 2021, BB became interested in AA. He asked her out on a date. AA did not wish to get involved with BB in any way unless Mr. Nahum was aware of the situation and comfortable with it. BB spoke with Mr. Nahum as a result.

7Mr. Nahum did not initially object. But he later indicated “You and [AA] together would kill me. The stress of it as her employer and her mentor is overwhelming and emotionally the two of you making a connection we can’t have is really hard to watch. I could probably deal with one or the other but this really is too much.”

8AA met with Mr. Nahum on November 19, 2021. According to AA, Mr. Nahum said that it would be very difficult to have one of his employees in any kind of relationship with his best friend and that she could not do so while being employed. AA responded that she wanted to continue working at the firm and was not interested in pursuing a relationship with BB.

9According to AA, BB then told Mr. Nahum that the relationship between BB and Mr. Nahum would be strictly professional moving forward and that there had to be clear boundaries.

10On November 30, 2021, Mr. Nahum stated to BB, “I’m letting [AA] go. I feel like she destroyed our friendship, and I don’t want her around.”

11While it does not appear that Mr. Nahum actually terminated AA’s employment, she left the firm. According to AA, she did not feel comfortable continuing to work for an employer who she did not feel respected her.

12In the underlying conduct application, the Law Society alleges:

Between November and December of 2021, contrary to Rule 6.3.1-1, the respondent failed in his special duty to respect the requirements of human rights laws in force in Ontario by discriminating against his employee AA on prohibited grounds.

THE EVENTS OF 2021 TO 2024

13AA left her employment with Mr. Nahum. She and BB became involved. Things appear to have deteriorated so far as dealings with Mr. Nahum were concerned.

14With respect to the period from 2022 to 2024, the Law Society alleges in the notice of application that Mr. Nahum communicated about AA and BB in an abusive, offensive manner inconsistent with the proper tone of professional communication from a lawyer, including when he:

• communicated through and about a private defence counsel mailing list (Listserv);
• told BB that he would report him to the Law Society to prevent him from hiring students;
• communicated with AA about her future employment;
• advised BB he had taken steps to prevent AA from being referred duty counsel matters;
• attempted to interfere with BB’s employment of his law student;
• threatened AA that he would find out where she worked and would “make sure you don’t stay there;” and
• responded to BB about AA’s Law Society complaint.

15With respect to the period from 2021 to 2026, the Law Society alleges in the notice of application that Mr. Nahum:

• sent abusive communications to BB;
• sent abusive communications to AA;
• posted sexualized drawings resembling BB on social media;
• posted sexualized drawings resembling AA on social media;
• copied AA’s video from her social media with demeaning edits and posted it to his own social media;
• disclosed to BB and AA that he knew the street they had recently moved to; and
• attempted by threat to influence where BB sent his child to school.

16While we have information in respect of this history from the investigator, Mr. Nahum elected not to address much of this in his affidavit. As he put it, “any contact between me and BB has long ceased, and we have both moved on with our lives” and “[f]rom my perspective, the tension and anger that existed in the years leading up to 2023 are now well in the past ….”

17Mr. Nahum was cross-examined at the motion hearing with respect to this history. While it appears clear that he acted badly in some respects, we think it inappropriate to make substantial findings of fact with respect to this history. We are not confident that we have an appropriate record on which to do so. Another panel will address the above allegations in due course.

18We need only conclude that there was a period of substantial difficulty during which Mr. Nahum appears to have acted badly and with animus against BB and AA. It was evident from Mr. Nahum’s cross-examination that he both accepts some responsibility and that he remains somewhat angry.

THE EVENTS OF 2025 AND 2026

19Mr. Nahum draws and paints. He shares his art on social media. He has a separate social media account for his art and music under a handle/username not associated with his name. He says that, although some of the followers know him personally, his social media accounts do not contain his name or identifying information and do not identify him as a lawyer.

20According to the investigator, Mr. Nahum has been regularly posting drawings that closely resemble BB on Instagram and TikTok. As she puts it, the person depicted in the drawings is “mostly unclothed, sometimes being caressed by another man” with accompanying suggestive lyrics. The investigator’s evidence is that over 100 such drawings have been posted that, in her opinion, closely resemble BB.

21The investigator proposed to Mr. Nahum in June 2025 that he execute an undertaking “requiring him to remove the sexualized drawings, refrain from further posts depicting AA or BB, and to avoid contact with them”. Mr. Nahum declined.

22The investigator identified five subsequent postings since June 12, 2025, which she says are sexualized images that closely resemble BB. One such image was posted the day before this motion was scheduled.

23Mr. Nahum generally observes that his art is “intentionally queer and expresses a queer experience”, that he does not often get the opportunity in his day to express his identity in an authentic way and that having this outlet provides a significant benefit to him.

24Other than a post from February 2022, Mr. Nahum agrees that “some of the drawings bear a resemblance to BB” but disagrees that “they are depicting him”. Mr. Nahum acknowledges that the post of February 2022 was of a painting that intentionally looked like BB that BB had previously asked him to paint. Mr. Nahum’s evidence is that his drawings are not portraits. While denying that his drawings are intended to be depictions, he observes that it is not remarkable that, as an artist, his drawings would be influenced by his prior lengthy relationship with BB, who was once a very important person in his life.

25There is an issue with respect to postings in the summer of 2023 that appear to be related to AA. However, there is no evidence of continued postings that relate to AA.

