Court File and Parties

CITATION: Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 5215

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 23-047

DATE: 2023-09-18

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: PAUL ALEXANDER ROBSON, Appellant AND: LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO, Respondent

BEFORE: Backhouse, Gomery and Nishikawa JJ.

COUNSEL: Richard Watson, for the Appellant Rhoda Cookhorn, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 14, 2023 (at Toronto)

Endorsement

Nishikawa J. (orally)

[1] The Appellant, Paul Robson, appeals a final order made by a Law Society Appeal Division Panel upholding two Hearing Panel decisions dated April 12, 2022, and June 7, 2022.

[2] We find that the Appellant has failed to identify any factual or legal errors in the Appeal Panel’s decision justifying this court’s intervention. The Appellant raises the same arguments as he did before the Appeal Panel of the Law Society Tribunal in an attempt to relitigate the matters that were before the Tribunal.

[3] We agree with the Appeal Panel the Appellant’s appeal is meritless and “there was more than sufficient evidence” to justify the hearing panel’s conclusion that the Law Society had a reasonable suspicion to exercise its investigative powers. Further, we agree with the Appeal Panel that the Appellant was afforded a fair hearing and was given ample opportunity to defend the application before the hearing division.

[4] The Appeal Panel’s determination that the Appellant failed to cooperate was founded and was consistent with long-standing authority from the Law Society Tribunal, including Law Society of Upper Canada v. Wise, 2009 ONSLAP 13, affirmed by this court at 2010 ONSC 1937 (Div. Ct.).

[5] As held in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Cusack:

[40] It is well-established that before obtaining disclosure in support of an allegation that an investigation constitutes an abuse of process there must be a legally and factually tenable allegation supported on the record. This means more than mere speculation or allegations.

[41] In my view, the same principle applies to allegations about the commencement of the investigation. To require disclosure or call evidence about an allegation that s. 49.3 and/or procedural fairness has not been complied with, there must be a basis for the allegation on the record. A respondent may not turn a fail to co-operate hearing into a fishing expedition into the basis for a decision to authorize an investigation.

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Cusack, 2016 ONLSTH 7, paras. 40-41.

[6] On penalty, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the six-month suspension was manifestly unfit.

[7] As to costs before the Law Society Tribunal, the Appellant has not shown that the costs decision was plainly wrong or resulted from an error in principle.

[8] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. As the successful party, the Law Society is entitled to its costs of the appeal fixed at $5,450 on a partial indemnity basis.

"Nishikawa J."

"I agree: Backhouse J."

"I agree: Gomery J."

Oral reasons delivered: September 14, 2023

Released: September 18, 2023