Lawyers: Orders and Dispositions - R

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

Djordje George Radojcic (1985), of the City of Niagara Falls, was found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a barrister or solicitor by being convicted by Justice C.S. Glithero in the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario in Kitchener, Ontario, on August 18, 2006, of the criminal offence of laundering the proceeds of trafficking in cocaine.

By Decision and Order dated November 21, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the rights and privileges of the Member, Djordje George Radojcic, are suspended for a period of two years, such suspension to commence effective November 21, 2007.
  • the Member shall pay costs to the Society fixed in the amount of $7500.00. The costs shall be paid on or before the expiry of the two-year suspension.
  • the Member shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Suspended Members while suspended pursuant to this Order.
    (Counsel for the Society, Scott Clarke / Counsel for the Member, Stephen E. Traviss)  

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

  • misappropriating $5,700, more or less, of trust funds given to her by her clients N.N. and A.A.C.;
  • receiving trust money from her clients N.N. and A.A.C. while her licence to practise law was suspended pursuant to an Order of the hearing panel dated July 31, 2008;
  • failing to advise her clients N.N. and A.A.C. that her licence to practise law had been suspended and that she would no longer be able to act for them and failing to transfer their file in a timely manner to a member in good standing, resulting in a delay in the closing of the real estate transaction and the clients incurring additional expenses as a result of that delay;
  • practising law, or holding herself out as a lawyer while her licence to practise law was suspended by an Order of the hearing panel dated July 31, 2008;
  • failing to be courteous, civil and act in good faith and failing to conduct herself in a way that maintains the integrity of the profession by being verbally abusive to T.J., a law clerk with whom she had dealings while acting for the purchaser in a real estate transaction;
  • failing to serve her client N.B.C., by failing to follow her client’s instructions to amend and re-register a mortgage on its behalf, and to provide it with documents associated with the mortgage transaction and by failing to respond to her client’s written and telephone communications;
  • practising law, or holding herself out as a lawyer while her licence to practise law was suspended by an Order of the hearing panel dated April 27, 2009;
  • failing to fulfill her undertaking, dated January 14, 2009, given to P.P., a solicitor, to hold back $2,000 in trust pending the issue of supplementary/omit realty taxes in connection with a real estate transaction in which she represented the vendor and P.P. represented the purchaser.

By Decision and Order dated December 17, 2010 the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. Effective immediately, the Respondent’s licence to practise law in Ontario and membership in the Law Society are revoked, she is disbarred as a barrister, and her name struck off the Roll of solicitors.
  2. The Respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society fixed in the amount of $10,000.00, by no later than June 17, 2011.

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

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)  

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 Pract ise, 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)  

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

  • failing to maintain books and records.
  • failing to cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce books and records.

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

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for 45 days commencing from the date of this Order 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 her 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 two Law Society investigations as requested in the letters of John Cottrell dated November 19, 2007, November 21, 2007, and December 4, 2007 and further discussed during a phone call dated November 22, 2007 and a site visit on December 4, 2007.
  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 her 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 25 th of each month, a copy of her 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 $4500 within six months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 5% per annum thereafter.

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

Manlio Tullio Raponi (1999), of the City of Toronto, was found guilty of professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation.

By Decision and Order dated July 20, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is reprimanded.
  • The Member shall pay $1,750.00 in costs to the Law Society within 6 months of the Order.
    (Counsel for the Society, William Holder/ Member present and assisted by duty counsel)  

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)  

Peter Vincent Raytek (1984), of the City of Toronto, requested an adjournment of the hearing of the Notice of Application dated June 26, 2008.

By Order dated September 5, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  1. This matter is adjourned to September 26, 2008, peremptory to the Lawyer, on terms that:
    By September 19, 2008, the Lawyer shall:
    1. deliver a full and complete response to the letters sent to him by the Law Society to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation, or
    2. sign an Agreed Statement of Facts;
  2. failing which the Lawyer shall be suspended until the conclusion of this matter or other order.

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

Note: The Lawyer complied with Term 1 of the Hearing Panel's Order dated September 5, 2008.  

Arif Raza (1980), 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 eleven properties;
  • failing to serve his lender clients in a conscientious and diligent manner, or to the standard of a competent lawyer, in connection with all the properties.

By Decision and Order dated June 18, 2012 the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. The penalty phase of this proceeding is adjourned to July 19 and 20, 2012 on condition that the Lawyer not take on any new real estate files in the interim.

(Counsel for the Society, Sean Dewart / Counsel for the Lawyer, Ferhan Javed)

Anthony Stephen Rein (1988), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to promptly and substantively respond to and cooperate with several investigations of the Law Society by:

    • failing to produce information and documentation requested in letters and a telephone message;

    • failing to produce his books and records and source documentation, as requested in letters and a telephone message.
  • failing to perform all functions conscientiously, diligently, and in a timely and cost-effective manner by:

    • failing to respond to several communications (voicemail messages and/or emails) from six clients;

    • failing to attend court on the dates scheduled and failing to contact five clients to advise them that he would not be attending;

    • failing to notify seven clients, at all or in a timely manner, that he was suspended and that he could no longer act for them.
  • misappropriating trust funds, totalling $38,550, from 10 clients.

By Decision and Order dated April 21, 2010, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer's licence shall be revoked.

  2. The Lawyer shall pay to the Compensation Fund the amount of $27,200.

  3. The Law Society is entitled to costs in the amount of $13,500.

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

Anthony Stephen Rein (1988), of the Town of Newmarket, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond to and cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce information and documentation requested.

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

  • within 1 month of the date of this Order, the Lawyer is required to provide a complete response to the letters dated November 27, 2007, January 3, 2008, January 23, 2008 and to the phone call of January 8, 2008, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation, failing which he will be suspended indefinitely until he provides his complete response to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation.
  • if the Lawyer is suspended pursuant to the paragraph above, then he shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers who are Suspended or who have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise , while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  • the Lawyer is required to continue his course of treatment and to provide a written report in confirmation of that treatment to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation, when he is requested to do so by the Law Society.
  • the Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1000 within 6 months of the date of this Order.
    (Counsel for the Society, Danielle Smith / 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)  

Lisa Edna Reiten (1997), of the City of Windsor, appealed a Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated December 6, 2005. The Appellant requested costs.

By Decision and Order dated January 7, 2008, the Appeal Panel ordered that:

  • There shall be no costs awarded to any of the parties.
    (Counsel for the Society, Deborah McPhadden / Counsel for the Appellant, Gregory Lafontaine)  

Lisa Edna Reiten (1997), of the City of Windsor, appealed from the Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated December 6, 2005 and sought an order setting aside the Hearing Panel's Decision and Order. The Hearing Panel found that she had engaged in professional misconduct by: misappropriating funds that she held in trust; permitting trust shortages; failing to maintain the books and records of her practice; failing to serve clients; failing to fulfil undertakings; and failing to fulfil a financial obligation incurred in her practice. The Hearing Panel ordered that she be given permission to resign, failing which she would be disbarred.

By Decision and Order dated September 14, 2007, the Appeal Panel ordered that:

  • the Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated December 6, 2005 is set aside.
  • the matter is sent back for a new hearing.
  • either party may make written submissions respecting costs by delivering them to the Tribunals Office within 30 days of the date of this order.
    (Counsel for the Society, Deborah McPhadden / Counsel for the Member, Gregory Lafontaine)  

Lisa Edna Reiten (1997) of the City of Windsor, was found guilty of professional misconduct for: misappropriating a total of $44,135.72, more or less from the funds which she held in trust on behalf of Stewart Title and $600, more or less, of trust monies she received for GST remittances and Law Society transaction levies; permitting 2 trust shortages, of $3,000.00 and $2,000.00, more or less; failing to maintain the books and records of her practice for 7 trust accounts; failing to serve 4 clients in relation to 3 matters; failing to fulfil 3 Undertakings to 3 purchasers and their solicitors to obtain and register discharges of mortgages; failing to fulfil a financial obligation incurred in the course of her practice.

The Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member be given permission to resign her membership in the Law Society. If the Member fails to submit her letter of resignation to the Law Society within 30 days of the date of the Order (December 6, 2005), it is ordered that she be disbarred.
    (Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman/ Counsel for the Member, Stephen E. Traviss and Thomas A. Costaris)
    (The Member's resignation became effective December 6, 2005)

Tracey Marie Resetar (1992), of the City of Burlington, was found to be incapacitated and incapable of meeting her obligations as a licensee.

By Decision and Order dated June 20, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Licensee is suspended indefinitely until she provides medical evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation that she is fit to practise law.
    ( Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Member, Kenneth Hughes )

Peter Alexander Richardson (1997), of the City of Mississauga, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: failing to serve 6 clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; failing to respond to professional communications from 2 other lawyers; failing to satisfy an undertaking given to a fellow solicitor and 2 undertakings given to another lawyer; and failing to co-operate with the Law Society in its investigation of 7 complaints.

