Rhoda Cookhorn

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aliamisse O. Mundulai’s motion for a panel review of a decision denying his request for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had dismissed his application for judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision denying his readmission to the Ontario Bar.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s decision, noting the lack of merit in the proposed appeal and emphasizing that leave to appeal was required.

The application was dismissed and costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The successful respondent was awarded its costs of the appeal.

The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs in the all-inclusive amount of $10,000.

The appellant's license to practice law was revoked by the Law Society Tribunal in 2020.

After exhausting all appeals up to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appellant brought an application in the Superior Court of Justice seeking Charter declarations and reinstatement of his license.

The motion judge dismissed the application as an impermissible collateral attack on the revocation decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant could not use section 24(1) of the Charter to seek a fresh hearing after exhausting statutory remedies, and that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to order reinstatement.

This motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerned the applicant's attempt to reopen a previously administratively dismissed motion for review.

The applicant had failed to perfect his review motion by a deadline imposed by a three-person panel of the Court.

The single judge determined that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the current motion, as it sought to vary or set aside an order of a panel, which is prohibited by Rule 61.16(6.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Registrar's administrative dismissal was found not to be an independent 'order or decision' reviewable under Rule 61.16(5), but rather an administrative act flowing directly from the panel's order.

The motion was quashed for want of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The judge also noted that, even if jurisdiction existed, the motion would have been dismissed on its merits due to the underlying appeal being meritless, the applicant's incredible explanation for missing the deadline, and the interests of justice given the repeated litigation of the same issues.

The applicant sought a declaration that Rule 15.01(1) of the Law Society of Ontario's Rules of Practice and Procedure, concerning the awarding of costs against the Law Society, was ultra vires or null and void.

The Law Society brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or being an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for a declaration, finding that the Law Society's rule on costs was within its statutory authority and that costs are procedural in nature.

The Law Society's motion to dismiss was granted, and costs were awarded to the Law Society.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought a motion under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Paul Alexander Robson's motion to review a prior decision of a motion judge.

The LSO argued that Robson's motion was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the LSO failed to provide sufficient background documents, such as Robson's original motion materials or proposed notice of motion for leave to appeal, which were necessary to determine if the motion was, on its face, an abuse of process.

Consequently, the LSO's Rule 2.1 request was dismissed without costs, and Robson was ordered to perfect his motion for review within ten days.

Paul Alexander Robson, a lawyer, sought an extension of time to appeal a Divisional Court decision that upheld the Law Society Tribunal's finding of professional misconduct for failing to provide financial documents during an investigation.

The Law Society initiated the investigation based on a client complaint, asserting "reasonable suspicion" under the Law Society Act.

Robson argued the Law Society lacked authority without legally admissible evidence for "reasonable suspicion." The hearing panel, appeal division, and Divisional Court all rejected this argument, stating that a client complaint summary was sufficient for reasonable suspicion and that the Law Society was not required to establish suspicion using only legally admissible evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Robson's motion for an extension of time, finding no merit to the proposed appeal, and ordered substantial indemnity costs against him.

The applicant, a lawyer, brought an application challenging the vires of the Law Society Tribunal’s costs rules, which the respondent Law Society moved to strike.

The scheduled hearing was adjourned because both parties failed to file necessary materials in advance, leading to procedural disputes and preventing the judge from fully preparing.

This lack of preparation also delayed the discovery of a potential judicial conflict of interest, necessitating the adjournment.

The court emphasized the importance of counsel ensuring all required materials are filed properly to avoid increasing court backlogs.