THE PROCEEDING

[1] On September 10, 2018 Mr. Isaac commenced an application seeking a declaration that s. 45.1(1) of the Law Society Act is invalid as in breach of the Charter and other relief relating to the Law Society Tribunal’s jurisdiction to order costs and the alleged inter-relationship between the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) and the Law Society Tribunal (“LST”).

The BACKGROUND

[2] The evidence on this interim motion fails to provide even the most basic understanding of the background and current facts necessary for the issues to be properly decided.

[3] There was a disciplinary hearing before the LST. Apparently, the hearing did not go in Mr. Isaac’s favour. A cost order was made by the LST on August 1, 2017 in the amount of $2,500. Mr. Isaac was given one year to pay this cost award. Mr. Isaac failed to pay the cost award.

[4] On July 30, 2018, under s. 45.1(1) of the Law Society Act, the LSO suspended Mr. Isaac’s license until the costs were paid in full.

[5] As a result, Mr. Isaac brought this Application and, on the same day, brought a motion seeking “an interim order, on an urgent ex parte basis directing” the LSO “to nullify the present suspension of the Applicant pursuant to s. 45.1(1) for non-payment of a $2,500 Cost order….”

[6] The ex parte motion was heard on September 10, 2018. This court adjourned the motion as it failed to demonstrate any urgency why the motion should be heard without notice to the LSO and the LST. The motion was adjourned until served on the Respondents.

[7] Nothing was heard from Mr. Isaac until the week of January 28, 2019. Mr. Isaac sought this motion to be rescheduled as soon as possible. The LSO and LST have been served.

[8] Mr. Isaac relied on the same affidavit as the September 10, 2018 motion.

[9] There are two significant developments Mr. Isaac, failed to disclose in his materials but confirmed at the hearing of this motion:

a) He has paid the $2,500 cost order at issue in this Application; and

b) He is currently under suspension for professional misconduct by the LSO as a result of a January 24, 2019 LST decision.

[10] When asked why the above facts were not put before this court as evidence, Mr. Isaac submitted it was the obligation of the Respondents to put into evidence the entire file relating to these matter. I disagree. This is an interim motion by Mr. Isaac. The onus is on him for the “interim” relief he seeks. It is his obligation to put the necessary evidence before this court on this motion. Mr. Isaac’s offer to hand up documents during the motion was neither helpful nor appropriate.

Analysis

[11] There are many reasons why this motion must be dismissed:

a) Mr. Isaac seeks to attack the constitutionality of s. 45.1(1) of the Law Society Act but, he has failed to serve the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario;

b) Mr. Isaac has paid the $2,500 which was the central issue of this motion for interim relief. He is no longer suspended for non-payment of this cost award. Arguably, this motion is moot. Yet, Mr. Isaac continued to seek to be re-instated by the LSO. Unless questioned by this court, it would never have come to the court’s attention that Mr. Isaac is now suspended for entirely different reasons. As stated above, the motion materials are woefully inadequate to entirely understand the reasons for, the process or details of the current suspension for the court to make the broad sweeping order Mr. Isaac seeks – to be re-instated;

c) Mr. Isaac has not explained why he waited from September 10, 2018 until late January 2019 to bring this “urgent” motion back before the court. The reasons may be readily be inferred that Mr. Isaac’s renewed interest in re-instatement by the LSO was because he was suspended again on January 24, 2019 for professional misconduct; and

d) The order Mr. Isaac seeks is, in reality, a mandatory order. There is insufficient evidence before this court to assess whether his application has any merits, particularly as it relates to the recent suspension. As for irreparable harm, Mr. Isaac brought to court a client who apparently wants him to act for her. This does not establish irreparable harm to Mr. Isaac. The client has a choice to retain other counsel. In addition, on the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that the balance of convenience favours Mr. Isaac. Simply stating that the public does not need to be protected from him, is not sufficient to overcome this part of the test.

[12] The motion is dismissed.

[13] No costs are sought by the LSO or the LST.

Ricchetti J.

Date: February 11, 2019

CITATION: Isaac v. Law Society of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 1012

COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-0068

DATE: 2019 02 11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

David Grant Isaac, Applicant

and -

Law Society of Ontario, The Law Society Tribunal, Respondents

ENDORSEMENTS

Ricchetti J.

Released: February 11, 2019

Isaac v. Law Society of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 1012

Case Summary

THE PROCEEDING

The BACKGROUND

Analysis

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues