May – June 2012 Upcoming Hearings
(Updated on May 28, 2012)
SELWYN MILAN MCSWEEN
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Motion to be heard: in writing
LSUC Counsel: Bill Holder
Lawyer’s Counsel: Osborne G. Barnwell
Particulars from the Lawyer’s Notice of Motion filed April 10, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1. An Order amending the findings of the Appeal Panel consistent with the letter dated
September 8, 2009 from Ms. Hurteau, Counsel for the Law Society to Mr. Barwell,
counsel for McSween. The letter indicated that only the fraud charges would be pursued
by the Law Society in the disciplinary hearing of Mr. Selwyn McSween; and
2. Any other Order as Mr. McSween may advise and as the Appeal Panel may allow.
ANN BRUCE
From: City of Hamilton, Ontario
Hearing reconvened and motion to be heard: May 28 to 30, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Elaine Strosberg and Suzanne Jarvie
Lawyer not represented
Particulars from the Lawyer’s Notice of Motion filed February 13, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR
1. An Order to strike the February 28, 2011 decision for the failure of the Panel to provide
written reasons for its decision;
2. An Order to quash the Order dated February 28, 2011 – since the Applicant failed to
properly serve redacted documents on the Respondent in the LINT128/10 hearing – in
non-compliance with s.35(1) of the Law Society Act;
3. An Order to require the Applicant to re-serve all its originating materials from both the
LINT128/10 and the LCN131/10 files on the Respondent in proper, re-dacted, format
pursuant to s.35.(1) of the Law Society Act;
4. An Order to require the Panel to provide written reasons for why it failed to include the
application of s.35(1) of the Law Society Act in the LINT128/10 proceedings, specifically
ALL the Applicant’s unredacted originating materials which include unredacted
documents and unredacted transcripts of proceedings forwarded by the judicial
complainant; and instead only referred to “these proceedings” – LCN131/10;
5. An Order to require the Applicant LSUC comply with Rule 23.04(2) of the Rules of
Practice and Procedure;
6. An Order to quash the interlocutory suspension of the Respondent’s law licence, for
failure to provide written reasons in a timely manner;
7. An Order to quash the Society’s Conduct Application for failure to provide for written
reasons;
8. An Order for Particulars, to require the Applicant to serve particulars of allegations made
against the Respondent in the Conduct Application, specifically particulars in each of its
allegations of breaches of Rule 4.01(1); Rule 4.06(1); Rule 4.01(6) and Rule 6.01(1) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct;
9. An Order for Particulars, to require the Applicant to serves particulars of para. 3(1)(a);
3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); para. 3(2); para. 3(3) as in ‘fellow lawyers’; and para. 3(4) as in alleged
‘incivility towards fellow lawyers’ referred to, in the Applicant’s Notice of Application;
10. An Order to require the Applicant to meet its Stinchcombe disclosure obligation;
11. An Order to require the Applicant to serve full, complete and on-going disclosure,
including digital documents (also known as recordings) in its possession relating to (i)
the subject matter of the LINT128/10 proceedings; and (ii) the subject matter in the
Applicant’s Conduct Proceeding, LCN131/10;
12. An Order to require the Applicant to disclose to the Respondent its ‘pile of secret
complaints’ as represented by Ms. Suzanne Jarvie;
13. An Order to require the Applicant to disclose to the Respondent all “lists” of alleged
“discrepancies” or “errata” from A.S.A.P. Reporting Inc. for the entirety of Mr. Carm
Runco’s testimony on March 22, 2011;
14. An Order to permit the Respondent to continue cross-examining (i) Ms. Oliphant; (ii) Mr.
Runco; (iii) Mr. Woods because the Hearing Panel did not grant sufficient time for crossexamination to disclose fully and fairly all matters relevant to the issues in the
proceeding;
15. An Order to require the investigations Department to make best efforts to return by
courier the boxes of Ms. Francia Bravo back to her forthwith;
16. An Order to stay the Applicant’s Notice of Application;
17. In the alternative, an Order to adjourn the Applicant’s Notice of Application until final
decision of this motion;
18. An Order to reinstate the Respondent’s law licence forthwith;
19. An Order to extend or abridge the time necessary to file this motion in accordance with
Rule 3.02(1) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure;
