Listed below are hearing and appeal panel orders from 2009.

A lawyer's year of call to the Bar is noted after the lawyer's name.

The notation, "UNDER APPEAL" is included where a party has appealed a final decision or order of the hearing panel to the appeal panel. Appeals to the Divisional Court and any resulting disposition are not cited on this website.

Orders are updated to reflect amendments or corrections ordered by the panel.

Reasons for decision when provided by a panel are available free of charge on the Canadian Legal Information Institute website. Reasons of the panel are also available on the Quicklaw website. Contact us to receive a copy of an order.

Attention news media: The Law Society sends summaries of decisions to media on a weekly basis. If you are a member of the media and would like to be added to this distribution list, please contact vyoung@lsuc.on.ca.  

Colin Cameron Leon Lyle (1998), of the City of Ottawa. The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act suspending the licence of Colin Cameron Leon Lyle (the "Lawyer") until such time as a Conduct Application or Conduct Applications can be heard and a final order on the merits of the proceedings is made by a Hearing Panel of the Law Society.

By Amended Decision and Order dated December 22, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Commencing at the end of the business day on December 23, 2009 and continuing until the final disposition of Conduct Application LCN44/09 and any other conduct proceeding authorized by the Proceedings Authorization Committee arising out of complaints to which this motion relates, the Lawyer is suspended on an interlocutory basis.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. This Order shall be in effect until the earliest of the following:
    1. A panel varies or cancels the order on the consent of the Society and the licensee prior to the hearing on the merits of the proceeding to which the motion relates.
    2. A panel varies or cancels the order on the bases of fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances that is brought by the Society or the licensee to the panel prior to the hearing on the merits of the proceeding to which the motion relates.
    3. The panel presiding at the hearing on the merits of the proceeding(s) to which the motion relates, prior to disposing of the proceeding(s), varies or cancels the order.
    4. The panel presiding at the hearing on the merits of the proceeding(s) to which the motion relates disposes of the proceeding(s).
  4. The Law Society shall continue its investigation of any outstanding complaints with due diligence. If the Lawyer believes that the Applicant is failing to incorporate such complaint(s) into a Conduct Application within a reasonable time, the Respondent may move before a Hearing Panel to dismiss or vary this Order subject to Rule 21.07 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
  5. The costs of this motion shall be reserved to the Hearing Panel presiding at the merits of the proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of this Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan and Naomi Bussin / Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes)

Colin Cameron Leon Lyle (1998), of the City of Ottawa. The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act suspending the licence of the Respondent, Colin Cameron Leon Lyle (the "Respondent"), until such time as a Conduct Application or Conduct Applications can be heard and a final order on the merits of the proceedings is made by a Hearing Panel of the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated December 22, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence to practise law is suspended, effective as of the close of business hours on December 23, 2009, on an interim interlocutory basis under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act.
  2. This interim interlocutory order shall become a final interlocutory order after 30 days upon service of this order, unless fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances is brought by the parties to the attention of the Hearing Panel, and the Hearing Panel varies or cancels the order.
  3. The final interlocutory suspension continues in force until an order of the Appeal Panel sets aside or varies the order, or the Hearing Panel makes a final order after a hearing of any conduct or capacity hearing on the merits.
  4. Should the Society seek a costs order, this may be addressed through written submissions, to be served on the Lawyer and filed with the Tribunals Office within 10 days of service of this order. The Lawyer shall serve and file any responding materials within 10 days of the service of the Society's materials on him.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan and Naomi Bussin / Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes)

Peter Brian Budd (1988), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a licensee for having been convicted of two Criminal Code charges, in that he did, with respect to each of two young persons, being in a position of trust or authority towards the young person, for a sexual purpose, touch directly the body of the young person, with a part of his body contrary to Section 153, Sub-section (1), clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

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

  1. The Lawyer's licence is revoked.
  2. Counsel may make submissions on the matter of costs in writing, within 10 days of the date of the release of this order. Otherwise, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Lawyer, Janet Leiper)


Mireille Simone Jocelyne Marie Landry
(1999), of the City of Ottawa, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for, with respect to each of two complaints:

  • failing to reply in a timely, conscientious and comprehensive manner to communications from the Law Society by not responding to letters and to verbal requests for documents and information; and
  • failing to cooperate with the Law Society with regard to an investigation of the Law Society into the complaint.

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

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for a period of two and one-half months, commencing on a date to be fixed by the Law Society, but no earlier than two months after the date of this Decision and Order. The entire period of suspension will be served consecutively.
  2. During the period of suspension, the Lawyer shall comply with all requirements and guidelines regarding lawyers who are suspended or who have given an undertaking not to practice.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay to the Law Society costs of $4,000, within six months of the date of this Decision and Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Louise Hurteau / Counsel for the Lawyer, Pierre Champagne and Christian Paquette)

Mary Martha Coady (1981), of the Town of Arnprior, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for

  • engaging in frivolous, vexatious and abusive litigation in four separate matters;
  • making intemperate and unsupported comments regarding members of the Judiciary in the eastern region of Ontario;
  • making unfounded allegations accusing opposing counsel of improper communications with the Judiciary;
  • failing to respond to communications from the Law Society in respect of seven separate complaints;
  • during and following a retainer by a client:
    • failing to render a proper account despite numerous requests
    • acting in a conflict of interest in a mortgage matter
    • failing to honour a financial obligation to the same client
    • engaging in sharp practice by having a Certificate of Action registered based on the Ex-parte Order of Mr. Justice Forget, knowing that the Order of Mr. Justice Forget had been set aside by Mr. Justice Morin
  • failing to honour financial obligations to a second former client;
  • in a matter relating to a third client:
    • engaging in conduct which tends to bring the administration of justice into disrepute by resiling from the terms of a settlement
    • uttering a false and misleading document
    • failing to honour a financial obligation to her former clients
  • in regard to an action commenced against her by the Town of Arnprior for declaratory relief regarding property known as Lots 36 and 37, Plan 19, Town of Arnprior:
    • failing to maintain the standard of courtesy towards opposing counsel required of members of the Society by making improper comments regarding the integrity and motives of counsel
    • engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation by naming opposing counsel personally in litigation for which there was no reasonable basis for believing opposing counsel to be a proper party to the litigation
    • making intemperate and unsupported comments regarding the conduct of the court and also about Peter Mirsky's communications with the court
    • failing to pay costs awarded against her by an Order
  • failing to honour her financial obligation to the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company;
  • failing to honour the terms of an escrow agreement in connection with a matrimonial matter;
  • in regard to a different set of clients:
    • failing to account to the client for withdrawals from funds being held on their behalf
    • failing to honour a Report and Certificate of Assessment of an assessment officer
    • failing to serve her clients in a consciences, efficient and diligent manner
    • failing to follow her clients' instructions
  • failing to provide a Statement of Account to a further client despite repeated requests to do so.

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

  1. The license of Mary Martha Coady be and is hereby revoked.
  2. Mary Martha Coady pay to Cheryl Quinton the sum of $2,200.00 pursuant to section 35 of the Law Society Act.
  3. Mary Martha Coady pay to the Law Society costs of these applications in the amount of $198,537.06.

(Counsel for the Society, J. Thomas Curry, Jaan Lilles and Matthew Lerner / the Lawyer self-represented)

Under Appeal
Bill Wong
(1979), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for

  • representing a client B.S. with respect to an investment in, and later a further investment in or loan to, 1208143 Ontario Ltd., a corporation in which you had an interest, without ensuring that the client's interests were protected by the client receiving independent legal advice and without obtaining a written certificate of independent legal advice;
  • in or about May 2002, amending the November 4, 1999 Agreement between him, 1208143 Ontario Ltd. and B.S, to transfer $100,000 of the $200,000 shareholder loan from B.S. to himself, without the knowledge or authorization of B.S.;
  • in or about November 1999 and September 2000, taking money for fees and disbursements from trust without first rendering an account;
  • on three occasions, misappropriating $43,926.21 by removing the money from his trust account that was in respect of (a) disbursements which had been previously paid, (b) a fictitious disbursement and (c) advances which were improperly characterized as disbursements;
  • rendering an account in which he charged amounts for disbursements that were not fair and reasonable;
  • rendering an account in which he charged amounts for fees and disbursements that were not fair and reasonable and in which he failed to adequately and clearly detail the amounts charged for fees and disbursements;
  • failing to provide a copy of his account, dated February 2, 2002, to his client, B.S., until December 2003;
  • failing to deposit $94,000 provided by his client, B.S., to trust;
  • commissioning a document that was not signed in his presence;
  • transferring an amount from trust to general for his fees and disbursements in the L.L. purchase transaction, without first issuing a fee billing;
  • misleading the Law Society by advising it that he did not close the L.L. purchase transaction; and
  • failing to produce the L.L. client file/documents to the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated December 10, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Licensee's license is revoked as of midnight December 18, 2009.
  2. The Licensee is required to repay the Compensation Fund any amount that he is required to pay arising out of File No. CN89/06.
  3. The Licensee is ordered to repay the Law Society costs of this hearing fixed in the sum of $75,000.00 to be repayable by December 10, 2011

(Counsel for the Society, Amanda Worley / Counsel for the Lawyer, Jerry Heszkopf)

Colin Mackenzie Cockburn (1975), of the City of London, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for practising law during the period July 4, 2007 and January 31, 2008 while his license to practise law was suspended by an Order dated June 29, 2007.

By Decision and Order dated December 8, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  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 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 Licenses Have Been Revoked or Who Have Been Permitted to Surrender Their Licences.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / Counsel for the Lawyer, Norman Peel)

Mylvaganam Inparajah (1998), 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 unscrupulous clients and third parties and by abdicating his professional responsibilities by failing to supervise his real estate practice in connection with the purchase, sale, and mortgage transactions involving three properties;
  • failing to be honest and candid when advising his lender clients in connection with two transactions. In particular, failing to disclose material facts or misrepresenting material facts to his lender clients. The material facts included:
    • the mortgage funds advanced by his lender clients to his purchaser clients exceeded the balances due on closing;
    • his purchaser clients received credits on closing from his vendor clients, that were not referenced in the relevant Purchase Agreements, for unsubstantiated reasons;
    • his purchaser clients contributed no funds toward the transactions;
    • the mortgage funds advanced by his lender clients were used to pay all of the closing costs associated with the transactions;
    • with respect to one transaction, he possessed evidence disclosing that a deposit, for which his purchaser client was being credited and to which reference was made in the Purchase Agreement, had not been paid; and
    • with respect to one transaction, his purchaser client's identification disclosed information that conflicted with other information in his file.
  • with respect to two of the transactions:
    • acting or continuing to act for multiple parties where there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest;
    • failing to disclose all material facts to his lender clients;
    • failing to obtain the consent of his lender and purchaser clients to act also for his vendor clients; and
    • failing to obtain the consent of his vendor clients to act also for his purchaser and lender clients.
  • failing to serve and perform legal services undertaken on behalf of his lender clients to the standard of a competent lawyer in two transactions. In particular,
    • failing to disclose material facts or misrepresenting material facts to his lender clients;
    • failing to follow the express written instructions of his lender clients;
    • failing to advise his lender clients that he also was representing the vendors in the transactions;
    • failing to report to his lender client regarding one transaction; and
    • failing to make reasonable inquiries regarding the purpose of the transactions, and/or the discrepancies or irregularities in each transaction; alternatively, if he did make such inquiries, he failed to disclose the information to his lender clients, advise them of the resulting risks, and take steps to protect their interests.

By Decision and Order dated December 8, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The licence of the Lawyer is suspended for one month, commencing on December 29, 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. However, the Lawyer need only cover up the neon sign advertising his practice, rather than taking it down, specifically, the words "law office" must be in some way covered up.
  3. For the two-year period from January 29, 2010 to January 28, 2012, the Lawyer shall only practise real estate law pursuant to a plan of supervision and under the supervision of another person licensed to practise law by the Law Society. Both the plan of supervision and the supervising lawyer are to be pre-approved by the Director of Professional Regulation. The Law Society is directed to aid the Lawyer in securing the services of a supervising lawyer. This Panel remains seized of the supervision issue. If there is any difficulty in implementing this term, the Panel may be reassembled and will deal with the issue by telephone or in person as it directs.
  4. Upon resuming the practice of law on January 29, 2010, the Lawyer shall participate in a practice review, pursuant to s. 42 of the Law Society Act, on the following terms:
    1. the Lawyer shall schedule a first practice review on or before April 15, 2010;
    2. the Lawyer shall cooperate with the first practice review and implement the recommendations made as a result of the review;
    3. the Lawyer shall participate cooperatively in a second practice review, to assess the degree to which the Lawyer implemented recommendations made during the first practice review; and
    4. the Lawyer shall schedule and ensure that the second practice review takes place on or before September 1, 2010.
  5. Before February 1, 2011, and annually thereafter, the Lawyer shall register at his own expense and attend, in person, 18 hours of continuing legal education pertaining to real estate law.
  6. The Lawyer shall pay to the Law Society costs fixed in the amount of $10,000, payable in three equal annual instalments of $3,333.33, payable on or before December 31, 2010, December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2012. Interest will accrue at the rate of 5 per cent per year from January 1, 2010 on the unpaid balance provided that, if each of the three instalments is paid in a timely manner, then, the interest will be forgiven.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Henry Josef Gertner (1973), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with Law Society investigations into his conduct by failing to produce information and documents requested of him in written correspondence dated August 21, 2008 and September 25, 2008.

