The appellants appealed a discipline panel's decision finding they engaged in professional misconduct by devising and sending three falsified emails to discredit former employees.
The appellants admitted to sending one email but claimed the other two were sent by a hacker.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the panel correctly applied the burden of proof, reasonably rejected the hacking theory, properly qualified the respondent's digital forensics expert, and appropriately drew an adverse inference against the appellants for failing to produce key evidence.
The court also upheld the panel's penalty and costs awards, noting the sanctions were measured given the fundamental dishonesty involved.
