The appellant lawyer was found guilty of professional misconduct by a Law Society Hearing Panel for sexually harassing a client and an employee.
The case turned entirely on credibility, with the appellant denying all allegations.
The Hearing Panel's decision was overturned by the Appeal Panel but reinstated by the Divisional Court.
On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Hearing Panel's reasons were so inadequate as to foreclose meaningful appellate review.
The reasons consisted of generic generalities, unexplained conclusory observations, and failed to articulate any analysis of the appellant's evidence.
The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new hearing.