By Decision and Order dated December 7, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Panel finds that the Lawyer is ungovernable and orders his license to practice to be immediately revoked.
  2. The Lawyer is to pay the Law Society its costs fixed in the amount of $2500 with two years to pay without interest.

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith and Anne Katherine Dionne / Counsel for the Lawyer, William Trudell and Mark Lapowich)

Colin Laverne Campbell (1972), of the Town of Oakville, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by, in relation to three different sets of clients, failing to cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to attend for an interview despite repeated requests and failing to substantively respond to and cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce information and documentation requested in repeated telephone calls.

By Decision and Order dated December 2, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for one (1) month commencing immediately, and continuing indefinitely thereafter until the following conditions are met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation (the "Director"):
    1. The Lawyer delivers a report from his treating psychiatrist, or a successor psychiatrist, which satisfies the Law Society's Director or any successor in an equivalent position, that the Lawyer is capable of meeting any and all of his obligations as a licensee, and the Director has confirmed her satisfaction in writing;
    2. The Lawyer attends for, and cooperates with, an interview with Law Society Investigator Anita McCann, or her successor, with respect to the complaints of M.B.A., C.M.D., and C.F and M.F.; and
    3. The Lawyer has provided Investigator Anita McCann with copies of, or complete access to, his files and other requested books and records relating to the matters of M.B.A., C.M.D., and C.F and M.F.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2500 within thirty-six (36) months of the date of his return to practise.

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith/ Counsel for the Lawyer, Brian Radnoff)

William James Wise (1979), of the City of Raleigh in North Carolina, U.S.A. The Lawyer's appeal from the Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated September 19, 2008, was dismissed on September 15, 2009 by Order of the Appeal Panel. The hearing continued, by way of written submissions, on the issue of costs.

By Order dated December 1, 2009 the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Law Society is awarded costs in the amount of $7,000.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / Counsel for the Lawyer, L. Leslie Dizgun and Neil J. A. Perrier)

John Phillip Thomas Middlebrook (1999), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation conducted by Investigation Counsel Catherine Campbell, including:

  1. failing to produce all of the documents requested of you in written correspondence of various dates; and
  2. failing to attend for an interview, during the period from January 11, 2008 to the present.

By Decision and Order dated November 27, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Licensee is reprimanded.
  2. The Licensee shall comply with his Undertaking, Acknowledgement and Direction, dated November 27, 2009, to the Law Society, and which was marked Exhibit 5 in this proceeding.
  3. The Licensee shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $6,000 within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order, failing which, interest will accrue at a rate of 2% per annum.

(Counsel for the Society, Loretta Arci / Counsel for the Lawyer, Neil Perrier and Leon L. Dizgun)

Barry John Walker (1986), of the City of Brantford, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to fulfill his undertaking to the Law Society of Upper Canada dated November 17, 2006 to reply promptly to all communications from the Law Society, in that he failed to respond meaningfully to communications from the Law Society including letters dated March 5, 2009, April 8, 2009, May 12, 2009, and August 31, 2009 and telephone calls on April 28, 2009 and May 4, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated November 27, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for three months, to commence at the conclusion of his current administrative suspension.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society fixed in the amount of $3,000 within six months of the date of the conclusion of the suspension referred to in paragraph one of this Order, with interest of 2% per annum to be charged on any amount outstanding beyond the date it was due.
  3. 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.

(Counsel for the Society, Nisha Dhanoa / the Lawyer self-represented)

Reid David Rusonik (1989), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to act with courtesy and respect toward the Court when he failed to comply with requests by the trial judge that he discontinue challenging TK, a witness whom he was cross-examining, to a physical confrontation and that he discontinue using discourteous language toward TK; and
  • failing to act with courtesy and civility when he challenged TK, a witness whom he was cross-examining, to a physical confrontation and used discourteous and uncivil language toward TK.

By Decision and Order dated November 25, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for one (1) week commencing December 23, 2009 through to and including December 29, 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, save for the following exemptions granted by the Law Society, while suspended pursuant to this Order:
    • The Lawyer shall deposit his Lawyer's identification card into his law firm's safe for the period of his suspension rather than turn it over to the Law Society;
    • The Lawyer's law firm's sign can remain up during the period of his suspension;
    • The Lawyer's name can remain on his law firm letterhead and law firm internet site; and
    • The Lawyer's law firm's trust account shall remain open during the period of his suspension although the Lawyer shall not write trust cheques on that account during that period.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1,500.00 forthwith.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / the Lawyer was self-represented)

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.
  • 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.

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)

Christian Simon Michael Secker (1990), of the City of Mississauga, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond promptly and substantively to investigative inquiries and to cooperate with an investigation, despite letters dated April 16, 2009, May 25, 2009 and July 13, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated November 23, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  • The Licensee is reprimanded.
  • The Licensee shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1,000 within six (6) months of the date of this Order, failing which, interest will accrue at a rate of 2% per annum.

(Counsel for the Society, Loretta Arci / 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 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)

Andrew Bishop Tulk (1970), of the City of Mississauga, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for speaking to a fellow solicitor in a manner that was abusive, offensive or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of professional communication from a lawyer.

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

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. There shall be a fine of $500 and costs of $2000 payable to the Law Society within six months.

(Counsel for the Society, Suzanne Jarvie / Counsel for the Lawyer, Thomas W. Ward)

Peter Dymoke Eberlie (1975), of the City of London, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by

  1. On or about June 24, 1999, he improperly withdrew $4,875 which he held on behalf of his client, SP, from his trust account, contrary to By-law 19, s.4 (1) made pursuant to the Law Society Act;
  2. On or about June 7, 1999, he received $11,050 in trust for his client, SP, and failed to deposit those funds into a trust account, contrary to By-law 19, s.2 (1);
  3. On or about August 27, 1999, he improperly withdrew $8,025 which he held on behalf of his client, SP, from his trust account, contrary to By-law 19, s.4 (1) made pursuant to the Law Society Act;
  4. He failed to serve his client, SP, contrary to Rule 2 (a) and (b) and Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in the following manner:
    1. He failed to follow his client's instructions to obtain a Certificate of Pending Litigation in relation to a farm property his client had resided at with her common law spouse;
    2. He failed to protect his client's interests in the above-noted farm property;
    3. He failed to pursue his client's unjust enrichment claim;
    4. After June 2003, he failed to follow his client's instructions in that he failed to pursue an order granting her custody of her adult disabled son;
    5. After June 2003, he failed to follow his client's instructions, in that he failed to pursue an order requiring his client's ex husband to pay $38,000 in child support arrears;
    6. After June 2003, he failed to pursue an order requiring his client's ex husband to pay child support;
  5. On or about May 30, 2003, he acted without integrity when he misled Saara Chetner, Counsel - Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, by telling her he had obtained a ruling from Justice Brockenshire granting custody of SP's son to SP, contrary to Rules 2.02(1) and 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct;
  6. On or about July 11, 2005, he acted without integrity when he misled his client, SP, by telling her he had obtained a Court order granting custody of her son to SP, contrary to Rules 2.02(1) and 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

By Decision and Order dated November 13, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. It is ordered that the Lawyer be suspended for 1(one) month, to commence on December 18, 2009 and to conclude on January 17, 2010.
  2. It is further ordered that the Lawyer will pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2,500 within 12 (twelve) months of the date he resumes practice.

Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Lawyer, Chris Paliare and Karen Jones)

Paul John Anderson (1991), of the City of Toronto, appealed from the Order of the Hearing Panel dated August 4, 2009. The appeal, seeking to set aside the Order of the Hearing Panel dated August 4, 2009 and dismissing the Notice of Application dated April 13, 2007, was heard on November 9, 2009 and judgment reserved.

By Order dated November 9, 2009 the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Appeal Panel's order dated August 14, 2009 staying the Decision and Order below pending the hearing of the appeal is varied so as to provide that the stay extends until 10 days following the release of the Appeal Panel's reasons.  

(Counsel for the Society, Amanda Worley / Counsel for the Lawyer, Douglas Christie)

Joyce Theresa Choi-Pik Chan (1989), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society's application for a determination of whether the Lawyer engaged in professional misconduct was dismissed by the Hearing Panel's Decision and Order dated April 15, 2009.

By Order dated November 4, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's request for costs is dismissed.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan and Deborah McPhadden / the Lawyer self-represented)


Sudeesh Shivarattan (1991), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act suspending the licence of Sudeesh Shivarattan and for other relief as set out in the Notice of Motion dated October 21, 2009.

By Order dated November 3, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Commencing on the date of this Order, and continuing until this motion is disposed of on its merits, or until further order of the Hearing Panel, the licence of the Lawyer is suspended on an interim interlocutory basis.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall forthwith sign a Direction, in a form provided by the Law Society, authorizing the Law Society to take all steps necessary to cancel the Lawyer's Teranet account and access while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  4. The Lawyer shall serve and file any material on which he intends to rely in response to this motion on or before 13 November 2009.
  5. This motion is adjourned to be heard on such other date as may be set by the Tribunals Office and, if no date is set by 16 November 2009, then this matter shall be spoken to on that date at the Proceedings Management Conference.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / the Lawyer self-represented)

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)

Rita Anne Hartmann (1975), of the City Toronto, appealed from the Hearing Panel Order dated August 8, 2006 requesting that the Order be set aside, the finding of professional misconduct be quashed and that the Notice of Application be dismissed; in the alternative, that a new hearing be ordered.

The Appellant also brought a motion for an order allowing fresh evidence.

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

  1. The Motion to admit fresh evidence, unopposed by the Society, is allowed.
  2. For written reasons to follow the appeal is allowed and the finding of professional misconduct is set aside and a new hearing is ordered.
  3. The costs previously paid by the Appellant pursuant to the Hearing Panel's order are to be remitted.
  4. Any submissions as to costs on appeal to be reserved and filed within 14 days of release of the written reasons.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / Counsel for the Lawyer, Louis Strezos)

John Dennis Flood (1987), of the City of Kenora. On October 27, 2009 the Notice of Application dated December 15, 2008 was withdrawn at the request of counsel for the Law Society.

(Counsel for the Society, Suzanne Jarvie / Counsel for the Lawyer, William Trudell and Mark Lapowich)

David Harris (1975), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • withdrawing trust funds held on behalf of a client, without complying with any of the permitted circumstances under which trust money may be withdrawn;
  • upon termination of that client's retainer, he failed to deliver the client file to which the client was entitled;
  • upon termination of that client's retainer, he failed to promptly render an account for outstanding fees and disbursements and to account for all funds of the client then held or previously dealt with, including the refunding of any remuneration not earned during the representation;
  • he failed to serve a second client in the following manner:
    • he failed to advance the client's matter in a conscientious, diligent and timely fashion;
    • he failed to respond to communications from his client throughout the course of his retainer in a conscientious, diligent and timely manner.
  • he failed to give notice to his insurer, LAWPRO, of circumstances that could give rise to a claim of professional negligence;
  • he failed to serve a third client in the following manner:
    • he failed to keep his client apprised of the status of the client's matter;
    • he failed to advise his client of an offer to settle the client's matter which he received; and
    • he failed to perform the functions for which he was retained, in that he: failed to file materials in relation to a summary judgment motion brought against his client; failed to attend at the summary judgment motion; and failed to make costs submissions in respect of the motion for summary judgment, which failure resulted in an order requiring his client to pay $14,000 in costs.

By Decision and Order dated October 21, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for six months, commencing the earlier of the completion of the trial of the action bearing Court File No. 00-CV-188172-CM and December 31, 2009, unless the Director of Professional Regulation upon written request from the Lawyer determines that because of a failure to complete the said trial by December 31, 2009, commencement of the said suspension should begin at a later date.
  2. The Lawyer shall report in writing to the Director of Professional Regulation when the said trial is completed, and until it is completed he shall report in writing to the Director on the last day of each month as to the status of the said trial.
  3. The Lawyer shall immediately co-operate with any request from the Director of Professional Regulation respecting determination of completion of the said trial.
  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 forthwith deliver to his client D.R., or as D.R. may direct, D.R.'s client file unless the Director of Professional Regulation excuses the Lawyer from compliance with this direction upon the Director being satisfied it is impracticable or impossible to comply.
  6. The suspension ordered in paragraph one shall continue indefinitely until the Lawyer has complied with paragraph five of this Order, unless the Lawyer is excused therefrom by the Director of Professional Regulation.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / the Lawyer self-represented)

James Alexander Menzies (1957), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation into his conduct by failing to produce all documents and information requested of him in letters dated August 9, 2007, November 20, 2007, November 26, 2007, January 14, 2008, January 28, 2008, February 4, 2008, February 5, 2008, August 11, 2008, September 4, 2008, September 19, 2008 and September 24, 2008.

By Decision and Order dated October 21, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. On the basis of the Lawyer's undertaking to permanently retire [filed October 21, 2009], costs of $2,000 payable by the Lawyer if he does not formalize his retirement with the Law Society within 30 days after the conclusion of the Law Society's investigation.

