Tanus Rutherford

The appellant lawyer appealed the revocation of his license to practice law by the Law Society Tribunal.

He had been found to have knowingly assisted clients in mortgage fraud across multiple real estate transactions.

The appellant argued that the findings of fact and credibility from an initial hearing panel, which had acquitted him of knowing assistance, should have bound the second hearing panel after a new hearing was ordered.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an order for a new hearing results in an entirely new hearing, and the second panel was not bound by the first panel's findings, which were based on an incorrect legal understanding of fraud.

The penalty of license revocation was upheld.

The appellant lawyer appealed decisions of the Law Society Appeal Division that affirmed findings of professional misconduct, including knowing participation in real estate fraud, and the penalty of license revocation.

The appellant also appealed the dismissal of a motion seeking the recusal of two Appeal Division panelists based on their involvement in a prior costs appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings, no error in principle regarding penalty or costs, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for delay.

The moving party had been found guilty of professional misconduct for knowingly assisting in mortgage fraud, resulting in the revocation of his license to practice law.

The court found the moving party's reasons for delay uncompelling but noted there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The court granted the motion and set aside the Registrar's order on strict terms, requiring the appeal to be perfected within 21 days.