The Law Society of Upper Canada
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West,
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N6
Tel: 416-947-3300
Toll Free: 1-800-668-7380
Fax: 416-947-5263
Web: http://www.lsuc.on.ca
Lawyers: Orders and Dispositions - D
 

Search last name alphabetically:
A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

Constantino Giovanni D'Agostino (1992), of the City of North Bay, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and was suspended for one month, by Decision and Order dated March 11, 2008.

By Order dated April 15, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the suspension shall commence on July 1, 2008.
    (Counsel for the Society, Tanus Rutherford / Counsel for the Licensee, Charles M. Loopstra)

Constantino Giovanni D'Agostino (1992), of the City of North Bay, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: failing to be on guard against being duped when advising his clients in connection with certain purchase and mortgage transactions, involving seven identified properties (the "Transactions"); failing to be honest and candid when advising his lender clients in connection with the Transactions, in particular, failing to disclose material facts to his lender clients; and failing to serve his lender clients in a conscientious and diligent manner, or to the standard of a competent lawyer in connection with all of the Transactions.

By Decision and Order dated March 11, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Licensee is suspended for one month.
  • counsel will make written submissions about the commencement date of the suspension, including any agreement at which counsel may arrive.
  • counsel will make their written submissions within 30 days of the date of this Order.
  • the Licensee shall pay costs of $15,000 to the Law Society. The Licensee shall have 6 months from the date of this Order to pay those costs.
    (Counsel for the Society, Tanus Rutherford / Counsel for the Licensee, Charles M. Loopstra)

John Leigh Daboll (1995), of the Town of Pelham, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: acting in a conflict of interest by representing a client in matrimonial/family law matters while having a personal relationship with the client's estranged wife and by assisting the estranged wife in the same matters.

By Decision and Order dated October 27, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member shall be suspended for a period of 2 months. This suspension is to be served within the next 12 months and the commencement date will be worked out between the Member and the Secretary of the Law Society.
  • there is no order as to costs.
    (Counsel for the Society, Naomi Overend / Counsel for the Member, Michael J. Shea)

* Member's suspension will run from February 16, 2007 to April 15, 2007.

John Leigh Daboll (1995) of the Town of Pelham, was found guilty of conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor for:

  • on February 19, 2003, before the Honourable Mr. Justice P.R. Mitchell of the St. Catharines Ontario Court of Justice, pleading guilty to and being convicted of:
    • between the 1 st day of April, 2000, and the 18 th day of July 2002, at the City of Thorold, in the said region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, knowing that L.L. is harassed, without lawful authority repeatedly communicating directly or indirectly with L.L., thereby causing her to fear for her safety, contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada

The Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member will be suspended for thirty (30) days commencing December 11, 2004;
  • the Member will continue counseling with Dr. M. or his successor(s), on a bi-monthly basis or at such increased frequency that may be required by Dr. M., or his successor(s), until the Secretary of the Law Society receives a report confirming that such counseling is no longer required;
  • the Member is ordered to authorize Dr. M., or his successor(s), to provide reports to the Law Society on a semi-annual basis; and
  • the Member shall pay costs to the Law Society of $1,000.00, forthwith.

(Counsel for the Society, Naomi Overend/ Counsel for the Member, Michael J. Shea)

Robert James Dack, (1987) of the Town of Strathroy, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • the member made inappropriate sexual and non-sexual comments to Mary Doe between September 1998 and June 1999, inclusive, which Mary Doe found inappropriate and degrading.

Hearing panel ordered that:

  • the member is reprimanded; and
  • the member is to continue gender sensitivity training and is to produce to the Law Society a letter confirming the member's attendance at, participation in, progress in and completion of the training.

(Counsel for Society, Jennifer Scott /Counsel for member, unrepresented)

Mercy Dadepo (2003), of the City of Toronto, was alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to maintain books and records for a specified period (Particular 1).

By Decision and Order dated June 30, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The proceeding respecting Particular 1 is converted to an invitation to attend.
  2. The invitation to attend having taken place, Particular 1 is dismissed.

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Mercy Dadepo (2003), of the City of Toronto, was found not to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to fully cooperate in an investigation by failing to produce specific books and records despite many requests from the Law Society to do so (Particular 2) and was alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to maintain books and records for a specified period (Particular 1).

By Decision and Order dated May, 11 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Particular two is dismissed.
  2. The parties shall arrange a date for reattendance before the Hearing Panel for disposition in accordance with the Hearing Panel's reasons.
  3. If the Lawyer is prepared to sign an undertaking (as referred to in the Hearing Panel's reasons), the conduct proceedings in relation to Particular 1 will be converted to an invitation to attend.
  4. Once the invitation to attend has taken place, Particular 1 will be dismissed in accordance with subsection 36(2) of the Law Society Act .

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Mary Brenda Anne Dagenais (1986) of the City of Nepean, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • improperly handling trust funds of her client, D.L.J., with the result that $3,000.00 of such trust funds was seized by Revenue Canada to satisfy a debt owing by her to Revenue Canada

    Hearing Panel ordered that:
  • the Member is disbarred as a barrister, her name is struck off the roll of solicitors, her membership in the Law Society is revoked and she is prohibited from acting or practising as a barrister or solicitor and from holding herself out as a barrister or solicitor

    (Counsel for the Law Society, Janice Duggan/ Member present, not represented)

Laurie Austin Dakin (1978), of the Town of Deep River, applied to the Hearing Panel under s. 49.42(1) of the Law Society Act for an order varying the order of the Hearing Panel dated March 31, 2008 in Application CN71/07.

By Order dated August 19, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. Time for service and filing of this Application is abridged.
  2. Paragraph 1 of the Order of the Hearing Panel dated March 31, 2008 is varied by deleting "September 1, 2008" and inserting "October 1, 2008."

( Counsel for the Society, Tanus Rutherford / the Lawyer self-represented )

Laurie Austin Dakin (1978), of the Town of Deep River, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: failing to be on guard against being duped when advising his clients in connection with 9 purchase and mortgage transactions ("Transactions"); failing to be honest and candid when advising his lender client in connection with Transaction 9 by failing to disclose specified material facts; acting for multiple parties in Transaction 9 without adequate disclosure to or consent from his lender client; and for failing to service his lender client to the standard of a competent lawyer in connection with Transaction 9.

