LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: May 11, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 24H-131

BETWEEN:

Nizam-u-din Sajid Qureshi Applicant

• and -

Law Society of Ontario Respondent

Before: Murray Walter Chitra (chair), Suzanne Clément, Murray Klippenstein

Heard: In writing

Appearances:

Applicant, self-represented Bernadette Saad, for the respondent

Summary:

QURESHI – Costs – Licensing – Having earlier retroactively revoked the Lawyer’s licence the panel considered costs – The Lawyer was unsuccessful and had to know there was no chance of success due to his failure to report his criminal conviction – The Lawyer deliberately lied – The panel ordered the Lawyer to pay $12,500 in costs to the Law Society.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON COSTS

1Murray Walter Chitra (for the panel):– On February 3, 2026, we dismissed Nizam-u-din Sajid Qureshi’s application for a licence to practise law after determining that he failed to meet the good character requirements of s 27(2) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990 c L.8 (the Act).¹

2This was based on our finding that he deliberately made false and misleading statements in his 2019 licence application. These related to a denial that he had ever been found guilty or convicted of any offence.

3That was not true. Following a lengthy criminal process from 2012 to 2017, he had been convicted in Michigan of the felony offence of criminal seduction of his stepdaughter in 2011 when she was 11 or 12 years old.

4We determined that having made deliberately false or misleading statements he was deemed by s 8(2) of By-Law 4 not to be of good character. We retroactively revoked his licence.

5At the conclusion of our decision, we directed that the parties provide us with written submissions on costs. The Law Society sought payment of $25,000. The applicant requested that we order no cost against him and sought a costs order against the Law Society in the amount of $37,840.

6For the following reasons we award the Law Society $12,500 in costs to be paid in two equal installments of $6,250.

ANALYSIS

7The Act provides that subject to the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules), costs are in the discretion of the Hearing Division.²

8The Rules state that costs may be awarded against a licence applicant who has been the subject of an adverse determination or whose actions resulted in costs being “incurred without reasonable cause or to be wasted by undue, delay, negligence or other default.”³

9Costs awarded to the Law Society may include expenses incurred in providing facilities, audit, investigation, review, search or seizure relating to the proceeding.⁴

10This is grounded in a long-standing approach adopted by this Tribunal in Law Society of Upper Canada v Baker, 2006 ONLSP 21, which states at para 12 that, “The financial burden for the prosecution of a member should not rest on the profession generally.”⁵

11Historically, the Law Society has not asked for costs in “good character” hearings where the licence applicant has made a genuine attempt to co-operate and the application had from the outset a real possibility of success.⁶

12However, requests for costs for unsuccessful licensing applications have become more common, particularly for applications where the licence applicant ought to have known that there was no reasonable chance or expectation of succeeding.

13Recent decisions have acknowledged the difficult situation of new applicants who are denied a licence after years of study. At the same time, decisions have not lost sight of the reality that someone has to pay the costs of investigations into unsuccessful applications, and it should not automatically be the general membership.⁷

Factors

14There are many tribunal decisions that speak to the factors to be considered in costs decisions. The leading case in normal proceedings is Law Society of Ontario v Perrelli, 2018 ONLSTH 80.

15The Perrelli principles have been modified somewhat for cases involving unsuccessful applications for licences in Polanski v Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONLSTH 140.

16Factors identified at para 28 of those reasons for decision for possible consideration in such contexts include:

• that the applicant was not successful in their application for a licence;

• whether the application had a reasonable prospect of succeeding;

• the complexity of the proceeding and the duration of the hearing;

• the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;

• whether any steps in the proceeding were improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or taken through mistake or excessive caution;

• the importance of the application for, and the impact of the dismissal on the unsuccessful applicant;

• the ability of the unsuccessful licence applicant to pay a costs award;

• reasonable expectations of the parties;

• the costs awarded in other comparable cases;

• the principle that a cost award should not be used to penalize an unsuccessful applicant for prior misconduct found in the conduct of the application;

• the principle of proportionality; and

• the circumstances of the proceeding.

Parties’ Positions

Law Society

17At issue is the costs for an investigation and hearing that took three days. The Law Society has tabled a bill of costs totaling $28,573. The Law Society is seeking payment in the amount of $25,000 forthwith.

