For the Record: Joseph Groia Hearing - August 30, 2013

The following is a summary of key dates, decisions and Orders from the Joseph Groia disciplinary proceeding.

September 9 and 10, 2013 – Appeal hearing. More information on current hearings is available here.

July 26, 2013 - Motion for removal of Appeal Panel member Peter C. Wardle dismissed. Written reasons are available here.

May 7, 2013 – Hearing Panel Order from April 18, 2013 stayed, pending appeal. Order is available here.

April 25, 2013 – Notice of Appeal and Supplementary Notice of Appeal are filed, relating to finding and penalty. Notices are available here.

April 18, 2013 – The Hearing Panel’s decision in relation to penalty released, together with the Decision and Order. The reasons for the decision on penalty are publicly available on (2013 ONLSHP 59 (CanLII)), or by clicking on this link:

The reasons for the decision set out and consider the factors for determining the appropriate penalty, including discipline history (none in the case of Mr. Groia), extenuating circumstances, likelihood of recurrence, and the extent and duration of the misconduct. In its decision, the Hearing Panel confirms the importance of its penalty having a generally deterring effect on the profession to ensure similar conduct does not occur, as well as having the effect of specifically deterring Mr. Groia who was found to lack insight into his conduct. The decision also addresses the misconduct’s negative impact on both the administration of justice and the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. The Hearing Panel imposed a two-month suspension and ordered Mr. Groia to pay $246,960.53 on account of costs and disbursements by April 1, 2018.

Order is available here.

June 28, 2012 - The Hearing Panel's decision in relation to Joseph Groia released. The decision is publicly available on (2012 ONLSHP94 (CanLII), or by clicking on this link:

The decision deals with issues such as showing courtesy and respect toward the Court and to other counsel, communicating in a proper and professional tone with counsel, acting in good faith such as avoiding uninformed criticism and showing civility. In its decision, the Hearing Panel confirms for the profession that zealous advocacy and civility are compatible. The decision adds to the Law Society's jurisprudence about what constitutes incivility, and provides insight into the expectations of licensees in relation to the administration of justice and their behavior in the Court.

The Hearing Panel addresses several major issues in its decision. Some of those issues are highlighted in this discussion paper