OLST 2026

The respondent lawyer brought a motion for further disclosure of all communications between the Law Society and its external investigative counsel.

The Law Society argued the communications were irrelevant or protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that not all communications were potentially relevant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the external counsel was retained to conduct a regulatory investigation, not to provide legal advice, meaning the communications were not generally protected by solicitor-client privilege, though specific communications involving legal advice would remain privileged.

Following a finding that the respondent paralegal was incapacitated due to a brain injury and neurodevelopmental disorder, the Law Society Tribunal considered the appropriate disposition.

The respondent sought to continue practising with restrictions or supervision, while the Law Society sought revocation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's condition was permanent and likely degenerative, and that he lacked insight into his disability.

Concluding there was no realistic prospect of his return to practice, the Tribunal revoked his licence to protect the public and ordered him to pay $15,000 in costs, payable only if he reapplies for a licence.

The Law Society brought an application against the respondent lawyer alleging professional misconduct, including sexual harassment of clients and non-clients, breach of client confidentiality, failure to report criminal charges, failure to release a client file, and failure to co-operate with investigations.

The respondent, who was incarcerated and did not attend the hearing, was deemed to have admitted the facts.

The Tribunal found that the respondent egregiously abused his position of authority to take advantage of vulnerable clients and engaged in a lengthy pattern of misconduct.

The Tribunal revoked the respondent's licence to practise law and ordered him to pay $100,000 in costs.

The Law Society brought an unopposed motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence.

Evidence indicated that at least $555,355 was missing from the lawyer's trust account, which had not been reconciled since 2021.

The lawyer claimed her identity was stolen and the account was compromised by fraudulent transactions, though bank records showed she approved at least one wire transfer.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe that allowing the lawyer to continue practising would pose a serious risk of potential harm to the public and the administration of justice, and ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of her licence.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension or practice restrictions against the respondent lawyer, who practices primarily in family law.

The Law Society received multiple complaints alleging conflict of interest, breach of client confidentiality, and failure to provide competent legal services.

The Tribunal found strong evidence that the lawyer breached client confidentiality to the detriment of her clients, possibly with retaliatory motives, and acted in a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe her conduct presented a significant risk of harm to the public and the public interest.

However, balancing the interests, the Tribunal determined that an interlocutory suspension was not required and that public protection could be achieved through an order requiring strict supervision of the lawyer's practice by another approved lawyer pending a hearing on the merits.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The Law Society adduced unchallenged evidence that the respondent misappropriated settlement funds, failed to account to clients, abandoned his practice, and failed to co-operate with investigations.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public if the respondent was permitted to continue practising.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of the respondent's licence.

The Law Society brought a motion seeking an order deeming the respondent to have admitted the truth of facts in approximately 80 refusals to a request to admit.

The Law Society argued the respondent's categorical refusals failed to comply with Rule 11.3 of the Tribunal Rules.

The respondent argued the requests were improperly drafted and his refusals were compliant.

The Tribunal found that both parties failed to meaningfully engage in the request to admit process.

The motion was adjourned to allow the Law Society to provide an evidentiary foundation for certain requests and the respondent to provide precise reasons for his refusals.

The Law Society brought a motion for deemed admissions regarding the respondent's refusals in a request to admit.

Shortly before the motion hearing, the Law Society sought to amend its notice of motion to increase the number of refusals in issue from approximately 80 to 280, acknowledging it had made a drafting error.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it materially altered the substance of the motion and increased his jeopardy.

The Tribunal granted leave to amend, finding that while the scale of the amendment was significant, it did not raise a new issue.

To preserve fairness, the Tribunal ordered a timetable for responding materials and vacated the scheduled hearing dates.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty for a lawyer found to have engaged in professional misconduct by being wilfully blind to a fraud and money laundering scheme.

The lawyer argued for a suspension, citing powerful mitigating factors including difficult personal circumstances, the isolated nature of the transaction, strong community support, and six years of unblemished practice since the incident.

The Tribunal held that wilful blindness to fraud is tantamount to knowledge, triggering a presumptive penalty of revocation.

Finding that the mitigating factors did not explain why the misconduct occurred or amount to exceptional circumstances sufficient to displace the presumption, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of the lawyer's licence and costs of $24,000.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The Law Society presented evidence of the lawyer failing to attend court, appearing intoxicated during virtual hearings, failing to report criminal charges, and suffering from capacity issues related to mental health and substance addiction.

The respondent conceded that the evidence met the threshold for an interlocutory suspension.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice, and ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of the respondent's licence.

