Other Tribunals - OLST

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent paralegal's licence, alleging misappropriation of trust funds and breach of integrity.

The investigator identified over $100,000 in unexplained transfers from the respondent's trust accounts to his general account, supported by invoices that the clients claimed they never received.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent may have misappropriated or misapplied monies held in trust.

Given the serious integrity issues, the Tribunal concluded that restrictions would be insufficient to protect the public and ordered an immediate interlocutory suspension.

The Law Society Tribunal previously found that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by practising law while suspended and failing to treat the court with courtesy and civility.

The respondent maintained that he was an "unconquered Métis man" and not subject to the authority of the Law Society Act.

Despite being invited to make submissions on penalty, the respondent did not participate.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was ungovernable due to mental illness and that a further suspension would not protect the public interest or maintain public confidence.

The respondent's licence to practise law was revoked.

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty and costs hearing after finding the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct.

The lawyer had acted dishonestly in family law litigation by using a disputed foreign divorce to remove a matrimonial home designation, assisting his client in defeating court orders, and misleading the court and opposing counsel.

The Tribunal determined that while presumptive revocation did not apply, the ordinary penalty analysis required revocation due to the serious and calculated nature of the dishonesty, which undermined public confidence in the profession.

The Tribunal declined to impose an additional fine but ordered the lawyer to pay $50,000 in costs.

The Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent lawyer misappropriated $85,230 in trust funds from a client during a mortgage transaction.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct in an agreed statement of facts.

The respondent sought permission to surrender his licence rather than face revocation, but failed to provide expert evidence or establish exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the presumptive penalty of revocation applied, noting that partial repayment of the misappropriated funds did not negate the presumptive penalty.

The respondent's licence was immediately revoked and he was ordered to pay the remaining restitution of $5,322.50.

The respondent lawyer brought a motion to dismiss conduct and capacity applications issued against her by the Law Society, alleging abuse of process, bias, discrimination, and prosecutorial misconduct.

She claimed that the Law Society, its investigators, counsel, and Tribunal adjudicators discriminated against her as an Indigenous Christian woman and infringed her Charter right to freedom of religion.

The Tribunal reviewed the extensive evidentiary record and found no evidence to support the allegations of bias, discrimination, or improper motives.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or any conduct amounting to an abuse of process, and dismissed the motion.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a professional misconduct application against the respondent lawyer regarding his representation of three immigration clients.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to serve his clients to the standard of a competent lawyer, deposited trust funds into his general account before they were earned, falsified a client's signature on an application, and misled both clients and successor counsel.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's explanations, finding his credibility significantly impeached by his admitted falsification of documents.

All allegations of professional misconduct were established, and a penalty hearing was directed to be scheduled.

The applicant applied for a licence to practise law and wrote the solicitor exam in November 2021.

The Law Society investigated allegations of widespread cheating on the exam and found that the applicant possessed and used unauthorized cheating materials.

During the investigation, the applicant repeatedly made false and misleading representations denying his involvement.

He later admitted to using the cheating materials and failing to be forthright.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made deliberately false and misleading representations, breaching s 8(2) of By-Law 4, and therefore deemed him not to have met the requirements for a licence, including the good character requirement.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent paralegal sought to summons ten witnesses for his conduct hearing regarding allegations of uncivil communications with tribunal and court staff.

The Law Society opposed the issuance of the summonses.

The Tribunal found that none of the proposed witnesses were in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence regarding whether the respondent's emails and social media posts were uncivil or unprofessional.

Leave to issue the summonses was denied and the summonses were quashed.

The Law Society of Ontario alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to serve a vulnerable refugee client to the standard of a competent lawyer, failing to advise her of the option to apply for Legal Aid for her appeal, sexually harassing her, and misleading a Law Society investigator.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the lawyer failed to meet the standard of competence by inadequately addressing the internal flight alternative in her refugee claim and by filing contradictory medical documents without proper preparation.

The Tribunal also found that the lawyer failed to advise the client of her right to apply for Legal Aid and failed to be honest with the investigator regarding the client's prior Legal Aid certificate.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the sexual harassment allegation, finding that the Law Society did not meet its onus of proof due to credibility issues with the complainant's uncorroborated evidence.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

The Law Society brought a conduct application against a lawyer whose licence was previously suspended due to incapacity arising from mental illness.

The lawyer continued to make numerous court appearances while suspended, acting uncivilly and advancing pseudolegal arguments based on his claim to be an unconquered Métis individual not subject to the Law Society Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the lawyer's recusal motions and found that he engaged in professional misconduct.