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

Mitchell Lewis Wolfe (1979), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act suspending the licence of Mitchell Lewis Wolfe, or in the alternative, a restriction of the Lawyer's practice until such time as an order is made finally disposing of any conduct application that may be issued with respect to allegations of professional misconduct regarding which the Law Society has commenced 19 investigations and for other relief as set out in the Notice of Motion dated April 16, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated October 19, 2009, the Law Society Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

1. Commencing immediately, the licence of the Lawyer is restricted on an interlocutory basis on the following terms:

  1. He shall not directly or indirectly hold a mortgage or loan in trust for an investor or investors;
  2. He shall not engage in the practise of law with respect to any mortgage or loan transactions, either directly or by instructing another lawyer or non-lawyer, except where each lender is a bank, trust company, insurance company, credit union or finance company that lends money in the ordinary course of business;
  3. He shall not engage in the practise of law, either directly or indirectly or by instructing another lawyer or non-lawyer, on behalf of Daniel (Don) Vanbodegom or a related person as defined in section 251 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) or on behalf of a corporation, syndicate, partnership, trust or other entity in which Daniel (Don) Vanbodegom or a related person as defined in section 251 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) has financial interest; and/or
  4. He shall not arrange for or recommend to a client or other person that they participate as an investor in a mortgage or loan transaction, except where each lender is a bank, trust company, insurance company, credit union or finance company that lends money in the ordinary course of business.

2. The licence of the Lawyer shall remain restricted pursuant to this Order until the earlier of the following:

  1. Prior to the hearing on the merits of a proceeding related to the Southampton and Hillside transactions, which are still under investigation,
    1. a Hearing Panel varies or cancels this Order on the consent of the Law Society and the Lawyer; or
    2. a Hearing Panel varies or cancels this Order on the basis of a fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances motion that is brought by the Law Society or the Lawyer; or
  2. the Hearing Panel presiding at the hearing on the merits of a proceeding related to the Southampton and Hillside transactions varies or cancels this Order or disposes of the proceeding.

3. The costs of the within motion shall be reserved to the Hearing Panel presiding at the merits of the proceedings referenced in paragraph 2.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan and Nisha Dhanoa / Lawyer's Representative of Record, Rahul Shastri)

Marvin Barry Shifman (1980), of the City of Richmond Hill, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct as set out in the Notice of Application as amended, as follows:

  • failing to cooperate with, and respond promptly and substantively to inquiries regarding, an audit and corresponding investigation, despite letters dated 14 February 2008, 16 April 2008, 27 May 2008, 31 July 2008, 26 August 2008, 26 September 2008, and 17 July 2009.
  • failing to maintain books and records in connection with his law practice, contrary to By-law 9, made under the Law Society Act, or alternatively, by failing to produce books and records, despite letters dated 14 February 2008, 16 April 2008, 27 May 2008, 31 July 2008, 26 August 2008, 26 September 2008, and 17 July 2009.
  • breaching Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that he failed to respond promptly and substantively to letters dated 24 September 2008, 18 December 2008, 27 March 2009, 15 April 2009, and 9 July 2009, and telephone calls dated 19 September 2008, 16 October 2008, and 16 December 2008.
  • failed to cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce a client file requested in telephone calls dated 19 September 2008, 16 October 2008, and 16 December 2008, and letters dated 24 September 2008, 18 December 2008, 27 March 2009, and 15 April 2009.

By Decision and Order dated October 16, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Lawyer is suspended for two (2) months commencing on June 30, 2010.
  • the Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Suspended, Resigned or Disbarred Licensees and Licensees Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practice as modified by the Information for Suspended, Resigned or Disbarred Licensees who have given an Undertaking not to practice, while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  • the Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $3,500 within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order, failing which, interest will accrue at a rate of 2% per annum.

(Counsel for the Society, Loretta Arci/ the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Jonathan Howard Marler (1975), of the Town of Oakville, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming as set out in the Notice of Application as amended, as follows:

  • On March 18, 2002, the Honourable Mr. Justice Nadeau in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found, and on April 19, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the finding that, in or about November 2000, he was a party to and fully participated in a transfer of a mortgage to himself, which was a fraudulent conveyance and an unlawful preference
  • On April 19, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that:
    1. He had denied before the Superior Court (In Bankruptcy) that he had represented one of the original petitioning creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding when, in fact, he had;
    2. He had testified, and tendered evidence in support of this testimony, to the Superior Court (In Bankruptcy) on November 26, 2001, that he had no relationship with a different person and his company, prior to the summer of 2001, and that 39 Ltd. had been separately represented throughout the bankruptcy proceedings, when, in fact, he had been retained by the company, in 2000; and
    3. He orchestrated a bankruptcy proceeding against a third person, which had been initiated by rivals of that person for an improper purpose.

By Decision and Order dated October 14, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for 3 months.
  2. Costs against the Lawyer in the amount of $3000.00 payable within six months of completion of the suspension.
  3. Suspension to start on a date agreeable to both counsel failing which the Hearing Panel will determine the date.

(Counsel for the Society, Louise Hurteau / Counsel for the Lawyer, Paul D. Stunt and Robert W. Wilson)

Joseph Paradiso (1973), of the City of Vaughan, made an oral motion for an Order extending the stay granted by the Appeal Panel on March 24, 2009 and which was extended thereafter by Orders dated of June 22, and August 13, 2009.

By Order dated October 13, 2009, the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The stay is extended on the same terms and conditions of the Order of the Appeal Panel dated March 24, 2009 pending the determination of the Appeal.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / Counsel for the Appellant, Alan S. Price)

Kristina Maria Brousalis (2002), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by breaching section 33 of the Law Society Act as set out in the Notice of Application as follows:

  • failing to serve her client, J.L., contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to file an application with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to obtain the return of monies paid by J.L. to her landlord.
  • failing to conduct herself in a way that maintains the integrity of the profession, contrary to Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows:
    • leading her client, J.L., to believe that an application had been filed with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, when no such application had been filed.
    • On or about August 31, 2005, creating a backdated letter addressed to her client, J.L., dated December 9, 2004, as well as a fictitious telephone note dated December 15, 2004, for the purpose of, inter alia, doctoring the client file to suggest that J.L. had instructed her to cease all action with respect to J.L.'s Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal application, when such was not the case.
  • failing to serve her client, D.H., contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows:
    • failing to have her client execute a medical consent form and failed to obtain a medical report for his case; and,
    • failing to communicate with her client regarding his case.
  • failing to conduct herself in a way that maintains the integrity of the profession, contrary to Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, when, on or about August 31, 2005, she created backdated letters addressed to her client D.H., dated May 19, 2005 and July 4, 2005, for the purpose of doctoring her file to suggest that she could not reach D.H. or obtain instructions from him, when such was not the case.
  • failing to serve her client, H.L., contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows:
    • failing to file an Appeal Form with the Social Benefits Tribunal;
    • failing to have her client execute a medical consent form and failed to obtain medical reports for H.L.'s case; and,
    • failing to communicate with her client regarding her case.
  • failing to conduct herself in a way that maintains the integrity of the profession, contrary to Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows:
    • On or about September 2, 2005, creating a letter dated February 23, 2005, enclosing H.L.'s Appeal Form, which she purported to have sent to the Social Benefits Tribunal, when in fact she did not do so.
    • leading her client, H.L., to believe that an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal had been filed in February 2005 when no such appeal had been filed.
  • failing to serve her client, G.Z., contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, when, in respect of G.Z.'s appeal, she failed to file a Notice of Request for Extension of Time to File with the Social Benefits Tribunal.
  • failing to conduct herself in a way that maintains the integrity of the profession, contrary to Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in that she led her client, G.Z, to believe that the Notice of Request for Extension of Time to File had been filed with the Social Benefits Tribunal and that an appeal date was forthcoming, when such was not the case.
  • failing to serve her client, M.W., contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows:
    • failing to advance a Tenant Application About Maintenance with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal;
    • failing to liaise with the City of Toronto Inspector; and,
    • failing to communicate with M.W.
  • failing to serve her client, S.H., contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows:
    • failing to obtain a medical report or other documentation to support S.H.'s application for disability benefits; and,
    • failing to communicate with S.H. or return S.H.'s calls.
  • failing to conduct herself in a way that maintains the integrity of the profession, contrary to Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, when, on or about June 1, 2005, she led the Social Benefits Tribunal and her client, S.H., to believe that the submission of medical documents to the Tribunal regarding S.H. was imminent, when in fact her had taken no steps, or no significant steps, to obtain such medical documents.

By Decision and Order dated October 6, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall receive a reprimand;
  2. The Lawyer shall participate in Alcoholics Anonymous for a period of 2 years;
  3. The Lawyer shall engage in appropriate treatment and/or counselling at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health ("CAMH") in Toronto or an alternate site acceptable to the Director of Professional Regulation for a period of 2 years;
  4. The Lawyer shall keep her family physician, Dr. Karen Chu, apprised of her participation in Alcoholics Anonymous and her treatment as described in term 3, above;
  5. The Lawyer shall sign an Authorization and Direction enabling the Director of Professional Regulation to communicate with Dr. Karen Chu and to receive reports from Dr. Chu as required for a period of 2 years;
  6. The Lawyer shall be restricted to practicing as an employee for a period of 2 years;
  7. The Lawyer shall sign an Authorization and Direction enabling the Director of Professional Regulation to communicate with the Lawyer's supervisor, the Director of Tenant Duty Counsel Program at the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario ("DTDC") and to receive reports from the DTDC as required for a period of 2 years. In the event the Lawyer obtains employment as a lawyer for a different employer, she shall sign an Authorization and Direction enabling the Director to communicate with and require reports from such employer.
  8. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1,000 on or before March 6, 2010.

(Counsel for the Society, Suzanne Jarvie / Counsel for the Lawyer, Peter Rosenthal)

Myles Frederick McLellan (1980), of theTown of Innisfil, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and his licence to practise law was revoked by order dated May 12, 2009:

By Order dated October 6, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall pay $10,000 in costs to the Law Society, within 24 months of the date of this order.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / Counsel for the Lawyer, William Trudell and Mark A. Lapowich)

Paulos Luizos (1998), of the City of Toronto, appealed to the Appeal Panel from the order of the Hearing Panel dated January 15, 2009.

By Order dated September 29, 2009, the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Appeal against the penalty imposed is abandoned, and therefore dismissed, with the following two terms:
    1. The remaining portion of the suspension is fixed at 28 days;
    2. It shall commence on October 17, 2009
  2. There is no order as to costs.

(Counsel for the Society, Jan Parnega / The Lawyer self-represented)

Helen Patricia Luzius (1988), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by failing:

  • to respond to an investigation of the Law Society in a timely manner, namely by failing to respond to letters dated September 23, 2008, October 22, 2008, November 27, 2008 and March 11, 2009, and telephone calls dated December 10, 2008, December 11, 2008 and January 27, 2009.
  • to provide a complete response to the complaint, and failed to respond to an investigation of the Law Society in a timely manner by failing to respond to letters dated October 29, 2008, November 27, 2008, December 18, 2008 and March 11, 2009 and telephone calls dated December 10, 2008, December 11, 2008 and January 27, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated September 25, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for one month commencing at the conclusion of her current administrative suspension and continuing indefinitely until the Licensee has:
    1. provided a response to the S.L. complaint by answering all questions and providing all documents requested by Ms. Mosaheb in her letters dated September 23, 2008 and March 11, 2009 and
    2. provided a complete response to the M.F.M.N. complaint by answering all questions and providing all documents requested by Ms. Mosaheb in her letters dated October 29, 2008 and March 11, 2009.
  2. The Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Suspended, Resigned or Disbarred Licensees and Licensees Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practice as modified by the Information for Suspended, Resigned or Disbarred Licensees who have given an Undertaking not to practice, attached hereto as Exhibit A while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. There be no costs of the hearing.

(Counsel for the Society, Loretta Arci / the Lawyer was not present and not represented)

Antonios Karalis (2005), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act suspending the licence of Antonios Karalis pending the completion of the conduct application anticipated in this matter, or the closing of four open investigations into the Lawyer's conduct and/or the open investigation into the Lawyer's capacity and for other relief as set out in the Notice of Motion dated April 16, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated September 22, 2009, the Law Society Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence to practise law is suspended, effective from the date that this Order is released, on an interim interlocutory basis under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act.
  2. This interim interlocutory order shall become a final interlocutory order 30 days after service of this Order unless fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances is brought by the parties to the attention of the Hearing Panel, and the Hearing Panel varies or cancels the Order.
  3. Subject to term 4 of this Order, the final interlocutory suspension continues in force until an order of the Appeal Panel sets aside or varies the Order or the Hearing Panel makes a final order after a hearing of any conduct or capacity hearing on the merits.
  4. The Society shall conduct its investigations respecting the Lawyer with due diligence. On or before November 30, 2009, the Society shall serve upon the Lawyer and file with the Tribunals Office an affidavit outlining the status of the investigations respecting the Lawyer. Thereafter, in addition to any other remedies that may be available to the Lawyer, the Lawyer is entitled to move before this Hearing Panel, which shall remain seized, for an Order setting aside or varying this Order.
  5. Should the Society seek a costs order, this may be addressed through written submissions, to be served on the Lawyer and filed with the Tribunals Office within 10 days of service of this Order. The Lawyer shall serve and file any responding materials within 10 days of the service of the Society's materials on him.

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Lawyer's Representative, Archbishop Brennan)

Robert Dondald McKerrow (1974), of the Town of Amherstburg, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by breaching section 49.3 of the Law Society Act in that he failed to cooperate with the Law Society's investigation into his conduct, including failing to produce documents for examination, as requested in letters dated October 7, 2008, October 30, 2008, and January 15, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for two months, commencing on December 1, 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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2000 within twelve months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 2% per annum thereafter.

(Counsel for the Society, A.K. Dionne / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

William James Wise (1979), of the City of Raleigh in North Carolina, U.S.A., appealed from the Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated September 19, 2008.

By Order dated September 15, 2009 the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The appeal is dismissed.
  2. The Society, should it choose to do so, can serve and file brief written submissions on the issue of costs within 14 days of release of these reasons.
  3. The Appellant can serve and file brief written submissions in response within 7 days of service upon it of any submissions from the Society.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder and Elizabeth Parenteau / Counsel for the Lawyer, L. Leslie Dizgun and Neil J. Perrier)

Edward Lawrence Stone (1960), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society brought a motion for an Order quashing the Amended Motion made by Edward Lawrence Stone (the "lawyer").

By Decision and Order dated September 10, 2009, the Law Society Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Amended Motion of the Lawyer, dated 6 July 2009, is quashed.
  2. Commencing immediately, the licence of the Lawyer is suspended on a final interlocutory basis pending a final order by a Hearing Panel after the hearing of an application on its merits pertaining to mortgage fraud cases 2006-22468, 2006-24187, and 2008-68593, which are currently being investigated by the Law Society.
  3. 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.
  4. If requested by the Law Society, then the Lawyer shall forthwith sign a Direction, in a form provided by the Law Society, authorizing the Law Society to take all steps necessary to cancel the Lawyer's Teranet account and access while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  5. In view of the circumstances the Panel has decided not to award costs.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / the Lawyer was present and self-represented)

Timothy Michael Kinnaird, of the City of Toronto, a lawyer applicant, applied for a Class L1 licence.

By Decision and Order dated August 25, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The application for a Class L1 licence is allowed.
  2. The applicant shall acknowledge by written statement to the Director of Professional Regulation that he will take at least 25 hours of Continuing Legal Education over the next 18 months, including the program for Sole and Small Firm Practitioners, and shall inform the Director of Professional Regulation when that course of instruction is complete.
  3. The Applicant shall not practise real estate until he takes a current refresher course.
  4. Mr. Robin Cumine, Q.C., shall oversee the first year of the applicant's practice.
  5. The Applicant shall practise for two years in association with other lawyers.
  6. The applicant shall engage in regular therapy with Dr. Bernard Trossman, or his designate, for a minimum of 18 months after resuming practice, and continuing thereafter until Dr. Trossman opines that this form of support is no longer necessary.
  7. The applicant shall provide quarterly reports from Dr. Trossman or his designate to the Director of Professional Regulation and shall sign an Authorization and Direction enabling the Director of Professional Regulation, or her designate, to communicate with Dr. Trossman or his designate, as required.
  8. The applicant shall make arrangements to repay in three equal instalments, on the first, second, and third anniversary of resuming practice, the principal amounts owed to the four parties set out in schedule "A" below, and provide evidence to the Law Society to support that such payments have been made.

Schedule "A"

 

Assessment in favour of Charles Bourdreau
$4,515.33
 
Judgement in favour of Price Waterhouse,
 
 
Chartered Accountants
$9,191.05
(includes
costs of
$625.00)
Outstanding account owing to Dr. R.S. Miller
$1,606.86
 
Outstanding account owing to Barry Brown
$2,744.10
 
TOTAL
$18,057.34
 

 

  1. The Applicant shall pay costs of $500, to be paid in 18 months.

(Counsel for the Society, Amanda Worley / Counsel for the Lawyer Applicant, Stephen E. Traviss)

Pretam Kaur Purewal (1991), of the City of Brampton, appealed from the Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated March 19, 2007 and the Amended Order dated December 15, 2008. She asked that these orders be set aside and that an order be granted reinstating her onto the Rolls of the Society.

By Order dated August 19, 2009 the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Appeal against the findings of professional misconduct is dismissed.
  2. The Appeal against the order as to penalty is dismissed.
  3. If the Law Society seeks costs of the Appeal, it should file written submissions in that regard within 20 days of release of the reasons relating to this Order. The Appellant should file her written submissions within 20 days of service and filing of the Law Society's written submissions.

(Counsel for the Society, Sean Dewart and Heidi Ruben / the Appellant self-represented)

Paul John Anderson (1991), of the City of Toronto, brought a motion for an order staying the Order of the Hearing Panel dated August 4, 2009, an order providing all necessary directions for the conduct of the appeal and costs.

By Order dated August 14, 2009 the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The stay pending appeal is granted on the following terms:
    • The stay is to be in effect until the earlier of 90 days from this order or the hearing of the appeal (the "sunset clause"); and
    • The Appellant shall suspend the operation of any existing Compensation Agreement for estate administration services and suspend the operation of ABB Inc. for estate administration services and, refrain from entering into any new Compensation Agreements through ABB Inc. or any other corporation, all pending the hearing of the appeal.
  2. Any proposed amendment to the terms of the order can be brought before the Chair, Appeal Panel, rather than the entire Appeal Panel.
  3. No order is made as to costs.

(Counsel for the Society, Amanda Worley / Counsel for the Lawyer, Douglas Christie)

Joseph Paradiso (1973), of the City of Vaughan, made a motion in writing for an Order extending the stay granted by the Appeal Panel on March 24, 2009 and which was extended thereafter by the Order of June 22, 2009, on consent of the Law Society.

By Order dated August 13, 2009, the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

1. The stay is hereby extended to the scheduled appeal date of October 13, 2009.

2. All other terms of the Order of the Appeal Panel dated March 24th, 2009 and June 22, 2009 shall remain in full force and effect.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / Counsel for the Appellant, Alan S. Price)


Paul John Anderson
(1991), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • acting in a conflict of interest with his client, an estate trustee, by failing to make adequate disclosure and by failing to ensure that the estate trustee received independent legal advice prior to entering into a Compensation Agreement;
  • preferring his own interests to the interests of the estate trustee,
    • by making an unauthorized payment of $45,571.38 from the estate to his company pursuant to the Compensation Agreement, leaving his client liable to the estate beneficiaries for the quantum and timing of the payment; and
    • by including his and his law clerk's time for performing executor work in his two legal accounts, and then paying his firm $18,546.32 and $1,765.50 from the estate, leaving his client liable to the estate beneficiaries for any duplication of those services under the Compensation Agreement.
  • withdrawing $10,700 from trust on account of his legal bill for the estate trustee, without ensuring that he had earned the fees and delivered an account; and
  • failing to maintain proper books and records by failing to include the estate bank account in his monthly trust reconciliations for his law practice.

By Decision and Order dated August 4, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for seven months.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay $50,000 as costs to the Law Society within three months of the date of release of this order.
  3. This Order shall become effective 10 days from the date of its release.

(Counsel for the Society, Amanda Worley and Susan Heakes / Counsel for the Lawyer, Brian P. Bellmore)

David Harris (1975), of the City of Toronto, appeared before the panel for a determination of whether he engaged in professional misconduct.

By Order dated July 29, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer shall pay $15,000 in costs to the Law Society no later than August 31, 2009.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman/ the Lawyer self-represented)

Yaroslav Mikitchook (1975), of the City of Toronto, appealed from the Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated January 20, 2009, asking that the penalty imposed be set aside.

By Order dated July 22, 2009 the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

1. 1. The Appeal is dismissed.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau and Janice Duggan / Counsel for the Appellant, David B. Cousins)

Julia Carmen Ranieri (2001), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to act with integrity and failing to be courteous, civil and act in good faith, in that she assaulted her client by punching her in the nose and pushing her; and
  • failing to report to the Law Society that she was charged with the criminal offence of assault causing bodily harm.

By Decision and Order dated July 22, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Ms. Ranieri is suspended for 10 months as of June 1, 2009. This suspension is to run concurrently with the suspension that is now in force.
  2. The suspension is to continue indefinitely until Ms. Ranieri provides to the Law Society an opinion, satisfactory to the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society, from a mental health professional acceptable to the Law Society, stating that she is fit to practise law and able to serve clients, that she presents no danger to clients, and that she is able to exercise self-governance so that members of the public are not endangered.
  3. Ms. Ranieri is also ordered to pay costs in the amount of $5,000. Payment shall be made within 18 months of her return to practice.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Steven James Vano (1988), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to promptly notify his estate trustee client of the receipt of estate funds without being satisfied that the estate trustee client was aware that such funds had come into his custody;
  • failing to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of his estate trustee client, to the standard of a competent lawyer, by failing to account to his estate trustee client for funds received on behalf of the estate and by failing to render an account to his estate trustee client for amounts charged as fees;
  • failing to be honest and candid when advising his estate trustee client, by failing to disclose to his estate trustee client the continued existence of $60,762.25 in estate funds in his trust account and by misleading his estate trustee client to believe that no further estate funds existed;
  • failing to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession, by negotiating cheques that were made payable to his estate trustee client or to the estate without his estate trustee client's knowledge or authorisation;
  • withdrawing from his trust account, money required for the payment of fees for services performed by him, for which a billing had not been delivered;
  • failing to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession, by providing a false and misleading account to his estate trustee client;
  • depositing funds received from his estate trustee client in respect of fees to his general account prior to completing the requisite legal services;
  • misappropriating funds of his estate trustee client, by transferring funds from his trust account in respect of legal services without the knowledge or authorisation of his estate trustee client and then later rendering an account to that client and accepting payment of that account in respect of the same legal services;
  • failing to maintain at all times sufficient balances on deposit in his trust account to meet all his obligations with respect to money held in trust for clients;
  • failing to maintain financial records to record all money and other property received and disbursed in connection with his professional business;
  • failing to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession, by reporting false and misleading information in his Member's Annual Reports and by producing false accounting records to the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated July 22, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The licence of Steven James Vano to practise law in the Province of Ontario is revoked.
  2. The Law Society is awarded costs in the amount of $25,000.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / Counsel for the Lawyer (one hearing day only), Brian A. Diamond)

Jack Stephen Lambert (1973), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for

  • failing to maintain complete books and records for his trust account for the period from at least on or about April 1, 2005 until the account was closed on or about September 30, 2005; and
  • failing to maintain complete books and records for his trust account for the period from August 1, 2007 to the present.

By Decision and Order dated July 15, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. The Lawyer shall participate in a practice review in accordance with s.42 of the Law Society Act, at his own expense, up to a maximum of $1,500. The Lawyer shall pay these costs within two (2) years of his return to practicing status after the conclusion of his current administrative suspension.
  3. The Lawyer shall obtain a date for a practice reviewer to attend at his office and ensure that the attendance takes place within six (6) months of his return to practicing status after the conclusion of his current administrative suspension.
  4. The Lawyer shall cooperate with the practice reviewer and implement forthwith any recommendations made as a result of the practice review. The Lawyer 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 Lawyer has implemented the recommendations in the first practice review.
  5. For a period of two (2) years from the date of his return to practicing status after the conclusion of his current administrative suspension, the Lawyer shall provide to the Monitoring and Enforcement Department of the Law Society on a monthly basis, by no later than the 25th of each month, a copy of his monthly trust comparisons, client trust listings, trust reconciliations and trust bank statements.
  6. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1,500 payable within one (1) year of his return to practicing status after the conclusion of his current administrative suspension.
  7. Written reasons with respect to penalty will follow.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / Counsel for the Lawyer, Mark A. Lapowich)

Stephen Alexander Cooper (1992), of the Town of Ajax, appealed from the Hearing Panel's Decision and Order of February 11, 2009, requesting an order 1) setting aside the Hearing Panel's Decision and Order suspending the Appellant for four months and 2) reducing the length of the suspension.

By Decision and Order dated July 13, 2009, the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Appeal is allowed;
  2. The four month suspension imposed by the Hearing Panel is set aside and a penalty of two months and two weeks suspension is substituted;
  3. The remaining two weeks of the suspension commence on July 11, 2009 and conclude on July 24, 2009;
  4. Terms 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Order of the Hearing Panel are not affected by this Appeal and remain in force.

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman/ Counsel for the Appellant, Louis Strezos)

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)

Gregory Edward Brant Castellano (1990), of the City of Guelph, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to:

  • maintain the proper books and records of his law practice;
  • cooperate with a Law Society investigation by failing to produce books and records of his practice, despite requests made by the Society;
  • substantively respond to communications from the Law Society pertaining to four complaints.

By Amended Decision and Order dated June 26, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for two months, commencing ­­­July 10, 2009. The suspension shall then continue indefinitely until the following conditions are met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation (the "Director"):
    1. The Lawyer has demonstrated that he is maintaining books and records in full compliance with the By-Laws made pursuant to the Law Society Act;
    2. The Lawyer has produced to the Law Society the records of his practice that were requested of him by Society Forensic Auditor John Cottrell between August 16, 2007 and February 2, 2009, specifically:
      1. the Lawyer's trust reconciliations from October 2007 to December 2008, and
      2. . a deposit slip to prove that the Lawyer reimbursed his trust account $7,644.44 to cover three client trust ledgers that were overdrawn in January of 2009 (clients M., W. and C.);
    3. The Lawyer has given full representations to the Law Society in relation to the S.L., A.W., E.D. and S.K. complaints no later than July 10, 2009, and;
    4. The Lawyer has provided psychological evidence acceptable to the Director establishing that he is able to attend to the multiple tasks required to practice law, and the Director has notified the Lawyer in writing that she is satisfied therewith.
       
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. Upon his return to practise, and continuing for a period of two years, the Lawyer shall provide to the Monitoring and Enforcement Department of the Law Society, on a monthly basis, by no later than the 20th of each month, a copy of his monthly trust comparison, client trust listing, trust reconciliation and trust bank account statement.
  4. The Lawyer shall fulfil his obligation to pay $1,500 in costs to the Law Society pursuant to the order dated March 9, 2007, and he shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2,000 in relation to this application. The Lawyer shall pay the Society the total costs of $3,500 no later than twelve months after his return to practice. If the Lawyer has not made full payment of the $3,500 by September 10, 2010, he will make application to the Society to amend this order by proposing a reasonable payment schedule.
  5. Upon resuming practice after this suspension, the Lawyer shall participate in a practice review in accordance with s. 42 of the Law Society Act, at his own expense, payable within 12 months thereafter. The Lawyer shall cooperate with the practice reviewer and implement forthwith any recommendations made as a result of the practice review. The Lawyer shall also, at his own expense, payable 12 months thereafter, participate in a second practice review six months after the date of the first practice review, the purpose of which will be to assess the degree to which the Lawyer implemented the recommendations in the first practice review.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Julie Evelyn Amourgis (1971), of the City of Toronto, applied to the Hearing Panel for a variation pursuant to s. 49.42 (1) of the Law Society Act.

By Decision and Order dated June 23, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Order of Convocation, dated January 21, 1999, in the Matter of the Law Society Act and in the Matter of Julie Evelyn Amourgis of the City of Toronto and in the Matter of an Application for Readmission to the Law Society of Upper Canada is discharged.
  2. The Lawyer shall schedule a first practice review and ensure that the review takes place within six months of the date of this Order.
    1. The Lawyer shall co-operate with the first practice review and implement recommendations made as a result of the review;
    2. The Lawyer shall participate co-operatively 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
    3. 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 pay the costs of her participation in both the first and second practice reviews.

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

Walter Wysocky (1981), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to:

  • maintain the proper books and records of his law practice or, in the alternative, failing to cooperate in a timely manner with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce his books and records as requested in Law Society communications;
  • respond to and cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce information and documentation requested with regard to three complaints.

By Decision and Order dated June 23, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for six months, commencing at the conclusion of his administrative suspension, and continuing indefinitely thereafter until the following conditions are met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation:
    1. The Lawyer has demonstrated that he is maintaining all of his books and records, starting from October 2006, in full compliance with By-Law 9 (made under s. 62 of the Law Society Act);
    2. The Lawyer has provided a complete response to the complaint of C.Y. including providing requested documentation, as requested in telephone calls dated August 12, 2008 and October 28, 2008 and in letters dated July 11, 2008, August 27, 2008, and February 13, 2009, as set out in LCN10/09;
    3. The Lawyer has provided a complete response to the complaint of M.J., including providing requested documentation, as requested in telephone calls dated August 22, 2008, August 25, 2008, and October 28, 2008, in an email dated August 26, 2008, and in letters dated September 15, 2008 and February 13, 2009, as set out in LCN10/09; and
    4. The Lawyer has provided a complete response to the complaint of L.V.H., including providing requested documentation, as requested in letters dated November 17, 2008, December 18, 2008, and January 28, 2009, as set out in LCN23/09.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $9000 within 18 months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 2% per annum thereafter.

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / the Lawyer was not present and not represented)

Joseph Paradiso (1973), of the City of Vaughan, made a motion in writing for an Order extending the stay granted by the Appeal Panel on March 24, 2009, on consent of the Law Society.

By Order dated June 22, 2009, the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The stay is hereby extended to the earlier of the date of hearing of the Appeal or August 31st, 2009.
  2. All other terms of the Order of the Appeal Panel dated March 24th, 2009 remain in full force and effect.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / Counsel for the Appellant, Alan S. Price)

Rita Anne Hartmann (1975), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • knowingly assisting a bankrupt lawyer by facilitating his operation of a mixed trust account; and
  • failing to act with integrity when she misled the Law Society by filing false Members' Annual Reports for the years 2003 and 2004.

By Decision and Order dated June 18, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for two months, commencing immediately.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs in the amount of $1000 with 12 months to pay.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / Counsel for the Lawyer, Louis Strezos)

Colin Laverne Campbell (1972), of the Town of Oakville, requested an adjournment of the hearing of the Notice of Application dated March 26, 2009.

By Order dated June 11, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The hearing date of June 15, 2009 shall be vacated.
  2. The matter shall be adjourned for a further case telephone conference, which I will conduct on Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
  3. A condition of this adjournment is that until the resolution of this matter or further Order of the Hearing Panel, the Lawyer shall be indefinitely suspended from this date.

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / Counsel for the Lawyer, Brian N. Radnoff)

 

Robert Allan Horwood (1974), of the City of Mississauga, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to:

  • substantively respond to communications from the Law Society;
  • comply with his undertaking to the Law Society to reply promptly to all communications to the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated June 9, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence is revoked.

(Counsel for the Society, Jan Parnega / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

David Grant Isaac (1974), of the City of Mississauga, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming for:

 

  • failing to fulfill his obligations as estate trustee of a specified estate in a timely way;
  • committing conduct unbecoming a person licensed to practise law in Ontario as a barrister and solicitor by failing to fulfill his obligations as estate trustee of another specified estate in a timely way;
  • with regard to two other specified estates, failing to serve his client, the estate trustees by:
    • failing to prepare and render his legal account for services rendered to date in both estates in a timely manner; and
    • failing to send a final reporting letter and accounting to the estate trustees of one of the estates in a timely manner.
  • failing to produce the books and records of his law practice in relation to three estates;
  • failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation by failing to produce the complete client files of three estates, despite requests that you do so;
  • breaching an Undertaking given to the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated June 2, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. By August 1, 2009, the Lawyer shall produce to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society of Upper Canada (the Director) the complete client files of the Estates of JH, HJT, and MEE.
  3. By August 1, 2009, the Lawyer shall produce to the satisfaction of the Director the client trust ledgers from at least the year 2000 up to and current as of the date of this Order.
  4. The Lawyer shall pay costs in the amount of $17,000.00 within 17 months of the date of this Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / Counsel for the Lawyer, Jason R. Cherniak and Frank E. Genesee)

Charles Arthur Galloway (1962), of the City of Niagara Falls. On June 1, 2009, the Notice of Application dated September 13, 2007 was withdrawn at the request of counsel for the Law Society.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / the Lawyer was not present and not represented)

Jaroslaw Miasek (2002), of the City of Oakville, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond to communications from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated May 22, 2009, 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 $500, within 90 days of the date of this Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Craig Matthew Mundy (1999), of the City of Kingston, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to respond promptly and completely to communications from the Investigations Department of the Law Society, including two letters and a phone call.
  • failing to maintain complete books and records for a specified period.

By Decision and Order dated May 22, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for one month, commencing immediately, and continuing indefinitely until the following condition is met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation:
    1. The Lawyer has demonstrated that his books and records, including but not necessarily limited to, his general account books and records, are up to date and in compliance with the Law Society's By-Laws, or, the Lawyer has demonstrated that such compliance is no longer possible.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall reimburse the Law Society for the reconstruction of his trust records, in the amount of $2,745, payable within one year following his return to practice.
  4. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society, in the amount of $500, payable within one year following his return to practice.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Robert Kendrick MacFarlane (1984), of the City of Mississauga, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to cooperate with the Law Society's Spot Auditor's attempts to schedule and conduct an audit of his practice;
  • for two specified periods, failing to respond to the Law Society's communications;
  • failing to maintain books and records for his practice, or, in the alternative, failing to cooperate with the Law Society's requests for his books and records; and
  • misappropriating the sum of approximately $48,000 belonging to his client.

By Decision and Order dated May 19, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence to practise law is revoked.
  2. The Lawyer will repay the sum of $52,422.33, within five years of the date of this order, to the Compensation Fund.
  3. The Lawyer will pay the Society its costs in the amount of $5,000 within one year of the date of this order.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Ioannis Vamvakidis (1994), of the Town of Vaughan, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to serve clients by failing to report on four transactions;
  • failing to serve a client by:
    • failing to register the lender's mortgage in a timely manner:
    • failing to disclose that the client's mortgage would be postponed in favour of a borrower client; and
    • allowing a subsequent mortgage to take priority over the lender's mortgage.
  • personally guaranteeing a client's mortgage on two occasions;
  • acting for the borrower in circumstances were there was a conflict of interest;
  • acting for both the borrower and lender, and for the borrower on a second mortgage on the borrower's home in circumstances were there was a conflict of interest;
  • when he first became aware, and then when he knew, that his client had not agreed that her mortgage remain unregistered against another client's property, he failed to give prompt notice to his insurer of circumstances which he may reasonably have expected to give rise to a claim.

    By Decision and Order dated May 13, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:
  1. The Lawyer Licensee is reprimanded.
  2. The Lawyer Licensee shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $5,000 within 12 months.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes)

Walter Wysocky (1981), of the City of Toronto, requested an adjournment of the hearing of the Notice of Application dated March 24, 2009.

By Order dated May 13, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Mr. Wysocky shall execute a written undertaking, in a form agreed to by the parties, failing which Mr. Banack may be spoken to, that the Lawyer will not practise law while this Application and Application LCN23/09 remain unresolved.
  2. This Application is adjourned, peremptory to both parties until 9:30 a.m. on June 23, 2009, to be heard together with Notice of Application LCN23/09, the parties having confirmed their availability to proceed as indicated with their witnesses in attendance.

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

UNDER APPEAL
Myles Frederick McLellan
(1980), of the Town of Innisfil, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • misappropriating a total of approximately $423,500 of trust funds belonging to four sets of clients;
  • two individuals invested $20,000 in a company in which he had a substantial interest; without him ensuring that their interests were fully protected or ensuring that they obtained independent legal representation; and
  • misleading the Law Society, when he stated that a specified individual was an associate of his firm.

By Decision and Order dated May 12, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence to practise law is revoked.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / Counsel for the Lawyer, William Trudell and Mark A. Lapowich)

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)

Steven Randy Solway (1988), of the City of Cincinnati, of the State of Ohio. On hearing the adjournment request and submissions of the Law Society,

By Order dated May 11, 2009, the Hearings Management Tribunal ordered as follows:

  1. This matter is adjourned to December 14, 2009 on the condition that:
    1. the Lawyer's status be changed to 1H; and
    2. the Lawyer is not to resume the practice of law until such time as he demonstrates his capacity to practise law by way of medical evidence.

(Counsel for the Society, Jan Parnega / Counsel for the Lawyer, Peter C. Wardle and Juda Strawczynski)

Robin Leigh Edwards (2005), of the City of Hamilton, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct with respect to two complaints, for failing to respond to, and cooperate with, a Law Society investigation in a timely manner by failing to produce information and documentation requested.

By Decision and Order dated May 1, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. 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 four months;
    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.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1000 within two months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 3% per annum thereafter.

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / Counsel for the Lawyer, Dermot P. Nolan)

Steven Gary Kaminker (1986), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to competently serve his client by:
    • failing to adequately communicate with the client about the status of the client's matter;
    • failing to account to the client until the Law Society intervened; and
    • failing to diligently advance the client's case.
  • failing to cooperate with the Law Society's investigation by failing to provide a substantive response to a complaint and by failing to provide access to his books and records; and
  • failing to respond promptly to communications by Law Society staff.

By Decision and Order dated April 28, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer Licensee is suspended for 6 months, commencing at the conclusion of his current disciplinary and administrative suspensions, and continuing indefinitely until the Lawyer Licensee has provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation, the books and records of his practice requested of him in Mr. Grant's letter dated April 17, 2008.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer Licensee shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $3,000 within one year of the resumption of the Licensee's practice, but no later than April 28, 2012 if the Lawyer Licensee has not resumed practice by that time.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Julia Carmen Ranieri (2001), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to serve her client, an estate, in the following manner:
    • failing to administer the estate in a timely manner,
    • failing to follow the estate trustees' instructions to obtain written consent for the disbursement of estate funds, and
    • failing to obtain instructions from and advise the estate trustees with respect to steps taken in litigation commenced against the estate;
  • failing to act with integrity and failing to be courteous, civil and act in good faith by attempting to avoid or disrupt service of a Statement of Claim on her by a process server;
  • acting in a conflict of interest by:
    • continuing to act for an individual in her personal capacity and as estate trustee and the estate in defending litigation brought against the estate, the individual, and herself, when the interests of the defendants were not aligned,
    • preferring her own interests to the interests of her client, the estate, by attempting to have a claim against her dismissed, in order to avoid personal liability to the detriment of the estate and the individual personally;
  • failing to co-operate with a Law Society investigation, by failing to produce the complete client file regarding the estate;
  • failing to account for $38,624.16 in estate monies received in trust on behalf of the estate;
  • withdrawing trust funds held on behalf of her client, the estate, totalling $21,520.95 in payment of her legal fees, without delivering an account;
  • failing to account for, or in the alternative, mishandling $4,353.13 in trust funds received on behalf of the estate;
  • failing to respond in a timely or substantive manner to correspondence from another solicitor;
  • failing to act in a competent manner by, while acting for the vendor on the sale of a property, failing to know the substantive law and procedure for the area of law in which she practised;
  • failing to co-operate with a Law Society investigation, by failing to produce the complete client file regarding the sale of a property;
  • acting without integrity, by attempting to avoid or disrupt service of a Statement of Claim on her by the purchaser in the above transaction.

By Decision and Order dated April 27, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for six months, commencing the date of this Order, and continuing indefinitely until the Lawyer provides to the Law Society, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation, the following:
    1. A full accounting of all receipts and disbursements in connection with the Estate of Harindar Aulach;
    2. A statement of account for legal fees in respect of services rendered in connection with the Estate of Harindar Aulach;
    3. A statement of executor's compensation in respect of services rendered in connection with the Estate of Harindar Aulach; and
    4. A written update as to the status of the administration of the Estate of Harindar Aulach.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall participate in a focused practice review which is to be conducted by a lawyer with experience in the areas of Real Estate and Wills and Estates in accordance with s. 42 of the Law Society Act, at her own expense, 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 Lawyer's return to the practice of law, or as soon as Practice Review advises the Lawyer of the availability of a suitable practice reviewer, failing which the Lawyer shall be suspended indefinitely until the review takes place;
    2. The Lawyer shall co-operate with the first practice review and implement forthwith the recommendations made as a result of the review;
    3. The Lawyer shall participate in a second practice review, the purpose of which will be to assess the degree to which the Lawyer implemented the 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, or as soon as Practice Review advises the Lawyer of the availability of a suitable practice reviewer, failing which the Lawyer shall be indefinitely suspended until the second review takes place.
  4. Commencing at the end of the suspension period, and continuing for a period of two years, the Lawyer shall be employed by another lawyer, or practise in association with another lawyer, who agrees to supervise the practice of the Lawyer.
  5. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $10,000 within 12 months of the date of the Lawyer's return to practice, or if the Lawyer is unable to pay those costs within 12 months of the date of her return to practice, she can apply in writing to the Director of Professional Regulation for an extension of time.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / the Lawyer self-represented)

Antonios Karalis (2005), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society brought a motion for an order granting an interlocutory suspension of the licence of the Lawyer pending the completion of the conduct application anticipated in this matter, or the closing of the four open investigations into the Lawyer's conduct and/or the open investigation into the Lawyer's capacity, and for other relief set out in the Notice of Motion dated April 16, 2009.

By Order dated April 24, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Commencing on the date of this Order, and continuing until such time as this motion is disposed of on its merits, or until such further order of the Hearing Panel, the license of the Lawyer is suspended on an interim interlocutory basis;
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order;
  3. The Lawyer shall serve and file any material on which he intends to rely in response to this motion on or before June 30, 2009;
  4. This motion is adjourned to be heard on such other date as may be set by the Tribunals Office and, if no date is set by July 6, 2009, then this matter shall be spoken to on that date at the Hearings Management Tribunal.

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes)

Bradly Johnston Vance (1985), of the Town of Whitby, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to substantively respond to and cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce information and documentation requested;
  • breaching conflict of interest rules in a real estate transaction involving the sale of real property when he acted on the transaction for the vendor, lender, purchaser on title and for various beneficial owners, including himself;
  • failing to serve his lender client when he failed to inform the client that a second mortgage existed on a property, thus failing to follow the client's express instructions to confirm that there was no secondary financing on the transaction;
  • failing to meaningfully respond to letters and telephone communications from two lawyers; and for,
  • failing to serve a vendor client by failing:
    • to respond to the client's telephone communications;
    • to report in a timely manner; and by failing,
    • to account in a timely manner regarding the proceeds of sale.

By Decision and Order dated April 21, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for six months, commencing at the conclusion of his current discipline suspension and any administrative suspensions.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall participate in a practice review at his own expense up to a maximum amount of $1,500, 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 his return to practice;
    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 pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $10,000 within two years of the date of his return to practice, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 3% per annum thereafter.

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

Kristine Robinson-Limanek, of the City of Windsor. The Applicant applied to the Hearing Panel for a Class L1 licence.

By Decision and Order dated April 20, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Law Society shall issue to the Applicant a Class L1 licence.
  2. There shall be no costs of this application.

(Counsel for the Society, Susan Heakes / Counsel for the Applicant, David McNevin)


Edward Lawrence Stone
(1960), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act suspending the licence of Edward Lawrence Stone, until such time as a Conduct Application can be heard and a final order on the merits of the proceeding is made by a Hearing Panel of the Law Society, and for other relief as set out in the Notice of Motion dated April 3, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated April 16, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Commencing on the date of this Order, and continuing until May 18, 2009, the licence of 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 May 18, 2009, then the interim interlocutory suspension of the licence 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 May 18, 2009, then commencing on May 19, 2009 the licence of the Lawyer is suspended on a final interlocutory basis pending a final order by a Hearing Panel after the hearing of an application on its merits pertaining to mortgage fraud cases 2006 22468, 2006 24187, and 2008-68593, 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 forthwith sign a Direction, in a form provided by the Law Society, authorizing the Law Society to take all steps necessary to cancel the Lawyer's Teranet account and access while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  6. In view of the fact that the Lawyer's ability to earn an income will be severely affected by this Order, there will be no costs awarded.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / the Lawyer was present and self-represented)

Joyce Theresa Choi-Pik Chan (1989), of the City of Toronto, was not found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • assisting another lawyer in offering services to a prospective client using means that amounted to coercion, duress, or harassment, or that took advantage of the prospective client, or that otherwise brought the profession or the administration of justice into disrepute; and
  • knowing that her fees would be included in the accounts rendered by the other lawyer to his client, charging an amount for fees and disbursements that was not fair and reasonable.

By Decision and Order dated April 15, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Application is dismissed.

(Counsel for the Society, Deborah McPhadden and Janice Duggan / the Lawyer self-represented)  

Najeeb Ali Nawab (2002), of the City of Brampton, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to cooperate with Law Society investigations into his conduct; and for
  • failing to maintain complete books and records.

By Decision and Order dated April 15, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Effective immediately, the Lawyer's license 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 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 $8,000, payable within 90 days of the date of this Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / the Lawyer was not present and not represented)

Martin King Ian Rumack (1973), of the City of Toronto, applied for an Order varying the Order of Convocation dated April 24, 1997.

By Decision and Order dated April 15, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 49.42(1) of the Act, Conditions 1 and 2 attached to Convocation's Order dated April 24, 1997, are discharged and set aside.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / Counsel for the Lawyer, Fred Tayar)

Brian Joseph Grys (1986), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to maintain his books and records from 2003;
  • failing to respond to and co-operate with a spot audit by failing to produce information and documents requested in seven letters from Law Society staff; and
  • failing to respond to and co-operate with an investigation by failing to produce information and documents requested in three letters, and despite a voice mail message from a Law Society Complaints Resolution Officer.

By Decision and Order dated April 9, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for 25 days commencing from the later of two days after the date of the deemed service of this order upon the Lawyer or April 15, 2009 and continuing indefinitely until the following conditions have been met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation:
    1. The Lawyer has brought all of his books and records for the period from December 2005 to the present into full compliance with By-Law 9 (formerly By-Laws 18 and 19) made under s. 62 of the Law Society Act; and
    2. The Lawyer has produced all of the documents and books and records pertaining to the Law Society spot audit and complaints resolution investigation as requested in the letters and telephone communication set out in particulars 2 and 3 of the Notice of Application.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. For a period of two years from the date of his return to practice, the Lawyer shall provide to the Monitoring and Enforcement Department of the Law Society on a monthly basis, by no later than the 25th of the following month, a copy of his monthly trust comparisons, client trust listings, trust reconciliations and trust bank statements.
  4. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $3,000 within three months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 6% per annum thereafter.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Lisa Edna Reiten (1997), of the City of Windsor, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing:

  • to immediately pay money received in trust into a designated trust account and withdrawing money from the account into which the money was paid when the necessary preconditions had not been met;
  • to directly supervise her staff after delegating tasks relating to the purchase of title insurance policies with the result that approximately 454 title insurance policies were not purchased when she reported to her client that they had been;
  • to maintain the books and records of her practice;
  • to serve her clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by failing:
    • to send a reporting letter, despite numerous requests from a client;
    • to forward money in a timely fashion, received on behalf of the purchasers, to a client; by failing to return telephone messages from the client, and by failing to notify the client that her office had changed location; and by failing,
    • to report to two clients on a specified property purchase; by failing to account to the two clients; and by failing to provide them with a promised refund.
  • to fulfil Undertakings to three purchasers and their solicitors;
  • to fulfil a financial obligation incurred in the course of her practice; and,
  • for permitting a trust shortage in two mixed trust accounts.

By Decision and Order dated April 1, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence to practise law be suspended for a period of two years and that such suspension be deemed to have been served from December 6, 2005 until December 5, 2007.
  2. Insofar as the Lawyer's licence is currently under administrative suspension, that the Lawyer shall, at the direction of the Law Society, complete in their entirety the Law Society's Continuing Legal Education programs entitled 'Financial Records and Bookkeeping for Legal Professionals' and 'Opening Your Practice' and certify in writing to the Director of Professional Regulation that she has done so prior to recommencing the practice of law.
  3. If the Lawyer's licence is at any time not administratively suspended prior to complying with paragraph 2, her licence shall be, by this Order, suspended until such time as she has complied with paragraph 2.
  4. If the Lawyer resumes the practice of law, then for the first two years she will practise as an employee where the discharge of her obligations is overseen by another lawyer licensee in good standing.
  5. The Lawyer shall participate in Practice Review in accordance with s. 42 of the Law Society Act at her own expense and shall obtain a date for a practice reviewer to attend at her office and ensure that such attendance takes place within twelve months of her return to practice. The Lawyer shall cooperate fully with the practice reviewer and implement forthwith any recommendations made as a result of the Practice Review. The Lawyer shall also participate in a second Practice Review six months after the date of the first Practice Review, the purpose of which will be to assess the degree to which the Lawyer has implemented the recommendations of the first Practice Review.

(Counsel for the Society, Scott Clarke / Counsel for the Lawyer, Gregory Lafontaine)

Christopher Gordon Cox (1980), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond to communications from the Law Society regarding a complaint.

By Decision and Order dated March 27, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for one month, to begin following the end of the two current administrative suspensions.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2,000 payable within six months following the end of the latest suspension to be completed and interest of 4% per annum to accrue from that date on any unpaid balance.
  3. The Lawyer shall abide by the Guidelines for suspended lawyers.

(Counsel for the Society Elizabeth Parenteau / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Chad Roy Comfort (2003), of the Village of Jordan, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to maintain the books and records of his practice;
  • failing to produce all the books and records of his practice despite requests from the Law Society;
  • failing to act with integrity when he misled the Law Society investigator by advising that he had not used his Scotia Bank Trust Account in accordance with his agreement not to do so, when such was not the case;
  • failing to fully and promptly respond to written and/or telephone communications from the Law Society;
  • failing to serve clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by failing to pay two sets of clients' creditors in a timely way and by failing to purchase title insurance, as instructed by another set of clients;
  • misleading clients by:
    • advising a set of clients that funds had been paid out to their creditors when such was not the case;
    • advising a client that a joint overdraft account had been paid out when such was not the case; and by,
    • failing to disclose to a set of clients that he had not purchased title insurance, despite their earlier instructions to the contrary;
  • preferring the interests of one client over another by releasing a share of the proceeds from the matrimonial home to the client in circumstances where he was receiving conflicting instructions as between the clients regarding the release of the funds;
  • failing to respond to communications from two lawyers;
  • misleading two lawyers;
  • while acting in the refinancing of a property, failing to serve his clients by failing:
    • to ensure that the new mortgagee was given a first mortgage;
    • to register the postponement of a first mortgage for approximately 18 months; and
    • by failing to secure a first mortgage, as promised;
  • while acting in the refinancing of another property, failing to serve his clients by failing:
    • to ensure that the new mortgagees were given first, second, and third mortgages, respectively;
    • to ensure that the mortgage in favour of a named individual was legally discharged prior to or at the time of the sale;
    • by paying a named individual in exchange for signed mortgage discharge papers after the sale had closed and in circumstances where he knew there were insufficient funds to pay out all the mortgagees; and
    • by failing to secure first, second, and third mortgages, respectively, as promised;
  • failing to act with integrity by falsifying a signature on mortgage discharge papers which he subsequently had registered on the property's title;
  • breaching a promise to pay a mortgagee in exchange for the registration of her mortgage discharge;
  • preferring his own interests over those of clients by continuing to act as solicitor despite his failure to purchase title insurance and his failure to disclose that fact to the clients;
  • failing to report a potential claim against him to LAWPRO, despite being invited by LAWPRO to report the matter;
  • failing to respond to the Law Society's requests for information regarding three matters;
  • breaching an undertaking to retain funds held in trust by disbursing funds without a court order directing such payment or an agreement from the parties regarding the disbursement;
  • mishandling funds in the amount of $336,823.20, more or less;
  • failing to act with integrity when he or someone at his direction falsified a cheque;
  • failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation regarding an estate matter;

and was found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming for:

  • pleading guilty to and being convicted of Breach of Trust, contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada, for forging the signature of Justice R. L. Budgell, of the Ontario Court of Justice, on a Divorce Order.

By Decision and Order dated March 26, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence is revoked.
  2. Costs in the amount of $37,750 are awarded to the Law Society, payable only as a condition of readmission, should the Lawyer apply for readmission.
  3. A further condition of readmission will be that the Lawyer shall reimburse the Compensation Fund for the amount paid to the Nicholas Estate of approximately $109,000 less the amount collected by the Law Society from the Lawyer's trust accounts.