20. Costs; and
21. Such further and other relief as the Hearing Panel deems just.
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed December 13, 2010:
Failing to Treat the Court with Fairness, Courtesy and Respect
1. Between July 2009 and June 2010, the Respondent breached Rule 4.01(1) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct while acting for clients, including G.W., A.T., F.B. and P.I., in
various family law proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice, by failing to treat
the adjudicators with fairness, courtesy and respect by:
(a) Adopting an aggressive, interruptive, argumentative and disrespectful tone before one
or more of Justice Cheryl Lafreniere, Justice Alex Pazaratz, Justice David Steinberg,
Justice Randolph Mazza, Justice Mary Jo McLaren, and Justice Caroline Brown;
(b) Accusing one or more of the Justices named in 3(1)(a) of the within Notice, of
misconduct, bias, abuse of process and harassment;
(c) Advising one or more of the Justices named in 3(1)(a) of the within Notice on the
record that she has or will report them, or one of their colleagues to the Canadian
Judicial Council or that their decisions will be appealed;
Failing to Encourage Respect for the Administration of Justice
2. The Respondent breached Rule 4.06(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to
encourage public respect for the administration of justice. In particular, in addition to the
Respondent’s lack of courtesy and respect toward the Court, the Respondent made
frequent accusations of bias, animus and corruption, without factual foundation, against
one or more of the Justices named in 3(1)(a) of the within Notice;
Failing to be Courteous, Civil and Act in Good Faith Toward Fellow Solicitors
3. The Respondent breached Rule 4.01(6) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that she
failed to be courteous, civil and act in good faith towards fellow lawyers, including but
not limited to Kathy Baker, R. Startek, Carm Runco and James Wood, by, inter alia,
making submissions, putting materials before the Court and sending correspondence
which were inconsistent with the proper tone of communications from a lawyer.
Failing to Maintain the Integrity of the Profession
4. The Respondent breached Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to
conduct herself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession by her
discourtesy and disrespect, as shown towards Justices of the Superior Court of Justice, as
named in 3(1)(a) and her incivility towards fellow solicitors, as noted above.
NEAL MICHAEL GUTTMAN
From: City of Windsor, Ontario
First hearing: May 28, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Elizabeth Parenteau
Lawyer’s Counsel: Michael H. Gordner
Particulars of alleged professional misconduc from the Law Society’s Notice of Application filed
August 16, 2010:
1. With respect to a mortgage loan from TD Bank related to the property at 9962
Concession 9, Essex, Ontario (the “Essex property”) and advanced to the respondent
personally on or around February 4, 2000, the respondent breached Rule 3 of the former
Rules of Professional Conduct (the “former Rules”) by failing to be honest and candid
when advising his lender client by failing disclose material facts to his lender client,
including:
(a) The respondent did not apply the mortgage funds towards their stated purpose, which
was the purchase of a 50% interest in a Florida condominium; and
(b) Immediately after and on the same day as registering TD Bank’s charge against his
Essex property, the respondent transferred title of his Essex property to a third party,
K.W.
2. The respondent acted in a conflict of interest, contrary to Rule 5 of the former Rules and
subrule 2.04(3) of the current Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”), when he:
(a) Acted for the vendor and purchaser in the transfer of the Essex property from himself
to K.W. on or about February 4, 2000;
(b) Acted for the borrower and lender with respect to a mortgage loan from his own selfdirected retirement savings plan (“SDRSP”) to K.W., which he registered as a second
charge on title to the Essex property on February 4, 2000;
(c) Acted for the borrower and lender with respect to a mortgage loan from his wife’s
SDRSP to K.W., which he registered as a third charge on title to the Essex property
on December 21, 2001; and
(d) Acted for the borrower and lender with respect to a mortgage loan from himself to
K.W., which he registered as a fourth charge on title to the Essex property on August
12, 2004.