By Decision and Order dated November 17, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is suspended from the practice of law for 12 months, commencing December 6, 2006 until December 6, 2007.
  • the Member shall meet all the conditions to his resumption of the practice of law set out in the Decision and Order dated April 14, 2005 made with respect to Notice of Application, CN41/04, being:
    • if the Member resumes the private practice of law, he is restricted for the first 2 years to practising as an employee or alternatively, if he wishes to practice as a sole practitioner, it will be under the supervision of another member of the Law Society.
    • if the Member chooses the employment option, then the Member must confirm his employment plans to the Law Society, and give notice of this Order to his employer. The Member must also confirm any change in his employment plans by providing the Law Society with 30 days notice, and such notice is to include the name and contact number of the prospective new employer. Any employer the Member proposes must be acceptable to the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society (the "Director") and the Member must obtain the approval of the Director prior to commencing his employment.
    • if the Member chooses the sole practitioner option, the supervisor and the plan of supervision must be acceptable to the Director and the Member must obtain the approval of the Director prior to his resuming practice.
    • the Member shall, upon resuming the private practice of law, be required to co-operate in a practice review pursuant to s.42 of the Law Society Act .
  • the Member shall pay $5,000.00 in costs to the Law Society within 12 months of resuming his practice.
    (Counsel for the Society, Maureen Helt and Sean Dewart/ Member present and assisted by duty counsel)  

Peter Alexander Richardson (1997), of the City of Mississauga, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • failing to serve his client Metro Credit Union ("M.C.U.") in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
    • failing to provide regular status reports to C.B., an employee of M.C.U., with respect to a mortgage transaction concerning property located in Brampton; and
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone calls and written requests from C.B. regarding the final report for the above noted mortgage transaction.
  • failing to serve his client R.A. in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
    • failing to respond to R.A.'s numerous telephone messages left for him regarding her family law proceedings since the time he was retained in 1999 to the present;
    • delaying in arranging trial dates for R.A.'s matter when requested to do so; and,
    • failing to return client property, namely R.A.'s file after receiving numerous requests from R.A. for the return and or transfer of her file regarding the family law proceedings.
  • failing to serve his client, M.K. by:
    • failing to provide M.K. with closing documentation with respect to a September 3, 2002 closing of a real estate transaction for property located in Brampton;
    • failing to account to M.K. by failing to provide a proper trust ledger statement and statement of account for fees and disbursements;
    • failing to report to M.K. with respect to a real estate transaction;
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone calls from M.K.; and,
    • failing to return client property by failing to forward the property survey for the property in Brampton.
  • failing to serve his client, National Bank of Canada ("N.B.") by:
    • failing to report to A.K.B., Senior Legal Advisor, Legal Affairs Department of N.B., with respect to a mortgage transaction which closed on October 31, 2002;
    • failing to communicate with another lawyer, A.K.B., in a timely, conscientious and diligent manner; and,
    • failing to provide his client, A.K.B. with the Final Solicitors Report for the mortgage registered on property in Burlington, Ontario.
  • failing to serve his client, M.M., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
    • failing to account to M.M. by failing to provide a proper trust ledger statement and statement of account for fees and disbursements;
    • failing to report to M.M. regarding a real estate purchase and sale transaction with a closing of May 31, 2002 for property located in Brampton despite numerous requests to do so; and,
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone messages left by M.M. in November, 2002, February, 2003, July, 2003 and August, 2003.
  • failing to serve his client, N.S., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
    • failing to account by failing to provide a proper trust ledger statement of account for fees and disbursements with respect to a real estate purchase transaction;
    • failing to provide to his client, N.S., with closing documentation with respect to an October 23, 2002 real estate purchase transaction closing for property located in Brampton;
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone messages left for him between February, 2003 and September, 2003 from N.S.; and,
    • failing to report to N.S. by failing to deliver closing documents with respect to the real estate purchase transaction for property located in Brampton.
  • failing to serve his client, S.S., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
    • failing to account by failing to provide a proper trust ledger statement and statement of account for fees and disbursements with respect to work completed regarding a refinancing on S.S.'s principal residence;
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone messages left for him between August, 2003 and November, 2003 from S.S.; and,
    • failing to report to S.S. with respect to the status of the refinance matter.
  • failing to serve his client, C.M., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
    • failing to return client property despite several requests to do so specifically with respect to a Will and purchase and sale documents relating to property located in Burlington; and,
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone messages from C.M.
  • failing to serve his client, E.B., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
    • failing to account by failing to provide a proper trust ledger statement and a statement of account for fees and disbursements with respect to a purchase and sale transaction for a property closing on June 15, 2001;
    • failing to provide closing documents including copies of deeds, registration, lot plan etc. with respect to the real estate transaction closing on June 15, 2001; and,
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone messages and written communications from E.B.
  • failing to serve his client, V.J., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
  • failing to account by failing to provide a proper trust ledger statement and statement of account for fees and disbursements with respect to a real estate transaction closing on October 15, 2002 for property located in Mississauga;
    • failing to report to V.J. with respect to the status of the real estate transaction and failing to provide his client with closing documentation for property located in Mississauga; and,
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone messages left by V.J. between February, 2003 and June, 2003 and written correspondence from V.J. between June, 2003 and January, 2004.
  • failing to serve his client, D.P., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner by:
    • failing to account by failing to provide a proper trust ledger statement and statement of account for fees and disbursements with respect to a Separation Agreement;
    • failing to provide D.P. with regular updates concerning the status of her family law matter;
    • failing to respond to numerous telephone messages from D.P.; and,
    • failing to complete the work he was retained to do for D.P. with respect to the Separation Agreement.
  • failing to cooperate with the Law Society of Upper Canada investigation of the complaint of another lawyer, H.G. in a timely, conscientious and complete manner by failing to respond to numerous telephone calls and written correspondence from a Complaints Resolution Officer.
  • failing to satisfy an Undertaking given to another lawyer, H.G. with respect to discharging a Royal Bank of Canada mortgage for property located in Mississauga, Ontario, in a timely, conscientious and diligent manner; and
  • failing to reply in a timely and responsive fashion to the Law Society's communications being numerous voicemail messages, facsimiles and letters sent to him by Vera Angiulli, Complaints Resolution Officer from December 2002 to April 2004 with respect to the complaints made against him by C.B., R.A., M.K., A.K.B., M.M., N.S., S.S., C.M., E.B., V.J., D.P. and H.G.