(Counsel for the Society, Suzanne Jarvie / the Lawyer was present for part of the hearing and was assisted by Duty Counsel for part of the hearing)

Edmund Manna-Atta Kwaw (1996), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act suspending the rights and privileges of the Lawyer until such time as a Conduct Application can be heard and a final order on the merits of the proceeding is made by a Hearing Panel and for other relief as set out in the Notice of Motion dated March 18, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated March 25, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Commencing on the date of this Order, the Lawyer is suspended on an interim interlocutory basis under s. 49.27.
  2. This interim interlocutory Order shall become a final interlocutory Order 30 days after service of this interim interlocutory order on the Lawyer in the event that the Lawyer within that time, does not seek, or is unsuccessful in seeking, to vary the order on the basis of fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances. The interim interlocutory suspension of the Lawyer shall continue until the determination of that motion to vary by a Hearing Panel.
  3. If the Proceedings Authorization Committee does not issue a conduct application against the Lawyer, in respect of the facts set out herein by December 31, 2009, this Order shall be forthwith vacated.
  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. Costs of this motion to be decided in the event.

(Counsel for the Society, Scott Clarke / the Lawyer self-represented)

Arnie Isaac Goldstein (1972), of the Town of Richmond Hill, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and by order of the Hearing Panel dated December 11, 2008 his licence to practise law was revoked. The Law Society requested costs of the hearing.

By Order dated March 24, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Costs fixed at $60,000 shall be paid by the Lawyer to the Law Society by December 31, 2009.

(Counsel for the Society, Susan Bryson / Counsel for the Lawyer, Louis Strezos)

Joseph Paradiso (1973), of the City of Vaughan. By Notice of Motion dated March 17, 2009, the Lawyer asked for a stay of the Order of revocation issued by the Hearing Panel on March 5, 2009.

By Order dated March 24, 2009, the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The stay is granted on terms:
    (a) The appeal is to be heard within 90 days, subject to the availability of a panel to hear it.
    (b) The stay is to last until the earlier of 90 days, or the hearing of the appeal.
    (c) The panel hearing the appeal may continue the stay if they see fit.
    (d) Any variation in this Order that either party requires may be applied for to the Chair of the Appeal Panel on reasonable notice.
    (e) The stay is not to commence until Mr. Paradiso obtains a co-signer for his trust account who is satisfactory to the Law Society of Upper Canada under arrangements that also are satisfactory to them.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / Counsel for the Appellant, Alan S. Price)

Frank Fazio (1988), of the City of Sarnia, appealed from the Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated July 16, 2008, asking that the suspension of nine months be set aside and the length of the suspension reduced.

By Order dated March 23, 2009, the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Appeal is allowed.
  2. The penalty imposed by the Hearing Panel is set aside and a penalty of six months suspension is substituted.
  3. That suspension is effective as of December 16, 2008.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / Counsel for the Appellant, Mark Lapowich)

Sherif Ragai Ashamalla, of the Town of Ajax, a lawyer applicant, applied for a Class L1 licence.

By Decision and Order dated March 20, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer Applicant is entitled to be called to the Bar.

(Counsel for the Society, Susan Heakes / Counsel for the Lawyer Applicant, Malgorzata Bojanowska and Marie Henein)

Ricardo Max Aguirre (1999), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct, with respect to nine complainants:

  • with respect to eight clients:
    • receiving retainer monies in trust and failing to pay the retainer monies into an account designated as a trust account
    • failing to render an account for retainer monies received;
  • writing a personal cheque to one client as reimbursement for trust monies, which cheque was rejected by the bank;
  • misappropriating a total of $7,825, more or less, from seven of the complainants
  • misleading four clients with respect to the status of work that he was retained to do, including:
    • immigration applications, an application for a work permit and an application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds;
  • failing to serve his clients by:
    • with respect to five clients, failing to respond to telephone and written communications
    • with respect to four clients, failing to keep them apprised of the status of their matters
    • with respect to three clients, failing to complete the work that he was retained to do
    • with respect to four clients, failing to follow their instructions
    • failing to advise one client that he was administratively suspended and failing to arrange for alternate counsel to complete the work in progress
    • failing to communicate with one client;
  • failing to maintain the books and records of his law practice; and
  • failing to fulfill an Acknowledgement that he signed to the Society's Investigations and Spot Audit Program to freeze his existing co-mingled account and to open a new mixed trust account and deposit all new trust funds into this account.

By Decision and Order dated March 16, 2009,* the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is permitted to surrender his licence, provided that he signs an undertaking, satisfactory to the Law Society, that he will not apply to the Law Society either to be readmitted as a barrister and solicitor or to be licensed as a paralegal.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay to the Compensation Fund the sum of $4,150.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $15,000, in addition to the costs award of April 28, 2008.

(Counsel for the Society, Susan Heakes and Jan Parnega / Counsel for the Lawyer, Nicholas A. Xynnis)

*By Amended Decision and Order dated March 16, 2009 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is permitted to surrender his licence, provided that he signs an undertaking, satisfactory to the Law Society, that he will not apply to the Law Society either to be readmitted as a barrister and solicitor or to be licensed as a paralegal (the "Undertaking"). The Undertaking must be executed by the Lawyer and returned to the Law Society within 30 days of delivery to counsel for the Lawyer. In the event that the Lawyer does not sign the Undertaking and return it to the Law Society, the Lawyer's licence shall be immediately revoked.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay to the Compensation Fund the sum of $4,150.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $15,000, in addition to the costs award of April 28, 2008.

Craig Matthew Mundy (1999), of the City of Kingston. On reading the Notice of Application, dated November 10, 2008, and on hearing the submissions of the parties:

By Order dated March 13, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows, on consent of the parties:

  1. The hearing is adjourned to May 22, 2009.
  2. The Lawyer is suspended from the practice of law, commencing immediately, and continuing until the final disposition of this matter or further Order of the Hearing Panel.
  3. 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.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / the Lawyer self-represented)

Paulos Luizos (1998), of the City of Toronto. By Notice of Motion dated February 20, 2008, the Lawyer asked for an order staying the Order of the Hearing Panel dated January 15, 2009, pending the appeal of said Order.

By Order dated March 12, 2009, the Appeals Management Tribunal ordered as follows:

  1. The Application for stay is allowed.
  2. The suspension is stayed pending the conclusion of the hearing of the Appeal herein or such further order of the Appeal Panel or Appeals Management Tribunal.
  3. The Appeal is to be pursued with due diligence.
  4. The Appeal is to be perfected within 60 days of today's date, subject to an application to the Appeal Management Tribunal for an extension if necessary.

(Counsel for the Society, Jan Parnega / the Appellant self-represented)

Gidron Macdonald O'Carrol Cadogan (1997), of the City of Toronto, was found to be and to have been incapacitated and incapable of meeting his obligations as a lawyer licensee.

By Decision and Order dated March 10, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. It is ordered that the Lawyer's rights and privileges as a member of the Law Society be suspended, effective immediately. The Lawyer's suspension shall continue until such time as the Director is satisfied, on appropriate psychiatric evidence, that the Lawyer is no longer incapacitated within the meaning of section 37 of the Law Society Act.
  2. There shall be no costs of this matter.

(Counsel for the Society, Susan Heakes / Counsel for the Lawyer, William Trudell)

Joseph Paradiso (1973), of the City of Vaughan, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • disbursing trust funds held on behalf of his client, from his trust account, in contravention of a signed direction and to the detriment of an unrepresented party;
  • misleading the Law Society when he asserted in a letter that he disbursed the above-noted trust funds in accordance with a signed direction, directing him to disburse the funds to a named party, when such direction was never signed and does not exist.

By Decision and Order dated March 5, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence to practise law is revoked.

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Lawyer, Alan S. Price)

George Nelson Carter (1979), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to maintain complete books and records for his practice;
  • with respect to the complaint of the Spot Audit Department, failing to cooperate with an investigation and provide a substantive response to correspondence from the Law Society; and
  • with respect to the complaint of the Trustee Services Department, failing to provide a substantive response to correspondence from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated February 27, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for three months, commencing immediately, and continuing indefinitely thereafter until the following conditions are met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation (the "Director"):
    1. With respect to the complaint of the Spot Audit Department, the Lawyer has provided a complete response to Ms. Esmail's letter dated August 21, 2008, including the production of all of the documents requested in that letter;
    2. With respect to the complaint of the Trustee Services Department, the Lawyer has provided a complete response to Ms. Esmail's letter dated September 30, 2008;
    3. The Lawyer has demonstrated that he is maintaining his books and records in full compliance with the By-Laws made under the Law Society Act; and
  2. The Lawyer shall abide by the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise while suspended under this order.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2,000, payable within 120 days of his fulfilling the terms of this Order and upon returning to practicing status.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / the Lawyer was not present and not represented)

Michael Harold Kimberley (1999), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to promptly and substantively respond to and cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce requested information and documentation.

By Decision and Order dated February 27, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Mr. Kimberley shall serve a suspension commencing April 1, 2009 for 30 days, and continuing indefinitely until the records (set out at Exhibit 1, Tab 21) are produced to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society.
  2. Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by Mr. Kimberley to the Law Society of Upper Canada by July 1, 2009.
  3. Mr. Kimberley shall comply with the Law Society's guidelines for suspended lawyers.

(Counsel for the Society, Louise Hurteau / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Aman Maharaj (1996), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to be on guard against being duped into assisting in dishonest or fraudulent conduct by his vendor and purchaser clients, or associated persons, to obtain mortgage funds under false pretences, or when advising clients, in connection with purchase, sale and mortgage transactions on 17 properties (the "Transactions");
  • failing to be honest and candid when advising his lender clients in connection with the Transactions, by failing to disclose material facts to his lender clients;
  • acting or continuing to act for multiple persons in the Transactions, where there was, or was likely to be, a conflicting interest;
  • failing to obtain the lender's informed, or any, consent;
  • abdicating his professional responsibility to his lender clients by failing to supervise non-lawyers who did all, or substantially all, of the work on the Transactions, including matters that required a lawyer's professional skill and judgement;
  • permitting the unauthorized practice of law;
  • failing to care for client property, being the mortgage advances of his lender clients that he held in trust, as a careful and prudent owner would when dealing with like property by signing cheques from the mortgage advances in the Transactions and then abandoning control of the cheques and mortgage advances prior to closing and the registration of the Transfer/Deeds and Charge/Mortgages;
  • failing to serve his lender clients in the Transactions to the standard of a competent lawyer. In particular, he failed:
    • to meet with his purchaser/borrower clients at the time of retainer or prior to closing;
    • to disclose material facts to the lenders;
    • to properly supervise non-lawyers working on the Transactions for which he was professionally responsible, and failed to establish effective controls and procedures within his practice to ensure that the conduct of the Transactions met the required level of competence;
    • to follow the express instructions of his lender clients;
    • to make reasonable inquiries to verify that all credits given to his purchaser clients were in fact either paid by the purchasers or were bona fide;
    • to make reasonable inquiries regarding the Transactions, their purpose, and the many irregular aspects of the Transactions. In the alternative, he failed to disclose the results of such inquiries to his lender clients, to advise of the risks, and to take steps to protect their interests;
  • splitting his fees with a non-lawyer.

By Decision and Order dated February 24, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is permitted to surrender his licence to practise law and resign his membership in the Law Society.
  2. The Lawyer will pay costs of $10,000 within two years of this date.

(Counsel for the Society, Susan Bryson / Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes)

Stephen Alexander Cooper (1989), of the Town of Ajax, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of his client to the standard of a competent lawyer by failing to follow the client's instructions;
  • failing to assume complete professional responsibility for all business entrusted to him and failing to directly supervise staff to whom particular tasks and functions were delegated;
  • failing to be honest and candid when advising his client by misleading the client to believe that he had performed certain tasks he had been instructed by the client to perform personally;
  • failing to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession by permitting his staff to sign his name on documents, including solemn declarations, as if that signature were his own;
  • permitting a non-lawyer mortgage broker to forward documents that the lawyer had not previously reviewed to the lawyer's clients;
  • acting in a matter when there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest without having made disclosure adequate to make an informed decision and obtaining the consent of his two clients; and for
  • failing to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession by counselling two clients to advise the Law Society of Upper Canada of information that was untrue.

By Decision and Order dated February 11, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended from the practice of law for a period of four months as follows:
    1. From and including April 1, 2009 through May 31, 2009.
    2. The Lawyer is permitted to practise law, except as provided in paragraph
      2, from and including June 1, 2009 through July 10, 2009 unless he advises the Law Society in writing that he does not wish to practise during this period or any part thereof, in which case the suspension will continue during this period or part thereof.
    3. From and including July 11, 2009 through September 10, 2009 unless shortened as
      provided in subparagraph 1(ii).
  2. The Lawyer is restricted from practising real estate law from and including April 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009.
  3. 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.
  4. The Lawyer shall participate in a practice review in accordance with s. 42 of the Law Society Act, at his own expense, in accordance with the following terms:
    1. The Lawyer shall schedule a first practice review and ensure that the review takes place within six months of the Lawyer's return to the practice of law, or as soon as Practice Review advises the Lawyer of the availability of a suitable practice reviewer, failing which the Lawyer shall be suspended indefinitely until the review takes place;
    2. The Lawyer shall co-operate with the first practice review and implement
      forthwith the recommendations made as a result of the review;
    3. The Lawyer shall participate in a second practice review, the purpose of which will be to assess the degree to which the Lawyer implemented the recommendations of the first practice review; and
    4. The Lawyer shall ensure that the second practice review takes place within six months of the first practice review, or as soon as Practice Review advises the Lawyer of the availability of a suitable practice reviewer, failing which the Lawyer shall be suspended indefinitely until the second review takes place.
  5. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $7,000 by March 31, 2010, failing which interest will accrue at 4% per annum until the costs are paid.