The Tribunal established a unified framework for addressing mental illness in conduct applications and concluded that diversion to a capacity proceeding was inappropriate because the lawyer lacked insight into his illness, refused to cooperate, and posed a significant risk to the public.

The applicant's licence to practise law was retroactively revoked after the Tribunal found he made deliberately false and misleading statements regarding a prior criminal conviction on his application.

In this costs decision, the Law Society sought $25,000, while the applicant sought costs against the Law Society.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $12,500 in costs, noting his deliberate deception caused the Law Society to expend considerable effort and that he had no reasonable chance of success.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order suspending or restricting the respondent lawyer's licence pending a conduct application.

The underlying application alleged the lawyer failed to respect human rights laws regarding a former employee and engaged in abusive communications and inappropriate social media postings.

The Tribunal found no evidence of current harm or significant risk of harm to the public or the administration of justice, noting that the passage of time had addressed previous concerns.

The motion was dismissed for lack of statutory authority under section 49.27(2) of the Law Society Act.

The Law Society sought costs of $16,000 following the dismissal of the lawyer's appeal against findings of professional misconduct and the dismissal of the Law Society's cross-appeal on penalty.

The lawyer argued the costs were unreasonable and sought a reduction to $10,000, contending the cross-appeal was unwarranted.

The Tribunal found the Law Society's costs claim reasonable, noting it had already discounted its actual costs to reflect the unsuccessful cross-appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the lawyer to pay $16,000 in costs within 90 days.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent paralegal engaged in professional misconduct by fabricating a client's signature on an affidavit, improperly commissioning it in her absence, and misleading the court by relying on it.

The paralegal admitted to the misconduct via an agreed statement of facts.

The Tribunal found the allegations substantiated.

Weighing mitigating factors including the paralegal's lack of discipline history, cooperation, and pro bono representation of the client against the serious nature of the integrity breach, the Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension and $4,000 in costs.

The Law Society brought an application against a paralegal for failing to co-operate with an investigation into a client complaint.

The paralegal failed to respond to multiple requests for information and documents over a 17-month period.

The paralegal asserted she had a disability and that the Law Society failed to accommodate her, but she provided no medical evidence and refused to participate in the accommodation process.

The Tribunal found professional misconduct established and ordered an indefinite suspension until compliance, followed by a two-month fixed suspension, and $1,000 in costs.

The applicant alleged that the respondent licensee engaged in professional misconduct while representing a mother in a family law matter.

The licensee sent abusive, offensive, and unprofessional emails to opposing counsel, which included profanities and unfounded accusations.

Furthermore, the licensee abruptly terminated his representation of the client mere hours before an urgent motion, failing to provide reasonable notice or assistance.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the licensee's communications violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and that he failed to serve his client to the standard of a competent lawyer.

The allegations of professional misconduct were proven.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application alleging that the respondent paralegal engaged in professional misconduct through his online communications.

The paralegal had published social media posts falsely asserting that paralegals were authorized to provide a full scope of immigration services, despite Law Society restrictions limiting their practice to Immigration and Refugee Board hearings.

The Tribunal found these posts were deliberately misleading and encouraged other paralegals to engage in unauthorized practice.

Additionally, the Tribunal found the paralegal engaged in professional misconduct by making uncivil, abusive, and disparaging comments about a paralegal bencher and other licensees over several years.

The Tribunal concluded that the paralegal's conduct overstepped the bounds of protected freedom of expression and directed that a hearing be scheduled for penalty and costs.

The appellant appealed the retroactive revocation of his licence to practise law.

He had previously been licensed, suspended, and ultimately disbarred in Alberta, but failed to disclose this on his lawyer licensing application in Ontario.

The hearing panel determined that he had made deliberately false or misleading representations and retroactively revoked his licence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the panel erred in applying binding precedent, ignoring mental health evidence, and misapplying the standard for misrepresentation.

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the hearing panel's findings or analysis.

The appellant lawyer sought a stay of a Hearing Division order revoking her licence pending her appeal of the professional misconduct findings and penalty.

The lawyer had been found to have engaged in professional misconduct by attempting to mislead opposing counsel and the court about a settlement offer and threatening a Law Society complaint to gain a benefit.

The Tribunal denied the stay, finding that while the appeal raised a serious issue and the lawyer would suffer irreparable harm, the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The seriousness of the misconduct, the risk of further misconduct, and the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession outweighed the impact on the lawyer's clients.