No costs were ordered due to the respondent's cooperation.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application against the respondent lawyer alleging professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a licensee, including misappropriation of estate and trust funds, failure to serve clients, and failure to cooperate with investigations.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and was deemed to have admitted the allegations.

The Tribunal found the allegations established.

Given the serious nature of the misappropriation and the absence of exceptional mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal ordered the immediate revocation of the respondent's licence, restitution to a client, and costs to the Law Society.

The Law Society commenced conduct proceedings against a paralegal regarding his communications in matters before the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal (OPSDT).

The paralegal brought a motion to exclude the OPSDT materials, arguing they were inadmissible under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA).

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that a Law Society disciplinary proceeding is not a 'civil proceeding' for the purposes of s. 36(3) when scrutinizing the conduct of a legal representative.

The provision does not operate to shield a licensee's behaviour from regulatory oversight by the Law Society.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty for a lawyer previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including acting in a conflict of interest by having a sexual relationship with a client, making discriminatory comments, participating in a fraudulent vehicle transfer using a false statutory declaration, and acting uncivilly toward police.

The Tribunal found that the fraudulent vehicle transfer attracted presumptive revocation under the Bolton principle, as it involved a client and a false statutory declaration, which compromised public confidence in the profession.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, and alternatively applying the ordinary penalty approach, the Tribunal revoked the lawyer's licence and ordered him to pay $35,000 in costs.

The applicant, a lawyer licensed in British Columbia, applied for a licence to practise law in Ontario.

The Law Society referred the application to a hearing, alleging the applicant was not of good character due to a prior finding of professional misconduct in British Columbia relating to the misuse of his trust account, as well as an unauthorized practice investigation in Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the Law Society did not meet its initial burden of establishing that good character was at issue, as the prior misconduct was based on a misapprehension of the rules and did not engage the applicant's integrity or trustworthiness.

The Tribunal further found that, even if the burden had been met, the applicant demonstrated he is presently of good character through his remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and the passage of time.

The application for a licence was allowed.

Following a finding of professional misconduct regarding syndicated mortgage transactions, the Law Society Tribunal considered the issue of costs.

The Law Society sought $60,000 in costs, while the respondent lawyer argued for $25,000.

The Tribunal reviewed the principles of costs awards in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that while the profession should not bear all costs, reductions are appropriate to recognize cooperative conduct that shortens proceedings.

Given the lawyer's extensive cooperation, including agreeing to a comprehensive agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal reduced the costs award to $25,000.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a conduct application against the Licensee for misappropriating over $12 million in client trust funds across 13 real estate matters.

The Licensee admitted to falsifying trust records, breaching undertakings, and using client funds to pay personal and business expenses, including those of her husband's class action practice.

The Tribunal found the Licensee engaged in professional misconduct by failing to act with honour and integrity.

Applying the presumptive penalty for misappropriation, the Tribunal revoked the Licensee's licence, ordered restitution to the Compensation Fund, and awarded $100,000 in costs to the Law Society.

Following a finding that the paralegal was incapacitated due to a substance use disorder and borderline personality disorder, the Law Society Tribunal determined the terms of a capacity order.

The Tribunal rejected the paralegal's arguments against employment restrictions, finding that protection of the public required him to provide legal services only as an employee under supervision.

The Tribunal also mandated ongoing treatment, including dialectical behaviour therapy, and unannounced substance use testing, while accommodating his disability to the point of undue hardship.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer committed professional misconduct by falsifying a client's signature on appeal documents, improperly commissioning an affidavit in the client's absence, and filing documents without verifying their contents.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission for a three-month suspension and $5,390 in costs, finding that the proposed penalty was consistent with jurisprudence and did not meet the high public interest threshold for rejection.

The Law Society brought a motion for interlocutory suspensions of two lawyers, Ms. Nejal and Ms. Laguisan, due to irregularities in their firm's mixed trust account, specifically the failure to pay out mortgages on closing.

Ms. Nejal, the firm owner, was found to have failed to maintain books and records and there was strong evidence suggesting a lack of integrity and possible complicity in the mishandling of funds.

The Tribunal ordered an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Nejal's licence.

Ms. Laguisan, a newly-called associate who was left in charge during Ms. Nejal's prior suspension, was found to have been unaware of the delayed payouts and there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The motion for an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Laguisan's licence was dismissed.

The Law Society brought a summary conduct application alleging the respondent lawyer failed to maintain books and records in compliance with By-Law 9.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached sections 18(10) and 19(1) of By-Law 9 by failing to maintain detailed duplicate deposit slips and a book of duplicate cash receipts.

The respondent was ordered to serve an indefinite suspension pending compliance, followed by a one-month definite suspension, and to pay costs of $3,438.