Law Society Tribunal

The Appellant brought a motion seeking various forms of relief prior to the hearing of his appeal, including a reconsideration of the hearing panel's decision, a transfer to an Indigenous Tribunal, a hearing by a lay member, cross-examinations, payment of transcripts, admission of fresh evidence, and recusal of the adjudicator.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no jurisdictional basis for the transfer, no foundation for the cross-examinations or recusal, and no evidence of impecuniosity for the transcript costs.

The admissibility of fresh evidence was deferred to the hearing of the appeal.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension or practice restriction against a paralegal facing multiple complaints of failing to serve clients, failing to account for funds, practising outside her permitted scope, and retaining an unlicensed person.

The paralegal conceded that an interlocutory order was appropriate but argued for practice restrictions rather than a suspension.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice.

Given the serious integrity concerns raised by the paralegal's conduct, including accepting funds without performing work and attempting to negotiate the withdrawal of a complaint, the Tribunal concluded that practice restrictions would be insufficient and ordered an interlocutory suspension.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence amid allegations of misappropriating approximately $256,000 from an incapacitated client while acting as power of attorney.

The lawyer admitted to borrowing money from the client in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct and misleading the client's family and bank.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public.

It initially granted an interim restriction allowing the lawyer to complete one scheduled trial, followed by a full interlocutory suspension.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application alleging that the respondent paralegal engaged in professional misconduct by failing to maintain books and records as required by By-Law 9.

The paralegal acknowledged her failure to keep proper records, citing a mistaken belief about trust accounting rules for flat-fee retainers.

The Tribunal found that professional misconduct was established.

The paralegal's licence was suspended indefinitely until she demonstrated compliance, to be followed by a one-month suspension.

She was also ordered to pay costs of $4,677.50.

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 appellant, whose licence to practise law was revoked for serious misconduct, brought a motion for a stay of the revocation order and a publication ban pending his appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, there was no irreparable harm since the appellant was already suspended on an interlocutory basis, and the balance of convenience and public interest favoured maintaining the revocation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the motion for a publication ban, applying the Sherman Estate test and concluding that the appellant's privacy interests did not outweigh the fundamental importance of openness in professional regulation.

The appellant paralegal's licence was revoked after a hearing panel found she misappropriated $6,600 from her trust account.

She appealed the revocation and brought a motion for a stay pending appeal.

The Appeal Division dismissed the motion, finding that while the appeal raised a novel but weak issue of law regarding the failure to replenish trust funds, the balance of convenience strongly favoured protecting the public.

The public interest in upholding confidence in the administration of justice and the disciplinary process outweighed the appellant's interests, particularly given her delay in perfecting the appeal.

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 alleged that the respondent lawyer failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order and the Guidelines for suspended lawyers by failing to provide a compliance report.

The lawyer admitted the misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission for a one-month suspension and $3,889 in costs.

The Tribunal rejected the lawyer's request to apply the suspension retroactively, finding that the current misconduct was separate from the conduct that led to his existing suspension.

The one-month suspension was ordered to be served prospectively, and the lawyer was granted 12 months to pay the costs.

The Law Society appealed a hearing panel decision finding that the applicant did not cheat on her licensing exam and was of good character despite making an inaccurate statement during the investigation.

The Appeal Division allowed the appeal, finding the hearing panel erred in law by misinterpreting section 8(2) of By-Law 4 to require an intent to deceive, failing to consider the circumstantial evidence of cheating as a whole, improperly assessing credibility, and applying an elevated standard of proof.

The Appeal Division substituted its own decision, concluding the applicant knowingly made a false representation in connection with her application and therefore deemed her not to meet the requirements for licensing.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty and costs for a lawyer found to have engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly facilitating a client's fraud, breaching trust account rules, and failing to serve a client.

The Tribunal revoked the lawyer's licence immediately, finding that revocation is the only appropriate penalty for knowing participation in fraud to maintain public confidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the lawyer to pay $30,000 in costs to the Law Society, taking into account his impecuniosity and a reduction for inordinate investigative delay.

The Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with an investigation and failing to update her contact information.

The lawyer did not attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal found the allegations established based on uncontested evidence that the lawyer failed to respond to multiple communications and failed to provide requested information.

The Tribunal ordered an indefinite suspension until compliance, followed by a one-month suspension, and costs of $1,871.50.

The Law Society brought a capacity application alleging the respondent lawyer was incapacitated between 2014 and 2019 due to a mental illness.

The respondent, an Indigenous woman and registered nurse, contested the application, arguing she was never incapacitated, her religious expressions were misinterpreted as delusions, and the psychiatric assessments were tainted by systemic racism.

The Tribunal accepted the expert psychiatric evidence that the respondent suffered from a lifelong mental illness that rendered her incapacitated during the relevant period, but found she has been in remission since 2019 due to adherence to a treatment plan.

The Tribunal ordered a three-year return-to-practice plan under s. 40 of the Law Society Act, requiring the respondent to remain under the care of a treating regulated professional and provide annual compliance reports, finding this to be the least restrictive accommodation necessary to protect the public.

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty hearing after finding the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to account to a client, failing to be transparent about fees, and failing to pay a $15,000 default judgment obtained by the client.

The Tribunal imposed a two-month suspension, noting the misconduct was serious but involved a single dispute with a single client.

The respondent was also ordered to reimburse the Compensation Fund up to $15,000 for any claim paid to the client, and to pay $6,000 in costs to the Law Society.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal and stay motion regarding the revocation of his license, the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The Law Society sought $12,000, which was below the typical range of $15,000 to $30,000 for an appeal.

The appellant requested costs be fixed at $6,000 payable over four years, citing financial hardship but providing no evidence.

The Tribunal considered the unique nature of the appeal, which provided an opportunity to clarify the Law Society's role in assessing applications following the compromised online licensing examination.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $9,000 in costs, payable in two installments.

In a professional misconduct proceeding against a lawyer involving alleged mortgage fraud, the Law Society sought to disclose documents obtained from investigations of other lawyers.

The respondent lawyer sought unredacted disclosure, arguing the 'innocence at stake' exception to solicitor-client privilege applied.

The Tribunal held that the 'innocence at stake' exception is limited to criminal proceedings and does not apply where a licence to practise a profession is at stake.

The Tribunal reviewed the documents individually, finding the presumption of privilege over certain trust and administrative records was rebutted given the nature of the mortgage transactions, and ordered disclosure of specific documents with directed redactions to protect solicitor-client communications.

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 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 of Ontario alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly assisting in mortgage fraud across six real estate transactions.

The respondent acted for both the borrowers and the first mortgagee bank, while simultaneously acting for private lenders registering second mortgages on the same properties, contrary to the bank's express instructions.

The respondent admitted to failing to supervise his practice, acting in a conflict of interest, and commissioning false statutory declarations, but denied knowing assistance.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the respondent was willfully blind to the obvious red flags of fraud, including the flow of secondary financing funds through his own trust account prior to the first mortgage advances.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent knowingly assisted in the dishonest conduct of his clients and made findings of professional misconduct.