William Holder

The appellant, a lawyer whose licence was revoked for participating in mortgage fraud, appealed the Law Society appeal panel's decision affirming the revocation.

He argued that the hearing panel denied him procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment on medical grounds and later granting an adjournment on the condition that he refrain from practising law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing panel properly exercised its discretion in assessing the contradictory medical evidence and balancing the public interest against the appellant's requests.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel affirming his disbarment for professional misconduct.

The Hearing Panel found he knowingly participated in a dishonest scheme to obtain mortgage funds by being reckless and willfully blind to fraudulent real estate transactions.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found no error in the panels' conclusions regarding misconduct or the penalty of disbarment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, a lawyer appealing a professional discipline decision, requested an adjournment of his appeal hearing one week before the scheduled date in order to retain counsel.

The court noted the request was almost devoid of merit given the appellant's prior delays and failure to perfect the appeal on time.

However, recognizing this was the appellant's last chance to restore his professional life and finding no risk to the public, the court granted a final indulgence.

The appeal was adjourned peremptorily, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs of $1,500 to the respondent.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct for refusing to attend an interview with a Society investigator.

The appellant argued that the Law Society Act only authorized the Society to require the provision of information, not attendance at an oral interview.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Society's broad duty to protect the public interest required effective investigation powers, including the authority to compel oral interviews.