By Decision and Order dated March 31, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Lawyer is suspended for 2 months, commencing September 1, 2008.
  • the Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $5000, payable within 18 months, commencing November 1, 2008, when the period of suspension has ended.
    (Counsel for the Society, Tanus Rutherford / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Daniel Frank Daly (1987) of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to substantively respond to and co-operate with an investigation of the Law Society into the complaint of SM by failing to produce information and documentation requested in three letters.

By Decision and Order dated July 8, 2011 the hearing panel ordered as follows:

1. The Licensee is suspended for 6 weeks, commencing July 25, 2011, and continuing indefinitely thereafter until the following condition is met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation:
(a) with respect to the complaint of the SM, the Licensee has produced the information and documentation requested in letters specified in Notice of Application LCN54/11;

2. The Licensee shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who are Suspended or Who have Given an Undertaking not to Practise while suspended pursuant to this Order.

3. The Licensee shall pay costs to the Law Society fixed in the amount of $2500 within 3 months of the date of this Order, failing which, interest will accrue at a rate of 3% per annum thereafter.

(Counsel for the Society, Owen Minns / Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes)

Daniel Frank Daly (1987), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to provide a response to communications from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated October 30, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for a period of one month commencing January 1, 2010.
  2. The Lawyer will be required during that period to comply with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers who are Suspended or who have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs of $2400 within 3 months of [October 30, 2009] failing which the costs order will accrue interest at 2% per annum.

( Counsel for the Society, Louise Hurteau / Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes )

Daniel Frank Daly (1987), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to ensure that prompt notice of a potential claim was given to LAWPRO and for failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation.

By Decision and Order dated April 8, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Lawyer shall be reprimanded.
  • the Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2,500, payable within 6 months of the date of this Order. If unpaid within 6 months, interest is to be paid at 6% per annum thereafter.
    (Counsel for the Society, Susan Heakes / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Bryan Thomas Davies (1984) of the Town of Whitby, was found guilty of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor for: on or about February 12, 2004, pleading guilty to and being convicted of 2 counts of fraud over $5,000 and 2 counts of breach of trust by a public official.

By Decision and Order dated April 4, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member be given permission to resign his membership in the Law Society within 7 days of the date of the Order, failing which he is disbarred.
  • the Member pay the Law Society $7,500.00 in costs within 18 months of the date of the Order.
    (Counsel for the Society, Lesley Cameron/ Member present, not represented)
    (The Member's resignation became effective April 4, 2006.)

Paolo De Buono (2001), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to deliver a client file to which his client was entitled, and failing to co-operate with a Law Society investigation by failing to provide copies of accounts and client trust ledgers relating to his client, as requested by the Law Society in letters, telephone calls and emails.

By Decision and Order dated December 7, 2010 the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2000 within six (6) months of the date of this Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / the Lawyer self-represented)

Wayne Valentine Colin De Landro (1992) of the City of Toronto, was found guilty of professional misconduct for: participating in and/or facilitating dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or illegal schemes to obtain mortgage financing on 5 properties located in Toronto and Vaughan; failing to serve his mortgagee clients in respect of 4 of the properties; acting for all parties in 2 real estate transactions where there was a conflicting interest; failing to serve a vendor client; misapplying funds entrusted to him to discharge an existing mortgage; failing to maintain a sufficient balance on deposit in his trust accounts; failing to maintain the books and records of his practice; breaching an undertaking to the Law Society; contravening co-signing controls on his trust account by depositing a trust cheque into his general account and issuing a certified cheque in the same amount immediately thereafter; and failing to promptly give notice of a claim to LPIC and to cooperate with LPIC, thereby defeating a claim made by a client.

By Decision and Order dated March 16, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is disbarred.
  • the Member is to pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $44,470.75.
    (Counsel for the Society, Naomi Overend/ Member not present and not represented)

Irene Masako Desmond (1997), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: failing to respond to communications from another solicitor, on two occasions; failing to release a client's file to him; failing to fulfill a financial obligation relating to her practice; failing to serve five of her clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; failing to account to her client or return any of the retainer provided to her with respect to those five clients; and failing to comply with a Certificate of Judgment obtained against her.

By Amended Decision and Order dated January 23, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is disbarred, her name is struck off the Roll of Solicitors, her membership in the Law Society is revoked and she is prohibited from acting or practising as a barrister or solicitor and from holding herself out as a barrister or solicitor.
  • the Member shall repay the Law Society the following amounts as reimbursement for monies paid out by the Lawyers Fund for Client Compesation:
    • $5,000.00 with respect to the complainant K.C.C.
    • $1,500.00 with respect to the complaint of A.P.
    • $900.00 with respect to the complaint of A.R.
    • $4,750.00 with respect to the complaint of J.G.
  • the Member shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $8,000.00.
    (Counsel for the Society, Maureen Helt / Member not present and not represented)

John Lawrence Deziel (1973), of the Town of Belle River, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of 2 clients, to the standard of a competent lawyer, in that he failed to apprise the clients of the status of their matter, failed to seek their instructions, and acted without their instructions; and for withdrawing approximately $12,606.47 from trust on behalf of the 2 clients, to finance the purchase of their real property, when he did not hold this money in trust on their behalf.

By Decision and Order dated April 9, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Lawyer is suspended for 1 month, commencing on June 15, 2008.
  • the Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers who are Suspended or who have given an Undertaking Not To Practice .
  • the Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $5,000, payable within 6 months of the date of this Order. If unpaid within 6 months, interest is to be paid at 6% per annum thereafter.
    (Counsel for the Society, Susan Heakes / Counsel for the Lawyer, Lily Harmer)

John Lawrence Deziel (1973), of the Town of Belle River, applied to the Law Society for an order discharging or varying the Order dated September 14, 1993.

