Suzanne Jarvie

The Law Society Tribunal brought a motion for directions regarding its participation status in an appeal before the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal sought to participate as of right in the appeal of a judicial review decision, claiming automatic party status based on its participation in the underlying Divisional Court proceedings.

The applicant, Matthew Riddell, opposed the Tribunal's participation.

The court directed that the Tribunal's motion for leave to appeal proceed without the Tribunal's participation, finding insufficient basis for automatic party status and noting the Tribunal's lack of substantive participation before the Divisional Court.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Appeal Panel decision upholding a $17,500 costs award against him.

The costs were awarded after the applicant abandoned his third application for a paralegal license just days before the good character hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Hearing Panel retained jurisdiction to award costs despite the abandonment, properly considered the applicant's history of abandoning and reinstating applications as an abuse of process, and afforded the applicant procedural fairness.

The court fixed costs of the judicial review at $5,000.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel regarding a costs award made by a Hearing Panel that had recused itself.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Appeal Panel's decision.

The Court dismissed most of the appellant's arguments, finding the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded that both parties were at fault for failing to raise a conflict of interest issue earlier, and that success was divided on a bias motion.

However, the Court reduced the costs awarded to the Law Society for a motion to exclude evidence by 50%, as the parties agreed the motion took less time than the Appeal Panel had estimated.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant lawyer was investigated by the Law Society for alleged involvement in mortgage fraud.

After a five-year delay, the Hearing Panel dismissed the disciplinary application, finding the delay caused the appellant serious psychological harm.

The Appeal Panel overturned this decision, finding the Hearing Panel misapprehended evidence regarding the appellant's cross-examination and applied the wrong legal test.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court restored the Hearing Panel's decision, holding that the Appeal Panel failed to show deference and that the unchallenged expert evidence clearly established the appellant suffered significant psychological harm due to the inordinate delay.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada's Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's finding of professional misconduct and a 30-day suspension.

The misconduct involved five incidents of incivility and discrimination against a client.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Appeal Panel's decision reasonable, including its conclusion that the Hearing Panel had authority under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to correct its penalty order.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on an appeal from a decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada Appeal Panel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the transcript of the appellant's examination in a civil suit against his former counsel was not relevant to any issue on appeal, and his affidavit regarding the impact of the discipline and his subsequent conduct was not determinative of the reasonableness of the penalty.