EVIDENCE OF HARM

26Through the investigator, there is evidence that Mr. Nahum’s conduct had an adverse effect on AA and BB prior to 2025. However, the situation is different now than it was previously.

27As noted above, AA complained to the Law Society in May 2023. AA, BB, and Mr. Nahum were interviewed in January 2025.

28In his interview, BB was asked a question which led to the following statement by him:

[Mr. Nahum] draws, so he’s a drawer. He paints as well. His paintings in his house. And he had sent us, I think, an e-mail with drawings, …. He draws me a lot, apparent[ly] – you know, I’ve seen pictures – drawings that he’s done of me, and he’s done many, many of them over the years.

29While the investigator asked BB about other social media that had been made posted in 2023, the investigator did not ask further about the drawings mentioned by BB. BB did not indicate concern about the drawings or raise any issue about posting of drawings.

30In her interview, AA was asked about the August 2023 post which AA said was a private post, rather than a public post. At the end of the interview, AA was asked if there was anything else relevant that hadn’t been covered. She responded:

I don’t know if it’s important to mention that he – like, [Mr. Nahum] draws, like, he’s a pretty good artist, and he draws [BB], and it’s on his public account, but that might be more so a conversation to have with him, I guess, but he draws him really regularly, and posts the photos and videos of drawings of him, and sometimes there are – like, and I know that it’s him, because he’s actually – he’s a good artist. Like, it looks exactly like him … so he draws stuff like that on his Instagram account, his Instagram page, which is public. He draws them, like, pretty regularly, I’d say, to this day.

31This tends to confirm that, whatever his intention, some of Mr. Nahum’s drawings resemble BB. On the other hand, AA did not indicate to the investigator that the posting of these drawings was problematic. She finished the discussion saying, “I don’t know how, you know, relevant that is to this complaint, so I figured I’d mention it just in case”.

32The investigator’s evidence was that “Due to the Lawyer’s continued unwanted contact with AA and BB after AA submitted her complaint to the Law Society and his persistent posting of likenesses”, she proposed the undertaking mentioned previously.

33The investigator spoke with AA on June 9, 2025, before asking Mr. Nahum to sign the undertaking. The record of the telephone call with AA includes that:

[AA] stated there has not been any direct communication since last fall, however she has heard from colleagues that Mr. Nahum is still posting drawings of [BB] on social media. She stated that it would be good to have terms preventing him from communicating with them in the meantime, and that she would let the LSO know if there is a breach.

34This information from AA is further evidence that Mr. Nahum’s postings resemble BB. On the other hand, AA’s response to the proposed undertaking does not refer to the posted drawings but rather to communications with AA and BB from Mr. Nahum.

35The investigator also spoke with BB on June 10, 2025. After the proposed undertaking was described to BB, his recorded response was:

[BB] understood the terms and noted that he recently applied to be removed from a child protection case where Mr. Nahum was counsel for the other parent. He stated that he has not received any recent communication from Mr. Nahum.

36It does not appear that BB mentioned the posted drawings during this call.

37Other than the following exchange, the investigator’s affidavit does not indicate any other communication with AA and BB in 2025 or in 2026.

38On February 20, 2026, the Law Society advised AA of the commencement of this application and asked:

If you do find any other communications with Mr. Nahum that you have not yet provided to the investigators, please be sure to provide them to me. Please also let me know if either of you have any other unwanted contact with him.

39On February 25, 2026, AA responded: “Thank you very much for the updates. We have not heard from Mr. Nahum recently” and indicating that she could provide all communications with Mr. Nahum having previously provided “those that contained more explicit or concerning passages”. AA made no mention of the social media posts.

AUTHORITY TO ORDER AN INTERLOCUTORY SUSPENSION OR RESTRICTIONS

40Section 49.27(2) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8, provides that:

The Hearing Division may only make an interlocutory order suspending a licensee’s licence or restricting the manner in which a licensee may practise law or provide legal services if there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, or to the public interest in the administration of justice, if the order is not made.

41We may not order an interlocutory suspension or restrictions unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that, if the order is not made, there is “a significant risk of harm to members of the public, or to the public interest in the administration of justice.”

42Since at least January 2025, the only potentially relevant actions by Mr. Nahum are posting drawings on Instagram and TikTok. It is significant that there is no evidence that there has been any adverse impact on either AA or on BB from the posting of these drawings.

43Absent any complaint or expression of concern by AA or BB, we do not find reasonable grounds to believe that there is currently a significant risk of harm to AA or BB from these posts. There is no suggestion of a risk of harm to anyone else.

44When the investigator completed her interviews in January 2025, it may have been that there were reasonable grounds to believe that there was a significant risk of harm from other activity by Mr. Nahum. We need not reach any conclusion on that point. But this appears to be a case in which interlocutory relief took some time to be sought and that the passage of time has addressed previous concerns.

45We also do not find reasonable grounds to believe that there is currently a significant risk of harm to the administration of justice. There is obviously no risk of direct harm to the administration of justice: Law Society of Ontario v Kivlichan, 2026 ONLSTH 21 at para 121.

46As to indirect harm to the administration of justice and accepting that impairment of public confidence in the legal profession and its regulation can indirectly harm the administration of justice, we find no grounds whatsoever to believe that there would be any harm to the administration of justice if the requested order is not made: Kivlichan, at paras 125-127.

47We conclude that we do not have the authority to order an interlocutory suspension or restrictions. It follows inevitably that we would not exercise our discretion to make such an order if we could.

ORDER

48This motion is dismissed.