    The Hearing Panel ordered that;

  • the Member shall be suspended for a period of nine months. Such suspension to commence as of February 23, 2005, the date of the hearing before the Hearing Panel and to continue until the Member has fulfilled all of his outstanding obligations to the Law Society;
  • the Member shall comply with his undertaking given to the Law Society of Upper Canada Trustee Services Department to voluntarily wind up his practice commencing on March 8, 2005;
  • if the Member resumes the private practice of law, he is restricted for the first two years to practicing as an employee or alternatively, if he wishes to practice as a sole practitioner, it will be under the supervision of another member of the Law Society;
  • if the Member chooses the employment option, then the Member must confirm his employment plans to the Law Society, and give notice of this Order to his employer. The Member must also confirm any change in his employment plans by providing the Law Society with thirty (30) days notice, and such notice is to include the name and contact number of the prospective new employer. Any employer the Member proposes must be acceptable to the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Member must obtain the approval of the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society of Upper Canada prior to commencing his employment;
  • if the Member chooses the sole practitioner option, the supervisor and the plan of supervision must be acceptable to the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society of Upper Canada and, the Member must obtain the approval of the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society of Upper Canada prior to his resuming practice;
  • the Member shall, upon resuming the private practice of law, be required to co-operate in a practice review pursuant to s.42 of the Law Society Act;
  • the Member shall pay the costs of the Law Society in the amount of $5,000.00 within twelve months of resuming practice.

    ( Counsel for the Society, Maureen Helt/ Counsel for the Member present and assisted by Duty Counsel )

Garth Sheldon Roberts (1975), of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • in or about the period August 31, 2001 to January 22, 2002, failing to comply with an Undertaking dated May 31, 2001 that he gave to the Law Society to submit certain documentation and to prepare books and records relating to the Estate of R.V., and to provide an Interim Accounting of the administration of the said Estate no later than August 31, 2001.
  • in or about the period May 17, 2001 to January 22, 2002, failing to cooperate with the Law Society's investigation into the complaint made by K.O., in that he has not produced the files and documents requested from him by the Law Society, including his financial and accounting records.
  • in or about the period June 1999 to January 22, 2002, failing to account to his client K.O. for monies received and disbursed on K.O.'s behalf.
  • in or about the period June 1998 to January 22, 2002, failing to account and report on a real estate transaction which was completed in or about June 1998 in which he acted for S.O.
  • in or about the period May 29, 2001 to January 22, 2002, failing to release client files to K.O. or his appointee despite receiving authority and instructions to do so.
  • in or about the period September 14, 1994 to January 22, 2002, while acting as the executor of the Estate of R.V., failing to wind up the Estate, to provide an accounting to the Estate of its assets, or otherwise to account to the Estate.

    Hearing Panel ordered that:
  • the Member's rights and privileges are suspended, commencing January 29, 2003,
    • for a period of four (4) months; and
    • thereafter indefinitely until the Member,
      • produces his completed financial records to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Law Society;
      • accounts to the Estate of R.V. to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Law Society;
      • accounts to K. O. to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Law Society.
      • accounts to S. O. to the satisfaction of the Secretary to the Law Society.
    (Counsel for Society, Deborah McPhadden/Counsel for Member, Richard Nabi)  

Robert Ian Robertson (1997), of the City of Barrie, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for: failing to act with good faith in his dealings with another member, by proceeding to obtain an order in a family law matter without notice to the other member, and in contravention of the Minutes of Settlement entered into by the parties; and, in his appearance in Court on a family law matter, he failed to treat the Court with candour.

By Decision and Order dated March 5, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is suspended for 30 days, the timing of which is to be agreed upon between the Law Society and the Member.
  • the Member shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $5,000.00, to be paid within 1 year from the date of this Decision and Order.
    (Counsel for the Society, Deborah McPhadden / Counsel for the Member Clayton John Conlan)  

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)  

Paul Alexander Robson (1983), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • with respect to one complaint, failing to cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce, in a timely manner, documents requested of him in one letter;
  • with respect to another complaint, failing to cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce, in a timely manner, all documents requested of him in four letters; and
  • with respect to a complaint of the Law Society, failing to cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce, in a timely manner, client files requested of him in three letters.

By Decision and Order dated December 8, 2010 the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for one month, commencing at the conclusion of his current administrative suspension.
  2. The suspension will continue indefinitely until the following conditions are met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation:
    1. Upon the Law Society supplying by December 15, 2010 contact information for Maureen French, the Lawyer will write a letter to Ms. French requesting her to provide the original client file for Singh sale to Chen (Sedgemount Drive, Brampton) directly to the Investigations Department of the Law Society, for copying and return to Ms. French;
    2. Upon the Law Society supplying by December 15, 2010 contact information for D.L. and L.L., beneficiaries of the Estate of R.L., the Lawyer will write a letter to these individuals requesting a copy of his account(s) rendered to them in the course of their retainer with the Lawyer; and
    3. With respect to client files requested in Margaret Sparling’s letter dated January 28, 2010:
      1. with respect to client files transferred to other lawyers, the Lawyer will provide the Law Society with a list of lawyers to whom the client files have been transferred, if known; and
      2. with respect to client files returned to clients, the Lawyer will provide the Law Society with contact information for those clients, including full names, last known mailing address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses, if known.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs of $3,750 with 12 months to pay.

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

Paul Alexander Robson (1983), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for

  • failing to co-operate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce, in a timely manner, complete books and records requested of him in various correspondence in regards to three complaints;
  • failing to maintain books and records contrary to By-Law 9 in regards to two complaints.

By Decision and Order dated May 26, 2010 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for one (1) month, commencing August 6, 2010 and continuing indefinitely until, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society,
    1. he has produced fully all of the books and records requested in the letters of Margaret Sparling dated January 21, 2009, October 1, 2009, October 30, 2009, January 14, 2010 and April 12, 2010 or produced a letter from the relevant Bank that the identified documents are unavailable; and
    2. he has demonstrated that his books and records are in full compliance with By-Law 9 for the period September, 2006 to May, 2010, or that full compliance is not 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 Practice while suspended under this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $6,500 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, Naomi Bussin and Loretta Arci / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

Evita Mary Roche (1979), of the City of Ottawa, was found guilty of professional misconduct for: practicing law while under administrative suspension; failing to maintain the books and records of her practice; and failing to serve two of her clients.

By Decision and Order dated January 6, 2006, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is suspended for a period of 2 months on the Member's return to practice.
  • if the Member does return to practice, she shall enter into the Practice Review Programme, and shall implement the recommendations made by the Practice Review Assessment.
  • the Member shall pay the costs of the Law Society in the amount of $1,500.00.
    (Counsel for the Society, Maureen Helt/ Counsel for the Member, William Trudell and Jennifer Cooper)  

Simon Rosenfeld (1974), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor for:

  • committing two counts of laundering the proceeds of crime, and one count of attempting to possess money obtained by crime, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, of which offences he was convicted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

By Decision and Order dated December 13, 2010, the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer’s licence is revoked as of the date of this Order.
  2. Costs against the Lawyer are to be $4,800 payable within 30 days of the date of this Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau / the Lawyer was present on one day only and was unrepresented)

UNDER APPEAL
Stuart Elliot Rosenthal
(1985) of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to maintain proper books and records of his law practice;
  • in the alternative, failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation by failing to produce, despite the Law Society’s requests, specified books and records by the stipulated deadlines;
  • failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation by failing to produce two other specified items by the stipulated deadlines, despite the Law Society’s requests;
  • failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation by failing to amend many specified deficiencies in his books and records by the stipulated deadlines, despite requests made by the Law Society
  • failing to substantively respond, by the stipulated deadlines, to communications from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated August 9, 2011 the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer’s licence is revoked immediately.

(Counsel for the Society, Jan Parnega-Welch and Nisha Dhanoa / Counsel for the Lawyer, Edward Greenspan, Q.C.)

Stuart Elliot Rosenthal (1985), of the City of Toronto. The Lawyer requested an adjournment of the hearing of the Amended Notice of Application filed April 12, 2010 scheduled for June 3, 2010.

By Decision and Order dated June 3, 2010 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be subject to an interim suspension as a condition of the adjournment with the following exemptions:
    1. an impaired driving trial in Oshawa on June 16, 2010
    2. a criminal trial on June 26 that is scheduled to be withdrawn
    3. a trial in Newmarket for insurance fraud related to car theft on June 28 and 29, 2010
    4. a SEC pro bono matter with no date set for appearance
  2. The order that the Lawyer not operate a trust account remains in effect.
  3. The Lawyer continue to be under the supervision of Greg Lafontaine.
  4. Mr. Greenspan provide the Lawyer’s medical report to Ms. Strosberg as soon as possible and preferably by June 25, 2010 to allow her to obtain her own medical report if necessary.
  5. The penalty hearing is adjourned to July 28 and 29, 2010 for an estimated one and a half days.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg / Counsel for the Lawyer, Edward Greenspan and Julianna Greenspan)

Paul Ross (1967) of the Town of Goderich, was alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct.

By Order dated April 4, 2011 the Chair of the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

  1. Pursuant to the order of the Appeal Panel, Particular 3 is dismissed in accordance with subsection 36(2) of the Law Society Act.

(Counsel for the Society, J. Thomas Curry, Nina Bombier and Yashoda Ranganathan / Counsel for the Lawyer, Benjamin Zarnette and Peter B. Kolla)

Paul Ross (1967), of the Town of Goderich, appealed from the Decision and Order of the hearing panel dated April 22, 2010.

By Order dated February 16, 2011, the appeal panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Order of the Appeals Management Tribunal dated August 10, 2010 is varied by adding the following sentence to the end of “Term 3.” of that order: “As well, nothing herein affects the release of the reasons of the appeal panel, dated February 16, 2011 as permitted by the Order of Justice Wilkins of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 3, 2011.”
  2. The appeal is allowed. Particulars 1 and 2 are dismissed.
  3. The conduct proceedings in relation to Particular 3 are converted into an invitation to attend. The appellant shall make arrangements through the Tribunals Office to attend before the Chair of the Appeal Panel for the said invitation.
  4. Once the invitation to attend has taken place, Particular 3 will be dismissed in accordance with subsection 36(2) of the Law Society Act.
  5. The costs order made by the hearing panel is set aside. Should the parties wish to address the issue of costs, written submissions should be served and filed by the appellant within 14 days of release of this Order. Written submissions should be served and filed by the Society within seven days of receipt of the appellant’s submissions. Absent any written submissions from the parties, there will be no order of costs respecting either the original hearing or the appeal.

(Counsel for the Society, J. Thomas Curry, Nina Bombier and Yashoda Ranganathan / Counsel for the Appellant, Benjamin Zarnett and Peter B. Kolla)

Paul Ross (1967) of the Town of Goderich. By Notice of Motion dated June 4, 2010, the lawyer asked for a stay of the Decision and Order of the Hearing Panel dated April 22, 2010, which suspended the lawyer for 2 months commencing July 1, 2010 and included other terms.

By Order dated June 10, 2010 the Appeal Panel ordered as follows:

THIS APPEAL PANEL ORDERS that the Order is stayed pending the disposition by the Appeal Panel of the appeal of the Order.

(Counsel for the Society, Thomas Curry and Nina Bombier / Counsel for the Appellant, Benjamin Zarnett and Peter Kolla)

Paul Ross (1967), of the Town of Goderich, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct

  • by failing to return a Status Review Application to the Ontario Court of Justice, he failed to treat the Court with candour, fairness, courtesy and respect and deprived the Court of its jurisdiction over a client's matter.
  • by bringing a custody application on behalf of his client in which he failed to disclose his client's plans to move to Hungary with her child and then agreeing, through his law partner, to an adjournment of the custody application without disclosing to the Court or to the opposing party, who was unrepresented, that his client intended to leave the country with her daughter and might no longer be in Ontario before the matter was brought back before the Court. By so doing, you failed to treat the Court with candour, fairness, courtesy and respect and deprived the Court of its jurisdiction over the matter.

  • by using a tape recorder or other device to record two telephone conversations with his client without first informing her that he intended to do so.

By Decision and Order dated April 22, 2010 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for 2 months commencing July 1, 2010.
  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 $20,000 payable within 2 years of the end of the suspension.

( Counsel for the Society, J. Thomas Curry and Nina Bombier / Counsel for the Lawyer, Benjamin Zarnett and Peter B. Kolla )

John Louis Rossi (1978) of the Town of LaSalle, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to reply promptly and substantively to the Law Society and failing to co-operate with the Law Society's investigation into a complaint.

By Decision and Order dated May 25, 2012 the hearing panel ordered as follows: 

    1.The Lawyer is suspended for six (6) months commencing immediately and continuing indefinitely until, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society, he has provided a complete response to the requests set out in Jeff Steinberg's letter dated October 6, 2011. 
    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 while suspended under this Order. 
    3.If, by July 30, 2012, the Lawyer has not provided a complete response to Jeff Steinberg's letter dated October 6, 2011, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation of the Law Society, the Lawyer shall pay a fine of $5,000 to the Law Society forthwith. 
    4.The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $3,875.00 within three (3) months of the date of this Order, failing which interest will accrue at a rate of 3% per annum.
 

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

John Louis Rossi (1978), of the City of Windsor, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for

  • failing to respond promptly and substantively to communications from the Law Society;
  • failing to comply with a Decision and Order of the Law Society Hearing Panel dated 9 January 2007, in that he failed to implement forthwith several of the recommendations made as a result of the practice review conducted on 8 January 2007.

By Decision and Order dated June 11, 2010 the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for 10 weeks, commencing July 7, 2010.  
  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 under this Order.  
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $4,000 within eighteen (18) 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 self-represented)

John Louis Rossi (1978), of the City of Windsor, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond or failing to provide a complete response to written and telephone inquiries from the Law Society.

By Decision and Order dated January 9, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is reprimanded.
  • the Member shall implement forthwith any recommendations made as a result of the practice review on January 8, 2007. The Member shall participate in a second practice review, at his own expense, to take place on or about July 8, 2007, the purpose of which will be to assess the degree to which the Member has implemented the recommendations from the first practice review.
  • the Law Society is directed to ask Mr. John Macri, the Member's senior partner, to notify it of any problems with the Member's practice or in managing clients.
  • the Member shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $3,000.00 within one year of the date of this Decision and Order.
  • exhibit number 3 is not to be published or made available to the public without an Application to the Hearing Panel.
    (Counsel for the Society, Elizabeth Parenteau/Member self-represented)  

 John Louis Rossi (1978) of the City of Windsor, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • he practised while he was subject to an administrative suspension in the following two time periods:
    1. he breached a Summary Order dated November 11, 1999, made by a single bencher pursuant to s.46(1) of the Law Society Act, which suspended his rights and privileges as a member of the Law Society, including his right to practise law, by maintaining an active practice and by holding himself out as a Barrister and Solicitor duly entitled to practise law, throughout the period from November 19, 1999 to January 20, 2000; and
    2. he breached a Summary Order dated June 8, 2000, made by a single bencher pursuant to s.46(1) of the Law Society Act, which suspended his rights and privileges as a member of the Law Society, including his right to practise law, by maintaining an active practice and by holding himself out as a Barrister and Solicitor duly entitled to practise law, throughout the period from June 16, 2000 to June 12, 2001. 

        Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the member be suspended for a period of six months, commencing on June 3, 2002 and concluding on December 3, 2002;
  • the member pay $500 in costs to the Law Society within 60 days of the date of this Order.

    (Counsel for Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for member, duty counsel)

Aubrey Malcolm Rossman (1977) 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 six properties (the Transactions);
  • failing to serve and perform legal services undertaken on behalf of his lender clients to the standard of a competent lawyer in the Transactions. In particular,
  • he failed to disclose material facts or misrepresented material facts to his lender clients;
  • he failed to follow the express written instructions of his lender clients; and
  • he failed to make reasonable inquiries regarding the unusual features of the Transactions.

By Decision and Order dated March 8, 2012 the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer shall be suspended for a period of nine months.
  2. The Law Society is awarded costs in the amount of $20,000.

(Counsel for the Society, Louise Hurteau / Counsel for the Lawyer, Graeme Hamilton)

Aubrey M. Rossman (1977) of the City of Toronto was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • failing to maintain proper books and records of his practice as required by Regulation 708, R.R.O, 1990, as amended, and By-Law 18, as amended, and, made under the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.8;
  • failing to produce to the Law Society complete and accurate books and records despite numerous letters and telephone calls made by Law Society staff between July 4, 2001 and April 17, 2002.

Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is reprimanded;
  • costs are payable to the Law Society in the sum of $1,000.00, payable by February 15, 2004;
  • the Member is to forthwith disburse funds from trust to clients; and
  • the Member is not to charge clients for costs associated with attempts to locate clients re: payment

(Counsel for the Law Society, Maureen Helt/ Counsel for the Member, Frank Oster)  

Robert Rothman (1962), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to respond to and cooperate with a Law Society investigation by failing to produce information and documents requested of him in four written communications.

By Decision and Order dated March 29, 2010, the Hearing Panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for one month, commencing on a date to be agreed to by the Law Society and the Lawyer, and continuing indefinitely until he has produced, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation, a complete response to the complaint, including documentation and information requested in letters dated May 7, 2009, October 1, 2009, October 15, 2009, and November 13, 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 $4,000 within six months from the date of this Order, failing which, interest will accrue at a rate of 2% per annum thereafter.