By Decision and Order dated February 5, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Hearing Panel has jurisdiction to make a determination on the Licensee's Application.
  • the Licensee's Application to vary an order is granted in that the prior Order, dated September 14, 1993, is varied and the Undertaking given at that time is rescinded.
    (Counsel for the Law Society, Susan Heakes / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Marcello Di Francesco (1989) of the City of Vaughan, was found guilty of professional misconduct for: failing to cooperate in an investigation by the Law Society; and attempting to mislead the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated December 19, 2005 the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is disbarred.
  • the Member shall pay the costs of the Law Society in the amount of $5,000.00.
    (Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman/Member present, assisted, in part, by duty counsel)

Marcello Di Francesco (1989) of the City of Vaughan, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • allowing himself to become the tool or dupe of an unscrupulous client, namely, S.C., by allowing money obtained through a fraudulent scheme to flow through his trust bank account and the bank account of his company, thereby breaching Rule 3, Commentary 6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  • failing to maintain books and records for his trust account in contravention of Regulation 708 and By-Law 18 made pursuant to the Law Society Act, as amended.

    Hearing Panel ordered that:
  • with respect to particular 1 of the Notice of Application, the Member's rights and privileges are suspended for a period of one (1) month, commencing May 16, 2003;
  • with respect to particular 2 of the Notice of Application, the Member's rights and privileges are suspended, commencing May 16, 2003,
    • for a definite period of one (1) month, to run concurrently with the suspension mentioned in paragraph 1 of this order; and
    • thereafter indefinitely until the Member's financial records are produced completed and up to date to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Law Society;
  • the Member shall pay to the Law Society costs in the amount of $3,000.00 within twelve (12) months of the date of this order (March 12, 2003).

    (Counsel for the Law Society, Johanna Braden/ Member present, not represented)

Paul Vincent Di Paolo (1979), of the City of Niagara Falls, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to serve his client, the Public Guardian and Trustee for Ontario ("PGT") who was the sole legal guardian of property for an individual, by failing to ensure that funds owing to that individual be provided directly to the PGT and instead, improperly arranging for those funds to be deposited into the individual's bank account; and
  • failing to respond to eight letters from his client, the PGT.
  • while acting in connection with the sale of one property and the purchase of another, he failed to serve his clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by failing to clarify the retainer and explain the involvement of another lawyer in these transactions and failing to deal appropriately with an easement issue that arose in one of the transactions; and
  • failing to respond to telephone calls from one of these clients.
  • failing to respond to a letter from a fellow lawyer.
  • breaching two Orders of the Hearing Panel and two Summary Orders, each of which suspended his right to practise law, by representing himself to be and/or holding himself out as a person entitled to practise law in Ontario and/or practising law in Ontario, by acting: in connection with the sale of one property and the purchase of another; on criminal charges including impaired driving, refusing a breath sample and fail to comply, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada ; in connection with a mortgage refinancing; in connection with another real estate transaction; in connection with the purchase of a sandwich shop franchise; and in connection with the execution of a cohabitation agreement.
  • failing to maintain the books and records of his practice.

By Decision and Order dated November 17, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be subject to a period of three months definite suspension to run concurrently with any existing period of definite suspension and to be followed by indefinite suspension until his books and records are brought up to date.
  2. On return to practice, the Lawyer shall be subject to a period of supervision for two years on the following terms:
    1. Immediately upon his resumption of practice, the Lawyer shall only practise law pursuant to a plan of supervision, employed by and under the supervision of another lawyer licensed to practise law in Ontario, both the supervisor and the plan of supervision having been approved by the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society prior to his return to practice.
    2. The employment and plan of supervision are to continue for a period of 24 months.

( Counsel for the Society, Suzanne Jarvie / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel )

Paul Vincent Di Paolo (1979), of the City of Niagara Falls, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond to numerous Law Society communications regarding complaints.

By Decision and Order dated March 7, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Lawyer is suspended for 2 months, commencing at the conclusion of his current administrative suspension and continuing indefinitely until the Lawyer has provided a complete response to the complaints herein including a response to the following letters:
    • the letters referred to in particular 1 of the Notice of Application CN03/08;
    • the letters referred to in particular 2 of the Notice of Application CN03/08;
    • the letters referred to in particular 3 of the Notice of Application CN03/08.
  • the Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's most current Guidelines for Suspended Lawyers, while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  • the Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2000 within 6 months of the date of this Order.
    (Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Paul Vincent Di Paolo (1979) of the City of Niagara Falls, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: breaching Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to respond to communications from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated January 12, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is suspended for 1 month, to commence immediately, and continuing indefinitely until the Member has provided a response to the 3 complaints, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Law Society.
  • the Member shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Suspended, Resigned or Disbarred Members and Members Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  • the Member shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $4,000.00 within 30 days of this Order, and as a precondition to his return to practice.
    (Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / Member not present and not represented)

Paul Vincent Di Paolo (1979), of the City of Niagara Falls, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • improperly disbursing $60,425.00, more or less, of the funds which he held in trust on behalf of his client, A.B., throughout the period August 30, 1999 to March 30, 2000;
  • in the period August 30, 1999 to March 30, 2000, preferring the interests of one client, E.G., over another by acting in a conflict of interest and failing to take steps to ascertain relevant information and advise his client, A.B., concerning matters related to disbursements of her trust funds.
  • in or about the period August 30, 1999 to March 30, 2000, failing to serve his client, A.B., by:
    • failing to account in a timely manner for his client A.B.'s monies received in trust; and
    • failing to report to his client, A.B. in a timely manner
    Hearing Panel ordered that:
  • the Member's rights and privileges are suspended for a period of one (1) month, commencing August 1, 2003.
  • the Member shall cooperate in a review of his practice under section 42 of the Law Society Act within thirty (30) days of May 6, 2003 and implement the recommendations made by the Secretary of the Law Society.
  • the Member shall pay to the Law Society costs in the amount of $1000.00 no later than July 31, 2004.

    (Counsel for the Law Society, Jane Anweiler and Maureen Helt/ Counsel for the Member, Joseph Loconte)

John Denis Dickson (1991), of the Town of Schomberg, was found guilty of professional misconduct for: failing to serve 3 clients in a conscientious, diligent and timely manner in relation to 2 family law matters; failing to account for clients' funds or to return retainer monies; misleading 2 clients; failing to honor a Small Claims Court judgment in the amount of $1,469.96 which was obtained by 2 clients against him; and failing to respond to the Law Society's communications in relation to 2 complaints.

By Amended Decision and Order dated January 10, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member's rights and privileges are suspended for a definite period of 9 months, commencing immediately following the termination of the administrative suspension.
  • the suspension referred to above shall continue indefinitely until the Member returns retainer monies in the amount of $2,000.00 provided by a client.
  • the suspension referred to above shall continue until the Member honours the judgment in the amount of $1,469.96 plus post-judgment interest to the date of the satisfaction of the judgment at 4% rendered by the Small Claims Court.
  • at the conclusion of the definite and indefinite suspension and within 6 months of the Member's return to the practice of law, the Member must enroll in and complete the Law Society's Practice Review Program under s.42 of the Law Society Act and complete any recommendations made by the program to the satisfaction of the Secretary.
  • the Member shall pay to the Law Society prior to his return to the practice of law, costs in the amount of $5,000.00.

(Counsel for the Society, Louise Hurteau/ Member not present and not represented)

Roy Francis DMello (1998), of the Town of Oakville, appealed from the Order of the hearing panel dated July 26, 2011, seeking to dismiss and strike out paragraph 3(a) from the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Notice of Application.

By Order dated August 30, 2011, the appeals management tribunal ordered as follows:

  1. The motion to strike the notice of appeal is allowed, without prejudice to a new notice of appeal being served and filed after any final decision or order of the hearing panel.
  2. Costs of this motion are reserved to the hearing panel or, if the appellant advises the hearing panel that he intends to appeal its final order, to the appeal panel.

(Counsel for the Society, Susan Bryson and Joshua Elcombe / the Appellant was self-represented)

Roy Francis Dmello (1998) of the Town of Oakville. By Order dated October 18, 2010 the hearing panel dismissed the Society’s motion for an order setting aside the deemed abandonment of the proceeding, deeming disclosure already served as valid, and returning the matter to the proceedings management conference. The hearing continued, by way of written submissions on costs.

By Order dated April 18, 2011 the hearing panel ordered as follows:

1. The Respondent [Lawyer] is awarded the sum of $1,200 as a partial award for the time spent in preparation on the Motion.

(Counsel for the Society, Susan Bryson / the Lawyer was self-represented)

Harold John Doan (1967), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for facilitating the unauthorized practice of law by a paralegal by: processing cheques through his trust account for the benefit of the paralegal in matters in which the member was not retained as the solicitor; providing a letter to a fellow solicitor advising that he was acting as solicitor and providing a Direction of Funds in a matter in which the paralegal was acting alone; paying a transaction levy surcharge on a mortgage transaction in a matter in which the paralegal was acting alone; and adding his signature as someone with signing authority to an account operated by the the paralegal, which the paralegal used as a joint trust account in real estate transactions.

By Decision and Order dated December 19, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member shall pay a fine in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Law Society within 1 year.
  • the Member shall pay costs in the amount of $2,000.00 to the Law Society within 1 year.
    (Counsel for the Society, Louise Hurteau / Counsel for the Member, William R. Gilmour)

Alec John Dobson (1981), of the Village of Dorchester, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to maintain the proper books and records of his law practice, in relation to three different trust accounts;
  • misleading the Law Society Investigator with respect to three trust accounts;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of six sets of clients from his trust account;
  • misleading those six sets of clients, when he wrote them each reporting letters that the money he withdrew from trust had been applied to pay out mortgages in accordance with instructions, when he knew this to be false;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his client, SD, from his trust account;
  • misleading his client, SD, when the client asked why he was continuing to pay interest on a line of credit and he failed to inform his client that he had not paid off the line of credit, and had instead utilized the money for another purpose, contrary to SD's instructions;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his client, AK, from his trust account;
  • misleading his client, AK, when he wrote his client a reporting letter that the money had been utilized to pay out a mortgage in accordance with his client's instructions when he knew this to be false and that part of the sale proceeds had been utilized to pay real estate commission when he knew this to be false;
  • misleading his client, AK, when he wrote a fax to a fellow solicitor, falsely representing that a mortgage had been paid out on behalf of AK;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his clients, JP and MP, from his trust account;
  • misleading his clients, JP and MP, when he wrote them a reporting letter that part of the proceeds of the sale had been utilized to pay out a mortgage in accordance with his clients' instructions, that part of the proceeds of the sale had been utilized to pay out a bridge loan in accordance with his clients' instructions, and that part of the proceeds of the sale had been utilized to pay the real estate commission when he knew these representations to be false;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his clients, ML and LL, from his trust account;
  • misleading his clients, ML and LL, when he wrote them a reporting letter that part of the sale proceeds had been utilized to pay out an existing mortgage in accordance with his clients' instructions and that part had been utilized to pay the real estate commission when he knew these representations to be false;
  • misleading his clients, when he told his client ML that he had paid out the existing GMAC mortgage, and he left his client a document purporting to be a copy of a cancelled cheque made out to GMAC, but which in fact was not;
  • misleading his clients ML and LL when he told them that the GMAC mortgage had never been paid out, but that he had issued a new bank draft payable to GMAC when in fact he had not;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his client, JDK, from his trust account;
  • misleading his client when he wrote to JDK's listing agent indicating his belief that the proceeds from the sale had been wired to JDK's bank account when he knew this to be false.
  • f ailing to maintain the proper books and records of his law practice, in relation to three different trust accounts;
  • misleading the Law Society Investigator with respect to three trust accounts;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of six sets of clients from his trust account;
  • misleading those six sets of clients, when he wrote them each reporting letters that the money he withdrew from trust had been applied to pay out mortgages in accordance with instructions, when he knew this to be false;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his client, SD, from his trust account;
  • misleading his client, SD, when the client asked why he was continuing to pay interest on a line of credit and he failed to inform his client that he had not paid off the line of credit, and had instead utilized the money for another purpose, contrary to SD's instructions;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his client, AK, from his trust account;
  • misleading his client, AK, when he wrote his client a reporting letter that the money had been utilized to pay out a mortgage in accordance with his client's instructions when he knew this to be false and that part of the sale proceeds had been utilized to pay real estate commission when he knew this to be false;
  • misleading his client, AK, when he wrote a fax to a fellow solicitor, falsely representing that a mortgage had been paid out on behalf of AK;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his clients, JP and MP, from his trust account;
  • misleading his clients, JP and MP, when he wrote them a reporting letter that part of the proceeds of the sale had been utilized to pay out a mortgage in accordance with his clients' instructions, that part of the proceeds of the sale had been utilized to pay out a bridge loan in accordance with his clients' instructions, and that part of the proceeds of the sale had been utilized to pay the real estate commission when he knew these representations to be false;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his clients, ML and LL, from his trust account;
  • misleading his clients, ML and LL, when he wrote them a reporting letter that part of the sale proceeds had been utilized to pay out an existing mortgage in accordance with his clients' instructions and that part had been utilized to pay the real estate commission when he knew these representations to be false;
  • misleading his clients, when he told his client ML that he had paid out the existing GMAC mortgage, and he left his client a document purporting to be a copy of a cancelled cheque made out to GMAC, but which in fact was not;
  • misleading his clients ML and LL when he told them that the GMAC mortgage had never been paid out, but that he had issued a new bank draft payable to GMAC when in fact he had not;
  • improperly withdrawing money held on behalf of his client, JDK, from his trust account;
  • misleading his client when he wrote to JDK's listing agent indicating his belief that the proceeds from the sale had been wired to JDK's bank account when he knew this to be false.