3. With respect to the transfer of the Essex property to K.W. on or about February 4, 2000,
the respondent breached Rule 3 of the former Rules when he:
(a) Knowingly prepared and registered a false Transfer showing a consideration of $1
and describing the Transferor as “Guttman, Neal Michael, in trust”, when the actual
consideration was $132,000 and no trust relationship existed; and
(b) Knowingly prepared and registered a false Land Transfer Tax Affidavit showing a
consideration of $1, describing the Transferor as “Neal Michael Guttman, in trust”
and describing the purpose of the transfer as “transfer from Trustee to Beneficial
Owner”, when the actual consideration was $132,000 and no trust relationship
existed.
4. The respondent breached subrule 2.02(5) of the Rules in that he knowingly assisted in
dishonesty, fraud, crime or illegal conduct when he:
(a) Registered a sham mortgage on the Essex property on June 29, 2006; and
(b) Registered a sham lien against K.W.’s vehicle on or around June 28, 2006.
5. The respondent breached subrule 2.02(5) of the Rules in that he participated in or
knowingly assisted in dishonest or illegal conduct, or instructed his client on how to
violate the law and avoid punishment when, during the course of his retainer with K.W.,
he advised K.W. with respect to K.W.’s marijuana grow operation.
HERSCH HARRY KOPYTO
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Hearing reconvened: May 29 and 31 and June 19, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Anne-Katherine Dionne and Susan J. Heakes
Paralegal Applicant not represented
The Applicant has made an application for a Class P1 licence pursuant to section 27 of the Law
Society Act.
SEBASTIANO CAMMISULI
From: Town of Milton, Ontario
Hearing reconvened: May 30, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Danielle Smith and Jennifer Forde, Paralegal
Paralegal not represented
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed November 4, 2010:
Law Society
1. From March 8, 2008 to the present, you failed to maintain the proper books and records
of your paralegal practice, contrary to By-Law 9, s. 18, made pursuant to the Law Society
Act.
J.N.
2. You failed to conduct yourself in a way that maintains the integrity of the profession,
contrary to Rule 2.01 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, in relation to the Small Claims
Court action brought against you by J.N., and in particular with respect to the judgment
obtained against you.
L.C.
3. You failed to conduct yourself in a way that maintains the integrity of the profession,
contrary to Rule 2.01 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, in relation to the Small Claims
Court action brought against you by L.C., and in particular with respect to the judgment
obtained against you.
M.B.
4. You failed to serve your client M.B. contrary to Rule 3.01 of the Paralegal Rules of
Conduct in the following manner:
a. Starting in April 2008 you failed to respond to M.B.’s telephone communications in a
timely and effective manner, and failed to keep him apprised of the status of his
matter; and
b. You failed to advance or complete the work for which you were retained by M.B. in
relation to his rental property.
5. You failed to act with courtesy and civility, contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Paralegal
Rules of Conduct, in the manner in which you communicated with M.B. on the telephone.
6. Contrary to Rule 3.08(11) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, prior to or by Fall of 2008,
when it was clear that the relationship between you and M.B. had broken down, you
failed to do the following things:
a. You failed to return M.B.’s client file to him; and
b. You failed to account to M.B. for the funds he provided to you, including failing to
explain whether any monies were owed or whether he was entitled to a refund of
monies you had not earned.
W.M.
7. You failed to serve your client W.M. contrary to Rule 3.01 of the Paralegal Rules of
Conduct in the following manner:
a. You failed to advance or complete the work for which you were retained by W.M. in
relation to his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) claims.
8. In or around April 2008, you received $5,000 in trust for your client, W.M., and failed to
deposit those funds into a trust account, contrary to By-Law 9, s. 7(1), made pursuant to
the Law Society Act.
C.D.
9. You failed to notify C.D. of your administrative suspension which began on November 7,
2008, and failed to arrange for the transfer or return of her client file and to notify her that
you could not complete the work on her WSIB matter, contrary to Rule 6.01(7) of the
Paralegal Rules of Conduct and contrary to By-Law 7.1, s. 9(1).
10. You failed to act with courtesy and civility, contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Paralegal
Rules of Conduct, in the manner in which you communicated with C.D. on the telephone.
11. You failed to serve your client C.D. contrary to Rule 3.01 of the Paralegal Rules of
Conduct in the following manner:
a. You failed to respond to C.D.’s telephone communications in a timely and effective
manner during the course of your retainer, and failed to keep her apprised of the
status of her WSIB matter;
b. You failed to account to C.D. for retainer monies in the amount of $4,500, more or
less, which C.D. provided to you; and
c. You failed to advance or complete the work for which you were retained by C.D. in
relation to her WSIB claim.
J.L.
12. You failed to notify J.L. of your administrative suspension which began on November 7,
2008, and failed to comply with By-Law 7.1, s. 9(1) regarding the transfer of her WSIB
and Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (“WSIAT”) matters, contrary to
By-Law 7.1, s. 9(1).
13. On April 7, 2009, contrary to s. 26.1 of the Law Society Act and Rule 6.01(7) of the
Paralegal Rules of Conduct, you provided legal services when you contacted WSIAT
with respect to your client, J.L, despite being administratively suspended as of November
7, 2008.
14. You failed to act with courtesy and civility, contrary to Rule 2.01(2) of the Paralegal
Rules of Conduct, in the manner in which you communicated with J.L. on the telephone.
15. You failed to serve your client J.L. contrary to Rule 3.01 of the Paralegal Rules of
Conduct in the following manner:
a. You failed to respond to J.L.’s telephone communications in a timely and effective
manner during the course of your retainer, and failed to keep her apprised of her
WSIB and WSIAT matters; and
b. You failed to advance or complete the work for which you were retained by J.L. in
relation to her WSIB and WSIAT claims.
16. Contrary to Rule 3.08(11) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, upon J.L.’s termination of
your retainer in June 2009, you failed to account for the funds she provided to you,
including failing to explain whether any monies were owed or whether she was entitled to
a refund of monies you had not earned.
E.A.
17. In January 2009 when E.A. retained you to assist with a WSIB matter, you failed to
advise E.A. of the November 7, 2008 order suspending your licence to provide legal
services, contrary to By-Law 7.1, s.10.
18. Between January 2009 and April 2009, contrary to s. 26.1 of the Law Society Act and
Rule 6.01(7) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, you accepted a retainer from E.A. and
provided legal services in relation to E.A.’s WSIB matter, despite being administratively
suspended as of November 7, 2008.
19. You failed to serve E.A., contrary to Rule 3.01 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, in the
following manner:
a. You failed to respond to E.A.’s telephone communications in a timely and effective
manner during the course of your retainer, and failed to keep her apprised of the
status of her WSIB matter; and
b. You failed to advance or complete the work for which you were retained by E.A. in
relation to her WSIB claim.
20. Contrary to Rule 3.08(11) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, upon E.A.’s termination of
your retainer in May 2009, you failed to do the following:
a. You failed to return E.A.’s client file to her; and
b. You failed to account to E.A. for the funds she provided to you, including failing to
explain whether any monies were owed or whether she was entitled to a refund of
monies you had not earned.
G.K.
21. On or about January 10, 2009 when you met with G.K. about his WSIB matter, you failed
to advise G.K., of the November 7, 2008 order suspending your licence to provide legal
services, contrary to By-Law 7.1, s.10.
22. Contrary to Rule 3.08(11) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, upon G.K.’s termination of
your retainer on January 19, 2009, you failed to do the following:
a. You failed to return G.K.’s client file to him; and
b. You failed to account to G.K. for the funds he provided to you, including failing to
explain the monies you said were owing.
JAMES ALEXANDER KAY
From: City of Mississauga, Ontario
Motion to be heard: May 30, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Leslie Maunder
Lawyer not represented
Particulars from the Law Society’s Notice of Motion filed April 9, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR:
(a) An order convening the Hearing Panel for the purposes of setting a date for the
commencement of the 30-day suspension ordered in the Amended Decision and Order
dated July 24, 2006.
(b) An order setting the date for the commencement of the 30-day suspension; or
(c) In the alternative to (b) an order scheduling a teleconference as soon as possible for the
purpose of setting a date for the commencement of the 30-day suspension; or
(d) In the alternative to (a), (b) and (c), an order referring this matter to the Chair of the
Hearing Panel for the purposes of assigning a new Hearing Panel to set the
commencement date for the 30-day suspension; and
(e) The costs of this motion; and
(f) Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and the Hearing Panel allows.
MARTIN RONALD ZARETSKY
From: Town of Markham, Ontario
First hearing: May 30 to June 1, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Sean Dewart and Heidi Rubin
Lawyer’s Counsel: Graeme Hamilton and William Trudell
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed March 22, 2011:
1. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(5) and 5.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
in that:
(a) he participated in or knowingly assisted in dishonest or fraudulent conduct by his
vendor and purchaser clients, or associated persons, to obtain mortgage funds under
false pretences in connection with the transactions (the “Real Estate Transactions”)
involving the properties identified in Schedule “A” hereto; or
(b) alternatively, he failed to be on guard against being duped by unscrupulous clients or
associated persons in connection with the Real Estate Transactions; or
(c) alternatively, he abdicated his professional responsibility by failing to supervise his
real estate practice in connection with the Real Estate Transactions.
2. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(5) and 5.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
in that:
(a) he participated in or knowingly assisted in dishonest or fraudulent conduct by his
borrower client, or associated persons, to obtain loaned funds under false pretences in
connection with loan transactions or attempted loan transactions for Mintranie
Captain between July 2007 and May 2008 (the "Personal Property Transactions"); or
(b) alternatively, he failed to be on guard against being duped by unscrupulous clients or
associated persons in connection with the Personal Property Transactions.
3. The respondent breached Rule 2.01(1) by failing to be honest and candid when advising
his lender client and purchaser client in connection with the Real Estate Transaction, by
failing to disclose material facts to his lender client, including:
(a) recent re-sale and price escalation of the property;
(b) the non-payment of deposits provided for in the agreement of purchase and sale
governing the Transaction;
(c) the granting of credits for additional purported deposits not provided for in the
agreement or for other items not provided for in the agreement;
(d) closing funds not being advanced by the purchaser;
(e) shortfalls between the closing funds received (consisting solely of the mortgage
advances) and the closing funds required to complete the transaction;
(f) the existence of surplus mortgage funds;
(g) payments to purchasers from sale proceeds;
(h) payments to non-parties from sale proceeds;
(i) discrepancies between purchase prices shown in agreements and the actual
consideration paid on closing.
4. The respondent breached Rule 2.01(1) by failing to be honest and candid when advising
his lender client and purchaser client in connection with the Personal Property
Transactions, by failing to disclose material facts to his lender client, including:
(a) the fact that there was reason to believe that the personal property to be pledged to
secure the loans did not exist;
(b) there was reason to believe that the borrower had engaged or attempted to engage in
fraud on earlier occasions.
5. The respondent breached Rule 2.01(2) by failing to serve his lender clients in the Real
Estate Transactions and the Personal Property Transactions to the standard of a
competent lawyer. In particular:
(a) the respondent failed to disclose material facts to his lender clients;
(b) the respondent failed to make reasonable inquiries regarding the unusual features of
the Transactions; and
(c) the respondent failed to review or follow express lender instructions.
SCHEDULE “A”
Property
Property 1:
Property 2:
Property 3:
Description
33 Earl Grey Road, Toronto
Vacant Parcel on Beamarais Drive, Brampton
13 Bretton Circle, Toronto
JAMES MAURICE MELNICK
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Hearing reconvened: May 31 and June 1, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Loretta Arci and Susan J. Heakes
Lawyer Applicant’s Counsel: John L. Hill
The Applicant has made an application for a Class L1 licence pursuant to section 27 of the Law
Society Act.
OSCAR CHOI-WAH WONG
From: Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario
Hearing reconvened: June 1, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Sean Dewart and Adrienne Lei
Lawyer’s Counsel: William Trudell
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed March 22, 2011:
1. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(5) and 5.01(2) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, in that:
a. he participated in or knowingly assisted in dishonest or fraudulent
conduct by his vendor and purchaser clients, or associated persons,
to obtain mortgage funds under false pretences in connection with
the transactions (the “Transactions”) involving the properties
identified in Schedule “A” hereto; or
b. alternatively, he failed to be on guard against being duped by
unscrupulous clients or associated persons in connection with the
Transactions; or
c. alternatively, he abdicated his professional responsibility by failing
to supervise his real estate practice in connection with the
Transactions.
2. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(1) by failing to be honest and candid when
advising his lender clients and purchaser clients in connection with the
Transactions, by failing to disclose material facts to his lender clients, or in the
case of transactions after February 2007, breached Rule 2.04 (6.1) by failing to
advise his lender clients of material facts in writing before the advance of
mortgage funds; including:
a. joint retainers with purchasers and vendors;
b. recent re-sales and price escalations of properties;
c. the non-payment of deposits provided for in the agreements of
purchase and sale governing the Transactions which were payable
to the respondent but never received by him or were otherwise
unverified;
d. the granting of credits for additional purported deposits not
provided for in the agreements or for other items not provided for
in the agreements;
e. closing funds not being advanced by purchasers;
f. shortfalls between the closing funds received (consisting solely of
the mortgage advances) and the closing funds required to complete
the transactions;
g. the existence of surplus mortgage funds;
h. payments to purchasers from sale proceeds;
i. payments to non-parties from sale proceeds;
j. discrepancies between purchase prices shown in agreements and
the actual consideration paid on closing.
3. The respondent breached Rules 2.04(3), (6) and (8) by acting for multiple parties
in the Transactions, without adequate disclosure to or consent from his lender
clients and purchaser clients.
4. The respondent breached Rule 2.01(2) by failing to serve his lender clients and
purchaser clients in the Transactions to the standard of a competent lawyer. In
particular:
a. the respondent failed to disclose material facts to his lender clients
and purchaser clients;
b. the respondent failed to make reasonable inquiries regarding the
unusual features of the Transactions; and
c. the respondent failed to review or follow express lender
instructions.
5. The respondent breached section 6(2) of the Law Society’s By-Law No 7.1, by failing to
maintain the security of a specially encrypted diskette and personalized pass providing
access to the land registry system.
SCHEDULE “A”
Property
Property 1:
Property 2:
Property 3:
Property 4:
Property 5:
Property 6:
Property 7:
Property 8:
Property 9:
Property 10:
Property 11:
Property 12:
Description
292 Port Royal Trail, Scarborough
370 Balkan Road, Richmond Hill
27 Cartier Crescent, Toronto
170 Galbraith Crescent, Markham
560 Sewells Road, Toronto
38 Lee Centre Drive, Unit 1707, Toronto
21 Raspberry Road, Toronto
3986 Ellesmere Road, Toronto
19 Myrna Lane, Toronto
55 Dylan Street, Toronto
148 Olive Avenue, Oshawa
65 Leitch Avenue, Toronto
JUNIOR OSAS EBAGUA
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Motions to be heard: June 4, 2012
First hearings: June 8, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Nisha Dhanoa
Paralegal not represented
Particulars from the Paralegal’s Notice of Motion filed May 28, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR: Full disclosure of any information Case No: PCN76-11 AND PCN13111. Junior Ebagua, will be requesting any information concerning, Antonia Candela, Ashley
Goodfellow, Joanna Maltase, Julia Bulychov, and other anonymous callers and other individuals,
investigators, crown prosecutors, federal court facilities, correctional facilities and any
information written, emailed or orally received by any individual within the Law Society of
Upper Canada.
All information, documents, phone records or e-mails should and will be turned over to Junior
Osas Ebagua, so Ebose Legal Defence will be in position to prepare foe Mr Ebagua’s Defence in
this matter.
Particulars from the Law Society’s Amended Notice of Motion filed May 25, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR:
(a) An Order striking the documents attached to the Respondent’s “Notice of Motion for
Complete Disclosure of Information December 23, 2011” (hereinafter, the “Respondent’s
First Notice of Motion”) which were served on the Law Society on March 19, 2012.
(b) An Order striking the Respondent’s factum which was served on the Law Society on May
23, 2012 together with the Respondent’s Notice of Motion requesting further disclosure
(hereinafter, the Respondent’s Second Notice of Motion”).
Particulars from the Law Society’s Notice of Motion filed April 23, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR an Order that the merits of PCN76/11 and PCN131/11 be heard at the
same time and together.
Particulars from the Paralegal’s Notice of Motion filed March 19, 2012: (note: motion was
proposed to be heard in writing)
THE MOTION IS FOR: full disclosure of any information concerning Case No. PPCN131-11
and PCN76-11. Junior Ebagua, will be requesting any information concerning, Antonia Candela
and other individuals, investigators, crown prosecutors, federal court facilities, correctional
facilities and any information written, emailed or orally received by any individual within the
Law Society of Upper Canada.
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed August 2, 2011:
Complaint of S.M.
1. Contrary to Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules
of Conduct, the respondent failed to provide a complete and substantive response as
requested by the Law Society in letters dated February 11, 2011, March 10, 2011, April
4, 2011 and May 9, 2011.
Complaint of N.A.
2. Contrary to Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules
of Conduct, the respondent failed to:
a. Provide written representations and documents as requested by the Law Society in
letters dated August 4, 2010, September 9, 2010, January 11, 2011, February 15, 2011
and May 6, 2011.
Complaint of A.R.
3. Contrary to Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules
of Conduct, the respondent failed to:
a. Provide written representations and documents as requested by the Law Society in
letters dated March 17, 2011, April 6, 2011, April 25, 2011 and May 6, 2011.
b. Provide books and records as requested by the Law Society in letters dated March 17,
2011, April 6, 2011, April 25, 2011 and May 6, 2011.
Complaint of M. H.
4. Contrary to Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules
of Conduct, the respondent failed to:
a. Provide written representations and documents as requested by the Law Society in
letters dated April 25, 2011 and May 6, 2011.
b. Provide books and records as requested by the Law Society in letters dated April 25,
2011 and May 6, 2011.
Complaint of A.T.
5. Contrary to Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules
of Conduct, the respondent failed to:
a. Provide written representations and documents as requested by the Law Society in
letters dated April 25, 2011 and May 6, 2011.
b. Provide books and records as requested by the Law Society in letters dated April 25,
2011 and May 6, 2011.
6. In the alternative to particulars (3)(b), (4)(b) and (5)(b), the respondent failed to maintain
proper books and records in connection with his paralegal practice since at least August,
2010, contrary to By-law 9, made pursuant to the Law Society Act.
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a paralegal licensee
from the Law Society’s Amended Notice of Application filed April 18, 2012:
Complaint of The Law Society of Upper Canada
1. The respondent breached section 2(1)(a)(ii) of By-Law 8 and Rule 9.01(9) of the
Paralegal Rules of Conduct when he failed to report to the Law Society as soon as
reasonably practicable that he had been charged with committing an offence under the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) as set out in a Criminal Information
sworn on September 19, 2011.
2. The respondent breached section 2(1)(a)(ii) of By-Law 8 and Rule 9.01(9) of the
Paralegal Rules of Conduct when he failed to report to the Law Society as soon as
reasonably practicable that he had been charged with committing an offence under the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) as set out in a Criminal Information
sworn on September 22, 2011.
3. The respondent breached a condition of his Recognizance of Bail dated September 23,
2011 that required him to provide a copy of his Recognizance of Bail dated September
23, 2011 to the Law Society within 72 hours of his release, and thereby failed to conduct
himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the paralegal profession contrary to
Rule 2.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.
