Law Society Tribunal
Appeal Division
Date: April 28, 2026
Tribunal File No.: 25A-003
BETWEEN:
Harvinder Singh Saran
Appellant
- and -
Law Society of Ontario
Respondent in appeal
Before: Rebecca Durcan (chair), Paul Aterman, Quinn Ross, Margaret Waddell, Eric Whist
Heard: In writing
Appearances:
Daniel Libman and Efterpi Marinis, for the appellant
Bernadette Saad and Kristina MacDonald, for the respondent in appeal
Summary:
SARAN – Appeal Costs – The Appeal Division upheld the retroactive revocation of the Lawyer’s licence – The appeal was somewhat unique and provided an opportunity for the Tribunal to provide clarity – The panel awarded the Law Society $9,000 in costs.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON COSTS
1Rebecca Durcan (for the panel):– Following our decision (Saran v Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONLSTA 28) dismissing Mr. Saran’s appeal from the hearing panel’s decision and the resulting revocation of his license (2025 ONLSTH 7) and the decision of a panel dismissing Mr. Saran’s motion to stay the order of the hearing panel (2025 ONLSTA 8), we asked for submissions on costs on the appeal and the motion.
2For the reasons that follow, we order that Mr. Saran pay $9,000 in costs. He shall pay $4,500 no later than December 2, 2026, and $4,500 no later than June 30, 2027.
SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES
Law Society
3The Law Society’s bill of costs for the appeal and stay motion totals $16,872.50. In its submissions, it advised that this does not represent the full amount actually incurred; however, the full amount is not stated. The Law Society asks that Mr. Saran pay $12,000 immediately.
4The Law Society submits that the applicable range for costs in an appeal is $15,000 to $30,000. It submits that in light of Mr. Saran’s unsuccessful motion for a stay and appeal, the amount being sought is reasonable. It also made submissions on the importance of ensuring that the profession not assume the full costs of the motion and appeal.
Mr. Saran
5Mr. Saran does not contest that a costs order is appropriate but rather asks that the order be $6,000 payable in four equal installments over four years. Mr. Saran advised of his inability to pay a costs award in the amount sought by the Law Society but did not tender any evidence in support.
Motion
6He acknowledged that the motion was not successful. However, the motion panel determined he met some (but not all) of the requirements to warrant a stay. He also noted that the motion panel determined that the appeal was not “particularly weak.”
Appeal
7Mr. Saran submitted that the dissenting opinion provided the rationale for his appeal and was therefore arguably not without merit. He also noted the issues addressed in the appeal brought clarity to the good character requirement, and was succinctly addressed in just over half a day. He queried if he should be responsible for a change in Law Society legal counsel. Finally, he cited cases that awarded costs for unsuccessful appeals lower than the $15,000-$30,000 range.
ANALYSIS
8Mr. Saran is not contesting a costs award nor our authority to order costs. Clearly the *Law Society Act*, RSO 1990, c L.8, and the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure set out the jurisdiction and parameter of such orders.
9Mr. Saran is also not contesting that the general range for costs awarded on an appeal is between $15,000 and $30,000, but believes that his appeal (and the additional motion) warrants a departure from this range. We note that the Law Society is in fact seeking an award below the range.
10Both parties agree the factors to be considered can include the complexity of the proceeding, the nature and importance of the issues, the length of the hearing, the conduct of the parties and its effect on the hearing, whether steps in the proceeding were unnecessary, the ability of the licensee to pay, and the reasonable expectations of the parties: Law Society of Ontario v Khan, 2021 ONLSTA 7.
The nature and complexity of the appeal
11Mr. Saran ought to have been aware that the hearing panel’s concerns about his credibility were detrimental to his appeal. His lack of candour was known to him and documented throughout the investigation and the hearing.
12However, we acknowledge that this hearing was somewhat unique. The good character hearing occurred after the issuance of a licence and because of the compromised online licensing examination. Mr. Saran submitted two applications and queried whether there was a nexus between the two which permitted the revocation to occur. The appeal provided an opportunity for the Tribunal to speak to this issue and provide clarity on the role of the Law Society and the Law Society’s ability to review all relevant information when assessing applications.
13We also note that the dissent raised issues that may have permitted Mr. Saran to query if an appeal would be successful.
The length of the hearing and the conduct of the parties
14The motion and the appeal were not lengthy and not unduly protracted by Mr. Saran’s submissions. We do not find that the conduct of either party was relevant to the amount of costs.
Ability of licensee to pay
15As noted above, Mr. Saran did not tender any evidence in support of his submissions that he is unable to pay the amount sought by the Law Society. We take notice of the fact that because of his revocation, he is unable to practise law in Ontario. However, even in such cases, a panel has authority to make costs orders.
16We accept that the revocation and the costs awards will create financial challenges for Mr. Saran. However, these are not unusual consequences of a finding that results in revocation.
Reasonable expectation of the parties
17The $12,000 in costs sought by the Law Society for the motion and the appeal is below the average range of costs orders made by the Tribunal Appeal Division. Mr. Saran clearly was aware and informed of the range so he cannot claim to be taken aback by the amount being sought by the Law Society. He notes that he should not be responsible for the costs associated with the transition between Law Society counsel, but a review of the evidence tendered indicates that any such transition time was minimal and the Law Society sought costs that are less than the accepted range, and that more than account for the duplication of time.
CONCLUSION
18The Law Society was fair and balanced in its request of $12,000. However, when the nature of the appeal is considered, we find a costs order of $9,000 is reasonable for the motion and the appeal. Although this is less than what the Law Society is seeking, it is still a significant amount, especially when added to the original $6,000 costs order that Mr. Saran is required to pay for the unsuccessful licensing hearing.
19We are not prepared to spread the payment schedule over four years as requested by Mr. Saran. The Law Society should be reimbursed in a more expeditious fashion. Mr. Saran shall pay $4,500 no later than December 2, 2026, and $4,500 no later than June 30, 2027.
ORDER
20Accordingly, we order that:
- Mr. Saran shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $9,000.
a. $4,500 is payable by December 2, 2026, and
b. $4,500 is payable by June 30, 2027.
- Interest shall accrue on any overdue amount at a rate of 4% annually.