By Decision and Order dated November 24, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. Effective immediately, the Lawyer's licence to practise law in Ontario and membership in the Law Society are revoked, he is disbarred as a barrister, and his name is struck off the Roll of solicitors.
  2. The Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Former Lawyers Whose Licences Have Been Revoked or Who Have Been Permitted to Surrender Their Licences .
  3. The Lawyer shall pay to the Law Society, for the Compensation Fund, ("the Fund") $158,472.08 representing grants made from the Fund to the complainants in this matter .
  4. the Lawyer pay the Law Society's costs fixed in the amount of $5,000 within 12 (twelve) months of the date of this order .

( Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / the Lawyer was self-represented )

Alec John Dobson (1981), of the Village of Dorchester.

By Decision and Order dated July 14, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. Commencing on the date of this Order, and continuing until August 14, 2008, the Lawyer is suspended on an interim interlocutory basis.
  2. If either party files with the Tribunal's Office a motion with respect to fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances by August 14, 2008, then the interim interlocutory suspension of the Lawyer shall continue until the determination of the motion by this Hearing Panel.
  3. If a motion pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Order is not filed by August 14, 2008, then commencing on August 15, 2008 the Lawyer is suspended on an interlocutory basis pending a final order by a Hearing Panel after the hearing of an application on its merits pertaining to cases 2008-66517 and 2008-66583, which are currently being investigated by the Law Society.
  4. The Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers who are Suspended or who have given an Undertaking not to Practise while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  5. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society, in the amount of $5,000 within six months of the date of this Order.

( Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / the Lawyer participated via teleconference and was self-represented )

Mohamed Abdi Doli (2002), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of an unscrupulous client in connection with a dishonest or fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the client, in that he failed to make reasonable inquiries regarding the irregular features of the scheme in which a third party lost $50,000.

By Decision and Order dated January 13, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The licence of the Lawyer is suspended for one month, commencing on May 7, 2009.
  2. The Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers who are Suspended or who have given an Undertaking not to Practise while his licence is suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall participate in a practice review pursuant to s. 42 of the Law Society Act in accordance with the following terms:
    1. The Lawyer shall schedule a first practice review and ensure that the review takes place within two months of the termination of his suspension pursuant to paragraph 1 above;
    2. The Lawyer shall cooperate with the first practice review and implement forthwith recommendations made as a result of the review;
    3. The Lawyer shall participate cooperatively in a second practice review, the purpose of which will be to assess the degree to which the Lawyer implemented recommendations of the first practice review; and
    4. The Lawyer shall schedule and ensure that the second practice review takes place within six months of the first practice review.
  4. The Lawyer shall, within 12 months of the termination of his suspension pursuant to paragraph 1 above, register at his own expense and attend a Continuing Legal Education program pertaining to substantive commercial law.
  5. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $3,000 within 12 months of the termination of his suspension pursuant to paragraph 1 above, failing which interest will accrue at the rate of 4% per annum .

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / Counsel for the Lawyer, Gordon Bobesich)

Brian Joseph Doucette (2004), of the City of St. Catharines, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to serve his clients by:
    • failing to attend on motion hearings without prior notice or explanation in two matters.
    • failing to attend two settlement conferences without prior notice or explanation.
  • failing to respond in a timely or substantive manner to correspondence from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated August 12, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The license of the Lawyer shall be hereby revoked.
  2. The Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Former Lawyers Whose Licenses Have Been Revoked or Who Have Been Permitted to Surrender Their Licenses .
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $6,000.

( Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / the Lawyer was not present or represented )

Brian Joseph Doucette (2004), of the City of St. Catharines, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond to communications from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated March 28, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Lawyer is suspended for 1 month, commencing at the conclusion of his current administrative suspension and continuing indefinitely until the Lawyer has provided a complete response to the letters dated September 17, 2007, October 26, 2007, and November 16, 2007 as set out in particular 1 of the Amended Notice of Application, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation.
  • the Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers who are Suspended or who have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise , while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  • the Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2700 within 3 months of the date of this Order, and as a precondition to his resumption of practice. If the costs are unpaid within 3 months, interest is to be paid at 6% per annum thereafter.
  • the Lawyer shall provide and maintain current contact information with the Law Society and will notify the Law Society of any change in contact information within 10 days of such change.
    (Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / the Lawyer was not present and not represented)

Michael Joseph Doupe (1992), of the Town of New Liskeard, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to treat the court and those with whom he had dealings, with courtesy and respect, and making remarks that were discriminatory and that were offensive or otherwise inconsistent with the tone of professional communications from a lawyer.

By Decision and Order dated August 16, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is reprimanded.
  • the Member shall pay $1,500.00 in costs to the Law Society.
    (Counsel for the Society, Amanda Worley / Member present but not represented)

Ian Henry-Reid Ducharme (1995) of the City of Toronto was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • failing to serve his clients, I&GM, by:
  • failing to attend a trial date on their behalf, which date he had scheduled on consent with counsel for the defendants, which led to the Ms' action being dismissed and costs, if so demanded, awarded against his clients; and
  • failing to communicate with his clients, I&GM, despite numerous attempts made by the Ms' to contact him by telephone and through written communications;
  • failing to honour a financial obligation in the amount of $495.56, more or less, owing to RG, Graham Verbatim Reporting Limited, for services rendered to him by RG's office;
  • failing to release the client file of NP despite numerous attempts by NP through telephone calls and/or written communications requesting that he release the file to her;
  • failing to honour a financial obligation, in the amount of $3,700, more or less, owing to lawyers, TW, NC & DS, with whom he had an office rent and office expenses sharing arrangement;
  • failing to take the proper steps to ensure the secure and orderly safe-keeping and transfer of client files and/or other client property after leaving his former law office;
  • failing to serve his client, IP, by failing to complete her divorce proceeding and by failing to respond to her despite numerous telephone communications from IP; and
  • failing to respond in a timely and responsive fashion to the Law Society regarding the complaints of I&GM, NP, IP, Walman, Catre & Stone, the International Institute of Travel, LL and EB and EW despite communications from Law Society investigators and/or a complaints resolution officer.

    Hearing panel ordered that:
  • the member be definitely suspended for a period of six months, effective October 24, 2002, such suspension to run concurrently with his administrative suspensions;
  • the member be indefinitely suspended until he pays Graham Reporting Limited $495.56 and provides proof to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Law Society that he has done so; and
  • prior to his return to the private practise of law the member submit for approval to the Secretary of the Law Society a plan of supervision to be administered by a member of the Law Society, who is approved by the Secretary of the Law Society, for a period of two years. Should the member approved as supervisor be unable to complete the plan of supervision, the member shall cease to practise until a replacement member is approved by the Secretary of the Law Society.
    (Counsel for Society, Janice Duggan /Duty counsel, Ricardo Federico)

Ian Henry-Reid Ducharme (1995) of the City of Toronto, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • engaging in the practice of law during the period from Sept. 7, 1999 to May 15, 2000 while he was suspended by summary order dated Aug. 27, 1999.

Hearing panel ordered that:

  • the member's rights and privileges be suspended for a period of 30 days commencing July 1, 2001; and
  • the member shall co-operate immediately upon resumption of practice in a review of his practice under section 42 of the Law Society Act and implement the recommendations made by the Secretary of the Law Society.

Roy Anthony Dullege (1994), of the City of Newmarket, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: failing to serve 2 clients; withdrawing money from trust without first delivering a billing in relation to 2 clients; charging a client's credit card without authorization from the client and depositing that money directly into his general bank account; failing to account to a client for monies charged for his services to a client's credit card, despite a request for an account; failing to respond to communications from the Law Society and otherwise to cooperate with a Law Society investigation; depositing a retainer from a client directly into his general bank account; failing to account to a client for monies paid for services; and failing to respond with reasonable promptness to another lawyer.

By Decision and Order dated October 25, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is granted Permission to Resign his membership in the Law Society, thereby prohibiting the Member from practising or holding himself out as a barrister or a solicitor, such resignation to be tendered within 30 days of the date of the Order, failing which the Member shall be disbarred as a barrister, his name struck from the roll of solicitors, and his membership with the Law Society revoked.
  • the Member shall refund to a client $6,420 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
  • the Member shall refund to another client $5,350 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
    (Counsel for the Society, William Holder / Counsel for the Member, Dennis J. Reeve)

* Pursuant to the Hearing Panel's Order dated October 25, 2006, Roy Anthony Dullege's request for permission to resign was received and became effective November 23, 2006.

Roy Anthony Dullege (1994), of the City of Newmarket, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond to and cooperate with a Law Society investigation and failing to maintain the books and records of his practice.

By Decision and Order dated August 8, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is suspended for 3 months, commencing on August 8, 2006 and continuing indefinitely until the following conditions have been met, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Law Society: (a) the Member has brought all of his books and records for the period between January 1, 2003 to August 8, 2006, into full compliance with By-Laws 18 and 19 made under s. 62 of the Law Society Act; (b) the Member has demonstrated through medical evidence that he is capable of practicing law and meeting his obligations as a member of the Law Society; and (c) the Member has paid costs to the Law Society as set out below.
  • the Member shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Suspended, Resigned or Disbarred Members and Members who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practice while suspended pursuant to the Order.
  • the Member shall not open or operate a trust bank account without a co-signer who has been pre-approved by the Secretary of the Law Society, until relieved of this obligation by the Secretary.
  • the Member shall pay $10,000 in costs to the Law Society within 30 days of the date of the Order.
    (Counsel for the Society, William Holder/ Member not present and not represented)

Roy Anthony Dullege (1994) of the City of Newmarket, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • failing to cooperate with the Law Society's Spot Audit Program by failing to produce his books and records to the Spot Auditor between November of 2003 and January of 2004.
  • failing to cooperate with the Law Society's investigation by failing to produce his books and records between September of 2004 and January of 2005.
  • failing to reply promptly to Law Society communications between October of 2003 and January of 2005.
  • failing to maintain sufficient balances on deposit in his trust account to meet his obligations with respect to funds held in trust for clients, leading to an overdrawn account in December of 2002, January of 2003, and July of 2003.
  • making false or misleading representations to the Law Society in his Member's Annual Report filed for 2002.