(Counsel for the Society, Andrea Waltman / Counsel for the Lawyer, Louis Strezos)

Edmund Anthony Clarke (1989), of the City of Toronto. The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory order under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act suspending the rights and privileges of the Lawyer until such time as a Conduct Application can be heard and a final order on the merits of the proceeding is made by a Hearing Panel of the Law Society, and for other relief as set out in the Notice of Motion dated January 28, 2009.

By Decision and Order dated February 5, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. Commencing on the date of this Order, and continuing until March 7, 2009, inclusive, the Lawyer is suspended on an interim interlocutory basis.
  2. If either party files with the Tribunal's Office a motion to tender fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances on or before March 7, 2009, then the interim interlocutory suspension of the Lawyer shall continue until the determination of the motion by this Hearing Panel.
  3. If neither party files a motion on or before March 7, 2009 pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Order, then commencing on March 7, 2009, the Lawyer is suspended on a final interlocutory basis pending a final order by a Hearing Panel after the hearing of an application on its merits pertaining to the following cases currently under investigation by the Law Society: 0002519, 2007-53387, and 2008-70638.
  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, together with post-judgment interest at the rate of 4% per annum within six months of the date of this Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Tanus Rutherford / Counsel for the Lawyer, J. Douglas Crane)

Antonios Karalis (2005), of the City of Toronto, was found, to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a student member for:

  • holding himself out as a lawyer when he was in fact a student member;
  • commissioning an affidavit containing information his client had told him was false;
  • commissioning an affidavit purportedly sworn by his client, but which was in fact not sworn by the client;
  • failing to treat a tribunal with candour by failing to identify himself as a student-at-law and failing to correct the tribunal when referred to as a lawyer;
  • submitting a Certificate of Service Under Articles to the Law Society's articling office knowing that the signature of his principal had been forged;

and to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to respond to two letters written by his client;
  • misleading a Law Society investigator during two separate interviews.

By Decision and Order dated February 4, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for 60 days, commencing on February 26, 2009 up to and including April 26, 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 Practice, [a copy of which was attached to the formal Order], while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2,000 on or before February 4, 2010.

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Lawyer, B. Keyshawn Hyacinth)

Thomas Frank Notzl (1977), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond to communications from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated January 30, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1000 within three months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 4% per annum thereafter.

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

Jean Marc Boissonneault (1983), of the City of Toronto, applied to the Hearing Panel for a variation pursuant to s. 49.42 (1) of the Law Society Act.

By Decision and Order dated January 27, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Order of C. Ruby dated May 28, 2008, shall be varied to provide that upon the Lawyer complying with paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the satisfaction of the Law Society, and upon him meeting all other financial obligations to LAWPRO and the Law Society, the order for costs of $6000 plus interest of 6% shall be payable at the rate of $500 per month commencing three months after his reinstatement from his suspension.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Oladipupo Emeka Ola (2003), of the City of Mississauga, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to maintain the books and records of his law practice.

By Decision and Order dated January 26, 2009,* the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer shall be reprimanded.
  2. The Lawyer must keep his books and records in good condition going forward, as of October 20, 2008.
  3. The Lawyer must be supervised for one year on terms satisfactory to the Director of the Law Society.
  4. The Lawyer shall pay costs of $1,000 to the Law Society. The Lawyer shall have six months to pay.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / Counsel for the Lawyer, Louis Strezos)

*By Amended Decision and Order dated January 26, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. During any period of time that the Lawyer is in private practice, he shall maintain the books and records of his law practice in accordance with By-law 9 made pursuant to the Law Society Act or any applicable successor legislation.
  3. If the Lawyer's practice status with the Law Society remains as a private practice status (defined as a sole practitioner, associate or employee of a law firm or partner in a law firm) the Lawyer shall have in place by July 15, 2009 a supervisor and plan of supervision that have been approved by the Director of Professional Regulation (the "Director"). If the Lawyer requires additional time to obtain the Director's approval of his supervisor and/or plan of supervision, then he may apply in writing to the Director for an extension of time. Once the plan of supervision and supervisor have been approved by the Director, the plan of supervision shall run for one year.
  4. If the Lawyer changes his practice status with the Law Society to a non-private practice status before July 15, 2009, the Lawyer will not be supervised until such future time that he returns to private practice status. In that event, the Lawyer shall have his supervisor and plan of supervision approved by the Director prior to changing his Law Society status to that of a lawyer in private practice. The plan of supervision shall run for one year from the date that the Lawyer changes his status to that of a lawyer in private practice.
  5. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Society in the amount of $1,000 within ten months of the date of the Order.

Winston Gauntlett Mattis (1997), of the City of Brampton, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of unscrupulous clients and third parties and by completely abdicating his professional responsibilities by failing to supervise his real estate practice in connection with the purchase, sale, and mortgage transactions involving 15 properties (the "Transactions");
  • failing to be honest and candid when advising his lender clients in connection with the Transactions and, in particular, in some or all of the Transactions, he failed to disclose material facts, or he misrepresented material facts to his lender clients;
  • acting or continuing to act for multiple parties in the Transactions, where there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest
  • failing to obtain the informed, or any, consent of his lender clients to act also for his vendor clients in the Transaction; and
  • failing to obtain the informed, or any, consent of his vendor clients to act also for his purchaser and lender clients in the Transactions;
  • failing to serve and perform legal services undertaken on behalf of his lender clients to the standard of a competent lawyer, in particular:
    • he failed to disclose material facts or he misrepresented material facts to his lender clients in the Transactions;
    • he failed, in some or all of the Transactions, to follow the express written instructions of his lender client;
    • he disbursed, in some or all of the Transactions, mortgage funds advanced by his lender clients prior to registering a Mortgage on title to secure the financial interests of his lender clients; and
    • he disbursed, in some or all of the Transactions, mortgage funds advanced by his lender clients prior to performing the Execution Searches necessary to the representation of his lender clients; and
    • he failed to make reasonable inquiries into the purpose of the Transactions, the payment of deposits to vendors, and/or the discrepancies or irregularities in each Transaction; alternatively, if he did make such inquiries, he failed to disclose the information to his lender client, advise it of the resulting risks, and take steps to protect the interest of his lender client.

By Decision and Order dated January 20, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The licence of the Lawyer shall be revoked.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $10,000.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Yaroslav Mikitchook (1975), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to serve by:
    • delaying in moving his client's matter forward;
    • failing to complete the work he was retained to do; and
    • failing to keep his client apprised of his matters.
  • with respect to his client's termination of his retainer, failing to:
    • forward his client's file to his successor lawyer despite written requests to do so; and
    • respond to correspondence from his client's successor lawyer.
  • misleading another lawyer by advising that he had filed a motion for default judgement when in fact, he had not;
  • failing to respond to correspondence from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated January 20, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. This order is without derogation from the requirements in paragraph 1 of the Order in CN124/06, dated March 18, 2008, to provide particulars as to paragraph 2 in that Notice of Application, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation ("Director").
  2. The Lawyer is suspended for six months, commencing immediately, and continuing indefinitely thereafter until the Lawyer has provided medical evidence satisfactory to a Panel of the Law Society that the Lawyer is able to practise law according to the standards and Rules of Professional Conduct.
  3. While under suspension, the Lawyer is required to comply with the Law Society's Guidelines for Suspended Lawyers.
  4. Following his suspension, the Lawyer shall not practise law except pursuant to a plan of supervision and under the supervision of another lawyer licensed to practise law in Ontario, both the supervisor and plan of supervision having been approved by the Director prior to his return to practice. The plan of supervision is to continue for a period of five years.
  5. Commencing immediately, the Lawyer shall engage in a course of psychiatric therapy with a psychiatrist or psychologist, as approved by the Director. The psychiatric therapy shall continue until such time as the Lawyer provides medical evidence satisfactory to the Director that the treatment is no longer required.
  6. The Lawyer shall provide to the Law Society every three months, a letter from his treating psychiatrist or psychologist reporting on the Lawyer's prognosis and compliance with treatment. The Lawyer shall authorize his treating psychiatrist or psychologist to make these reports.
  7. In all the circumstances of this case, including what the Panel recognizes as the financial implications of this Order, a nominal order of costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1000.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / Counsel for the Lawyer, David B. Cousins)

Peter Vincent Raytek (1984), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to substantively respond to, and cooperate with, the Law Society's investigation of two complaints by failing to produce requested information and documentation.

By Decision and Order dated January 16, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer shall be reprimanded.
  2. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $3000, to be paid within six months. Interest at the rate of 4% per annum shall apply to any amount not paid within the six months.

(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / Counsel for the Lawyer, Mark Lapowich)

Paulos Luizos (1998), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: breaching an Order of the Hearing Panel by failing to successfully complete four modules of the Private Practice Refresher Program; and failing to substantively respond to communications from the Law Society's Administrative Compliance and Monitoring and Enforcement Departments, including four telephone messages and four letters.

By Decision and Order dated January 15, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for three months beginning January 19, 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 suspended pursuant to this order.
  3. Costs of $1,000 are to be paid by the Lawyer to the Society within 12 months of his return to practice and interest of 6% per annum is to be paid on any amount outstanding after the 12-month period has elapsed.

(Counsel for the Society, Jan Parnega / Counsel for the Lawyer, Nadia Liva)

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)

William Charles Hoskinson (1972), of the City of Waterloo, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with an investigation by failing to produce requested documents and information.

By Decision and Order dated January 9, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer is reprimanded.
  2. The license of the Lawyer is suspended. The suspension will take effect on February 15, 2009. If the lawyer satisfies paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order, the suspension will be deemed to be satisfied. If the conditions are not satisfied, the suspension will continue indefinitely until the conditions are satisfied.
  3. The Lawyer shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, contact the Client Service Centre of the Law Society and disclose, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society, his business contact information. The Lawyer shall, in this regard, disclose the address of the office out of which he practises law and shall not substitute for this information a post office box.
  4. The Lawyer shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, deliver to
    Anita McCann and Stephen McClyment written apologies, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Development and Competence of the Law Society, for having replied with incivility to their investigative inquiries.
  5. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $6,208.03 within six months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at the rate of 4% per annum.

(Counsel for the Society, William Holder / the Lawyer self-represented)

Terry Leon Kirichenko (1983), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to:

  • maintain his books and records.
  • respond to and cooperate with a spot audit by failing to produce information and documents requested by Law Society staff.
  • respond to and cooperate with an investigation by failing to produce information and documents requested by a Law Society investigator.

By Decision and Order dated January 9, 2009, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for 30 days commencing from February 23, 2009, unless the Director of Professional Regulation determines a later date that the suspension shall begin, and continuing indefinitely until the following conditions have been met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation:
    1. The Lawyer has brought all of his books and records for the period from January 2006 to the present into full compliance with By-Law 9 (formerly By-Laws 18 and 19) made under s. 62 of the Law Society Act; and
    2. The Lawyer has produced all of the documents and books and records pertaining to the Law Society's spot audits and investigation as requested in the letters set out in particulars 2 and 3 of the Notice of Application.
  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 suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. For a period of two years from the date of his return to practice, the Lawyer shall provide to the Monitoring and Enforcement Department of the Law Society on a monthly basis, by no later than the 25th of each month, a copy of his monthly trust comparisons, client trust listings, trust reconciliations and trust bank statements.
  4. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $2,000 within six months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 6% per annum thereafter.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan / the Lawyer self-represented)

Arnie Isaac Goldstein (1972), of the Town of Richmond Hill, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • participating in or knowingly assisting in dishonest or fraudulent conduct to obtain mortgage funds under false pretences in connection with purchase, sale, and mortgage transactions ("Transactions") relating to specified properties.
  • failing to be honest and candid when advising his lender clients in connection with the Transactions by failing to disclose or misrepresenting material facts to his lender clients.
  • acting or continuing to act for multiple persons in each Transaction, where there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest.
  • failing to obtain his lender client's informed, or any, consent in specified Transactions.
  • failing to serve his lender client in a conscientious and diligent manner, or to the standard of a competent lawyer in connection with all of the specified properties by:
    • failing to disclose or misrepresenting material facts to his lender clients;
    • in some or all of the Transactions, failing to follow the express written instructions of his lender client, including instructions to ensure that the purchaser(s) satisfied the mortgage conditions; and
    • failing to make reasonable inquiries about: the purpose of each Transaction; the discrepancies or irregularities in each Transaction; and whether the full purchase price had been paid by the purchasers to the vendors. In the alternative, if he did make such inquiries, he failed to disclose the information to his lender client, advise it of the resulting risks, and take steps to protect the interests of his lender client.

By Amended Decision and Order dated December 11, 2008, 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. Additional submissions on costs shall be made by the parties in writing. The Law Society's submissions are to be delivered by December 23, 2008, and the Lawyer's submissions are to be delivered by January 12, 2009.