18The bill of costs included 65 hours for the services of senior discipline counsel Ms. Saad and 12 hours for discipline counsel, Ms. Ferguson. These were at established tariff rates and supported by dockets. As well, it included 32.2 hours for investigator Ms. Alexander at the tariffed rate of $90 an hour.

19As justifications for its requested costs, the Law Society notes that:

• the applicant was unsuccessful;

• he had virtually no chance of success in his application, due to his failure to report his criminal conviction;

• the hearing was not complex, but was unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant’s lack of preparation and failure to provide direct answers in cross-examination;

• the proceeding raised issues of importance to both parties;

• the applicant may have lost his ability to practise law, but the hearing disclosed that he has other aptitudes and experiences that should allow him to earn a living;

• if the applicant is to assert lack of ability to pay, this must be supported by evidence of his financial circumstances; and

• the applicant should reasonably expect that he should pay the full costs of any hearing necessitated by his deliberately false and misleading statements.

20The Law Society drew our attention to a chart found at para 35 of Polanski summarizing costs awarded against unsuccessful licensing applicants. With the exception of one, it noted that the typical costs awarded is a portion of the amount claimed, and generally not more than $10,000.

Applicant

21The applicant provided us with his bill of costs totaling $37,840. It reported 176 hours of work as a self-represented litigant at $215 an hour. No dockets were provided.

22The applicant argued that the Law Society’s request for costs be dismissed or alternatively reduced to a modest amount to reflect proportionality, fairness, and the circumstances of this licensing matter.

23The applicant insists that his position throughout the proceeding was that his responses in his application were not intended to deceive but were the result of confusion concerning legal terminology, the character of the US proceedings, stress, and the passage of time.

24He asserts that the hearing had complex elements and there was no improper attempt on his part to prolong proceedings. The impact of the decision on him is severe and a large costs award would compound the penalty effect beyond what is necessary.

25The applicant states that he has no form of income and must now find other employment. He asks for installments over a reasonable time, with no interest, or a reduced global amount.

CONCLUSION

26Mr. Qureshi was not successful in this proceeding. As such, he is not entitled to his costs. Rather, as the unsuccessful party, liability for costs rest with him. That is the reasonable and normal expectation.

27We determined that Mr. Qureshi deliberately lied when completing his application to be licensed as a lawyer. He knowingly obscured his serious criminal conviction and the circumstances giving rise to it.

28This was subsequently discovered and resulted in a lengthy investigation and a three-day hearing. His lack of integrity caused the Law Society to expend considerable effort and its members the corresponding expense. It is only fair that he bears some of that burden.

29Setting aside the nature of his conviction, his deliberate attempts at deception rendered his success in his application highly unlikely right from the start. This is particularly the case given contemporaneous documents, affirmations and prior evidence given under oath marshalled by the Law Society.

30We determined that there was no air of reality to Mr. Qureshi’s explanation that he did not remember, had forgotten, or suddenly ceased to appreciate that he had recently been “convicted” or that he had been “sanctioned” for a criminal offence.

31The length of the proceeding was increased by the need to address a number of improbable self-serving rationalizations which we will not repeat here.

32We have no evidence concerning Mr. Qureshi’s ability to pay, other than his written assertions. That being said, it is self-evident that he is no longer able to work as a lawyer.

33We find the amount of $25,000 requested by the Law Society to be outside of the normal range. As noted in Polanski, typical costs awarded in similar cases of similar length is up to $10,000. We note that the amount awarded in that case for a five-day hearing was $15,000.

34Based on the above, we have concluded that Mr. Qureshi shall pay the Law Society $12,500 in two equal installments of $6,250. The first is payable immediately, and the second before February 3, 2027. Interest shall accrue on any overdue part of these costs at a rate of 4% per year.

ORDER

35We order:

1. The respondent shall pay $12,500 in costs to the Law Society.

a. The first payment of $6,250 is due immediately.

b. The second payment of $6,250 is due February 3, 2027.

2. Interest on any overdue amount shall accrue at a rate of 4% per year.

Footnotes

1. 1Qureshi v Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONLSTH 23.
2. 2Section 49.28.
3. 3Rule 15.1.
4. 4Section 49.28(2).
5. 5Law Society v Goyal, 2026 ONLSTH 50, for a summary of the history and Tribunal jurisprudence relating to this principle.
6. 6Chopra v Law Society of Ontario, 2019 ONLSTH 124 at paras 16-18.
7. 7Singh v Law Society of Ontario, 2024 ONLSTH 107 at para 15.