    The Hearing Panel ordered that:
  • the Member is suspended for a definite period of one (1) month commencing October 1, 2005 and thereafter until he has produced, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, all of his books and records.
  • the Member shall participate in a practice review in accordance with s. 42 of the Law Society Act , at his own expense. The Member shall obtain a date for a practice reviewer to attend at his office and ensure that the attendance takes place within two (2) months of the final termination of the Member's suspension pursuant to paragraph one (1) of this Order (set out directly above). The Member shall cooperate with the practice reviewer and implement forthwith any recommendations made as a result of the practice review. The Member shall also participate in a second practice review six (6) months after the date of the first practice review, the purpose of which will be to assess the degree to which the Member implemented the recommendations of the first practice review.
  • the Member shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $4000 within six (6) months of the final termination of his suspension pursuant to paragraph one (1) of this Order (the first bullet point above).
    (Counsel for the Society, William Holder/ Member present and assisted by Duty Counsel)

Michael Patrick Fitzgerald Dunn (1992), of the City of Toronto, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • in or about September, 1999, misappropriating $2,500 U.S. in total, more or less, from the funds he received in trust from his client, G.B.
  • on or about March 30, 2000, misappropriating $750 in total, more or less, from the funds he received in trust from his client, S.R.
  • during the period January 2, 2001 to October 1, 2001 inclusive, breaching the following four Summary Orders, which suspended his rights and privileges as a member of the Law Society, including his right to practise law, by acting and/or practising and/or holding himself out as a barrister and solicitor:
    • breaching a Summary Order dated February 10, 2000, which suspended his rights and privileges as a Member of the Law Society including his right to practise law, for failure to pay to the Law Society of Upper Canada the 1999 base levy and/or the innocent party surcharge levy and/or the claims history levy of the premium insurance levy and any taxes which the Society is required to collect within 120 days after it was due in accordance with By-law 16 made under the Law Society Act;
    • breaching a Summary Order dated June 8, 2000, which suspended his rights and privileges as a Member of the Law Society including his right to practise law, for failure to pay, in whole or part, the annual fee and any taxes which the Law Society of Upper Canada is required to collect in respect of the annual fee within 120 days of January 1, 2000 as required by By-law 15 made under the Law Society Act;
    • breaching a Summary Order dated August 28, 2000, which suspended his rights and privileges as a Member of the Law Society including his right to practise law, for failure to complete or file a report with the Law Society of Upper Canada in respect of the member's practice of law and other related activities, namely, the Member's Annual Report, within 120 days of March 31, 2000 as required by By-law 17 made under the Law Society Act; and
    • breaching a Summary Order dated September 14, 2001, which suspended his rights and privileges as a Member of the Law Society including his right to practise law, for failure to complete or file a report with the Law Society of Upper Canada in respect of the member's practice of law and other related activities, namely, the 2000 Member's Annual Report, within 120 days of March 31, 2001 as required by By-law 17 made under the Law Society Act.
  • during the period October 1, 2001 to August 7, 2002, engaging in the practise of law despite the fact that his status remained as "Retired/Not Working" and despite the fact he had not paid the appropriate annual fee to the Law Society.
  • during the period October 26, 1998 to June 8, 1999 inclusive, breaching an Order of Convocation dated October 23, 1998, which suspended his rights and privileges as a Member of the Law Society, including his right to practise law, by acting as, holding himself out as and/or practising as a barrister and solicitor.
  • on or about July 6, 1999, misappropriating the sum of $600.00, more or less, from the funds he received in trust on behalf of his client, L.L., in settlement of the civil court action of Lazaris v. 1217891 Ontario Inc., et al.
  • misleading his client, L.L., by advising her in a letter dated July 27, 1999 respecting the matter of Lazaris v. 1217891 Ontario Inc., et al., that he was still awaiting receipt of further settlement funds in the action in circumstances where he was already in receipt of the said settlement funds, a portion of which he had disbursed to himself without the knowledge or consent of his client.
  • between April 1999 and August 1999 inclusive, failing to properly handle funds received from S.S., M.J. and R.P. in accordance with the requirements of By-Law 19, made under the Law Society Act.
  • breaching the terms of the compensation agreement between himself and Tsapralis, Stanoulis, Laks, entitling him to 40% and Tsapralis, Stanoulis, Laks to 60% of his annual billings between 0-$50,000.00, by taking 100% of the retainer funds provided to him by numerous clients, and in addition he took those monies without disclosing to Tsapralis, Stanoulis, Laks that he had done so.

    Hearing Panel ordered that:
  • the Member receive a 12 month suspension, commencing as of the date of the Order (January 21, 2003).
  • the Member shall repay the Lawyers Fund for Client Compensation (the "Fund") for any amounts the Fund pays out on behalf of the complaint made by G.B.. In addition, the Member shall repay G.B. any amount which remains owing in excess of the amount paid out by the Fund. If this amount is not paid in full by the end of the 12 month suspension, the Member shall remain suspended indefinitely until this amount is paid.
  • if the Member chooses to resume the practice of law at the end of his suspension, he shall be restricted for the first two years of practice, to practicing as either an employee or, alternatively, if he wishes to practice as a sole practitioner, it will be pursuant to a plan of supervision and under the supervision of another member of the Law Society, both the supervisor and plan of supervision having been approved by the Director of Professional Regulation prior to his return to practice.
  • if the Member chooses the employment option, prior to commencing his employment the Member must confirm his employment plans to the Law Society and arrange for his employer to confirm to the Law Society that the employer has reviewed the two Notices of Application and the Order in this matter. The Member shall also arrange for the employer to provide quarterly reports to the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society confirming that he remains in this employment arrangement.
  • if the Member chooses the sole practitioner option, he must either arrange for his supervisor to act as co-signor on his trust account, or, provide monthly trust comparisons to the Law Society for the two year period following his resumption of private practice, all trust comparisons having been approved by a certified general accountant.
  • prior to the end of the 12 month suspension, the Member shall engage in a relapse prevention program approved by Dr. L. or his designate, continue in further therapy as directed by Dr. L. or his designate and provide a medical report from Dr. L. or his designate, satisfactory to the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society confirming this, failing which the Member shall remain suspended indefinitely until he produces such a medical report. If at the end of the 12 month suspension, Dr. L. or his designate determines that further therapy or treatment is required to enable the Member to meet his obligations as a Member, the Member shall continue in such therapy or treatment and provide quarterly reports to the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society confirming his cooperation in this regard, and the Member shall not be entitled to resume the practice of law until he is able to provide a medical report to the Law Society confirming that he no longer requires any therapy or treatment to enable him to meet his obligations as a member.
  • the Member shall pay the Law Society's costs fixed in the amount of $1,500, within 6 months of the end of the 12 month suspension.
    (Counsel for Society, Amanda Worley /Counsel for member, Louis Strezos )

Kevin Scott Dunsmuir (1984), of the Town of Newmarket, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • withdrawing fees from his trust account prior to delivering statements of accounts to three clients;
  • breaching an undertaking to the Law Society in relation to the three clients;
  • failing to serve two clients; and
  • failing to fulfill an undertaking given to the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated June 3, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer shall be reprimanded.
  2. The Lawyer shall enter into a plan of supervision on terms acceptable to the Society's Monitoring and Enforcement Department within one month of this Order becoming final, failing which he shall be suspended for one month.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Society in the amount of $2,500, payable within 60 days.

( Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / Counsel for the Lawyer, Mark A. Lapowich and William M. Trudell )

William Thomas Dyer (1973) of the City of Cambridge, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • between 1995 and 2003, misappropriating from his trust account monies totaling $6,300, more or less

The Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is disbarred as a barrister and solicitor, his name is struck off the roll of solicitors, his membership in the Law Society is revoked, and he is prohibited from acting or practicing as a barrister or solicitor and from holding himself out as a barrister or solicitor; and
  • the Member to pay costs fixed at $2500.00 payable forthwith.

(Counsel for the Society, Suzanne Jarvie/ Member present, assisted by Duty Counsel)

William Thomas Dyer (1973) of the City of Cambridge, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • in or about the period April 1993 to August 1997, acting in a conflict of interest and in violation of Rule 2.04 (formerly Rule 5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in relation to the properties located at: 49 Clemens Ave., Cambridge; 267 Shepherd Ave., Cambridge; 53 Oxford Street, Hamilton; 83 Weaver Street, Cambridge; 641 Cedargrove Place, Waterloo; 48 Dalegrove Dr., Kitchener; 47 Karen Walk, Waterloo; 93 William St., Plattsville; 50 Elmwood Ave., Cambridge; 70 Belmont Ave., Kitchener; 105 Locust St., Kitchener; 133 Huber St., Kitchener; 134 Holborn Dr., Kitchener; 1 Hindquarter Crt., Brampton; 38 Fountain St. W., Guelph; 31 Erlesmere Ave., Brampton; 484B Glen Elm Cres., Waterloo; 291 Wilson Ave., Kitchener; 44 Dianne Ave., Cambridge; 6 Pezzack St., Cambridge; 18 Glenmanor Dr., Brampton; 22 Brant Place, Cambridge; 44 Camberley Cres., Brampton; 38-215 Glamis Rd., Cambridge; 96 Bonham Blvd., Mississauga; 129 Henry St., Cambridge; 40-215 Glamis Rd., Cambridge; 1231 Nigel Rd., Mississauga; 62 Bruder Ave., Kitchener; 3 Broken Oak Cres., Kitchener; 82 Lewis Cres., Kitchener; B-121 Noecker St., Waterloo; 22 Johnston St., Kitchener; 105 Thomas St., Cambridge;
    and in the course of so doing he:
    • failed to protect the interests of clients who purchased the properties by failing to disclose to them that the properties were being flipped at a profit;
    • failed to protect the interest of mortgagee clients who provided first mortgage financing on some of the properties by failing to disclose to them that he was also acting for the vendors and that the properties were being flipped at a profit;
    • failed to disclose to certain of his mortgagee clients who provided first mortgage financing on the properties that their conditions regarding down payment were not being met;
    • in the period of April 1993 to August 1997, misled financial institutions who provided first mortgage financing for properties located at 484B Glen Elm Crescent, 1231 Nigel Road, and 83 Weaver Street by advising them that there was no secondary financing on the properties when such secondary financing was in place; and
    • in the period April 1993 to August 1997, misled clients being financial institutions who provided first mortgage financing on properties at 6 Pezzack Street, 105 Thomas Street by advising that he was not acting for any other party other than the borrower, a financial institution when in fact he was representing another party/parties in the transaction.
  • failing to properly supervise his staff who wrote misleading correspondence to CIBC on November 29, 1995 for the purpose of inducing CIBC to discharge a first mortgage on property known municipally as 6 Pezzack Street, Cambridge, for $4,149.09 less than was required to pay out the mortgage debt;
  • knowing or ought to have known that his office prepared and commissioned false and misleading declarations to lenders with respect to properties known municipally as 484 B Glen Elm Crescent, Waterloo and 291 Wilson Avenue, Kitchener, wherein it was falsely stated that the down payment for the purchase price of the subject property in the minimum amount of 5% of the purchase price came from the purchaser's own resources, and;
  • knowing or ought to have known that his office prepared and commissioned incorrect Land Transfer Tax Affidavits which may have been misleading to a third party reviewing the Affidavits in that the consideration for the property was not accurately stated, for the following properties: 267 Shepherd Avenue, Cambridge, 53 Oxford Street, Hamilton, 83 Weaver St., Cambridge, 642 Cedar Grove Place, Waterloo, 50 Elmwood Avenue, Cambridge, 31 Erlesmere Avenue, Brampton, 484B Glen Elm Crescent, Waterloo, 291 Wilson Avenue, Kitchener, 44 Diane Avenue, Cambridge, 18 Glenmanor Drive, Brampton, 44 Camberley Crescent, Brampton, 38-215 Glamis Road, Cambridge, 96 Bonham Boulevard, Mississauga, 121 Henry Street, Cambridge, 40-215 Glamis Road, Cambridge, 1231 Nigel Road, Mississauga, 62 Bruder Avenue, Kitchener, 3 Broken Oak Crescent, Kitchener, 82 Lewis Crescent, Kitchener, B-121 Noecker Street, Kitchener, 22 Johnston Street, Kitchener, 105 Thomas Street, Cambridge.

    Hearing Panel ordered that:
  • the Member's rights and privileges are suspended for a period of three (3) months, commencing January 1, 2003.
  • the Member shall pay to the Law Society, within one (1) year of the date of this order (October 22, 2002), costs in the amount of $7,500.00. If the Member fails to pay the costs as ordered, the Member's rights and privileges shall be suspended, commencing on the day immediately following the day on which the costs were to be paid and continuing until the day on which the costs are paid. In the event that the Member is unable to pay costs in the time specified, prior to the day on which the costs are to be paid, the Member may apply to the Law Society for an extension of time to pay the costs.
    (Counsel for Society, William Donegan /Counsel for member, William Trudell)