( Counsel for the Society, Anne-Katherine Dionne / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel )

Frederic Christopher Rous (1978) of the Town of Simcoe was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • From approximately February 19, 1999 to March 30, 2001, assisting a paralegal, LB, in the unauthorized practice of law by signing the following undertakings over which he had no control:
    • On February 19, 1999, in reference to the C sale to P/P, he signed an undertaking to Hedley, McQuatty & McLachlin, solicitors for the purchasers, to ensure that the mortgage registered as Instrument Number 236225 in favour of CIBC Mortgages Inc. was payed out and discharged. He further undertook to ensure that LB would obtain and register a proper form of discharge of said mortgage;
    • On December 1, 2000, in reference to the E sale to B, he signed an undertaking to Hedley, McQuatty & McLachlin, solicitors for the purchasers, to ensure that the mortgage registered as Instrument Number 213762 in favour of the London Life Insurance Company was payed out and discharged. He further undertook to ensure that LB would obtain and register a proper form of discharge of said mortgage;
    • On December 1, 2000, in reference to the E sale to B, he signed an undertaking to Hedley, McQuatty & McLachlin, solicitors for the purchasers, to ensure that the mortgage registered as Instrument Number 239176 in favour of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was payed out and discharged. He further undertook to ensure that LB would obtain and register a proper form of discharge of said mortgage;
    • On March 30, 2001, in reference to the B sale to L/B, he signed an undertaking to JDT, solicitor for the purchasers, to ensure that mortgage registered as Instrument Number 201914, in favour of Home Savings & Loan Corporation, assigned to a further mortgagee be paid to said mortgagee. He further undertook to ensure that LB would obtain and register a proper from of discharge of said mortgage. He further undertook to ensure that all hydro arrears and tax arrears would be paid and that he would provide proof of same;

    Hearing panel ordered that:
  • The Member is reprimanded; and
  • the Member shall pay to the Law Society, on or before March 31, 2003, costs in the amount of $500.

    (Counsel for Society, Lisa Freeman /Counsel for member, 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 Allan Rumanek (1981), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to maintain proper books and records.

By Decision and Order dated April 11, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

  • the Member is reprimanded.
  • the Member shall pay costs in the sum of $2,000.00 to the Law Society within six months.
    (Counsel for the Society, Louise Hurteau / Counsel for the Member, Douglas Wells)  

Richard Edward Rusek (1963) of the City of Toronto, was found guilty of professional misconduct for:

  • in the matter of the Estate of J.M., failing to respond in a timely fashion to communications from a fellow solicitor, E.O. Specifically, he failed to respond to letters from E.O., dated July 18, 2002, September 13, 2002, September 19, 2002 and November 20, 2002.
  • failing to comply with an Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Nordheimer, dated January 2, 2003.
  • failing to serve his client, the Estate of R.B., when:
    • he failed to windup the Estate of R.B. in a timely fashion; and
    • he failed to return numerous telephone messages left for him by S.S. from November of 2001 to March of 2002.
  • in the matter of the Estate of R.B., failing to respond in a timely fashion to communications from a fellow solicitor, R.A.M. Specifically, he failed to respond to letters from R.A.M., dated July 18, 2002, October 9, 2002 and November 7, 2002. In addition, he failed to respond to several telephone messages left for him by R.A.M. in December of 2002.
  • failing to serve his client, the Estate of B.S. in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner in that he failed to respond to communications from H.S., one of the Estate Trustees. Specifically, he failed to respond to correspondence dated June 13, 2002 and July 8, 2002. He further failed to respond to telephone communications from H.S. from July of 2002 to November of 2002.
  • failing to respond in a timely fashion to communications from a fellow solicitor, G.M., Q.C., in the matter of the Estate of B.S., when he failed to respond to G.M.'s letters dated July 12, 2002, November 29, 2002 and April 7, 2003. He further failed to respond to telephone communications left for him by G.M.'s office between July of 2002 and November of 2002.
  • on June 14, 2000, signing an Undertaking to the Law Society agreeing to respond to written communications from fellow solicitors and clients within three weeks of the date of the written communication and to respond to telephone communications from fellow solicitors and clients within two business days of receipt of the communication. He breached this Undertaking when he failed to respond promptly to communications from fellow solicitors and clients as set out in bullet points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above.

    The Hearing Panel ordered that:
  • the Member be suspended for one month commencing September 6, 2005.
  • the Member pay the costs of the proceeding before the Hearing Panel in the amount of $1,500.00 within thirty days of the date of the Order (August 10, 2005).
    (Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman/ Member present, assisted by Duty Counsel)  

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)