Complaint of C.E.
4. Contrary to Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules
of Conduct, the respondent failed to provide a complete and substantive response as
requested by the Law Society in letters dated May 2, 2011, May 9, 2011, May 19, 2011,
June 29, 2011 and December 7, 2011.
Complaint of Z.K.
5. Contrary to Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules
of Conduct, the respondent failed to:
a. Provide written representations and documents as requested by the Law Society in
letters dated August 23, 2011, September 15, 2011, October 12, 2011 and December
8, 2011.
b. Provide books and records as requested by the Law Society in letters dated August
23, 2011, September 15, 2011, October 12, 2011 and December 8, 2011.
Complaint of B.M.
6. Contrary to Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules
of Conduct, the respondent failed to:
a. Provide written representations and documents as requested by the Law Society in
letters dated August 23, 2011, September 15, 2011, October 12, 2011 and December
8, 2011.
b. Provide books and records as requested by the Law Society in letters dated August
23, 2011, September 15, 2011, October 12, 2011 and December 8, 2011.
7. In the alternative to particulars (5)(b) and (6)(b), the respondent failed to maintain proper
books and records in connection with his paralegal practice since at least August, 2011,
contrary to By-law 9, made pursuant to the Law Society Act.
RODERICK JOHN BYRNES
De: Toronto, Ontario
Reprise de l’audience: du 4 au 5 juin 2012
L’avocate du Barreau: Louise Hurteau
L’intimé non représenté
Les détails de l'inconduite professionnelle alléguée dans l'avis de requête modifié du Barreau du
Haut-Canada déposé le 15 avril 2011:
1. L’intimé n’a pas assuré de service à son client RR, contrairement à ce que prescrit la règle
2.01 (2) du Code de déontologie, comme suit :
a. en omettant de suivre les instructions de RR à l’égard de l’affaire pour laquelle ses
services ont été retenus en 2005;
b. en omettant d’expliquer à RR le but et l’effet des deux directives irrévocables datées
du 10 avril 2005 et du 15 mai 2005 respectivement;
c. en omettant de tenir RR informé des progrès de l’affaire;
d. en quittant une conférence de règlement sans aviser RR du moment de son retour, le
cas échéant;
e. en omettant de fournir par écrit une estimation de ses honoraires et son fondement;
f. en facturant des honoraires qui dépassaient de loin les attentes raisonnables de RR.
2. Pendant la période du 6 mars 2005 au 31 octobre 2005, l’intimé a facturé à son client RR une
somme pour des honoraires et des débours qui n’était pas juste ni raisonnable, contrairement
à ce que prescrit la règle 2.08(1) du Code de déontologie.
TERENCE JOHN ROBINSON
From: City of Sarnia, Ontario
First hearing: June 4 to 6, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Deborah McPhadden
Lawyer’s Counsel: Jonathan Rudin
Particulars of alleged conduct unbecoming a licensee from the Law Society’s Notice of
Application filed January 20, 2011:
1. On or about June 30, 2009, the Respondent was convicted of the following criminal
offence:
That Terence J Robinson on or about the 23rd day of June in the year 2007 at the City of
Sarnia in the Province of Ontario, Southwest Region, did endanger the life of Neil
Charles Verville thereby committing an aggravated assault, contrary to Section 268 of the
Criminal Code of Canada.
TULEEP VIRESH FERNANDO
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearings: during the week of June 4, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Janice Duggan
Lawyer’s Counsel: Graeme Hamilton and William Trudell
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed April 19, 2011:
1. On March 13, 2008, the respondent attempted to mislead the Court by filing written costs
submission in the family law matter of S.K. and D.K that failed to include or refer to the
November 27, 2007 endorsement of Justice Wildman, contrary to Rule 4.01(1) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct;
2. On March 13, 2008, the respondent failed to act with integrity by filing written costs
submissions in the family law matter of S.K. and D.K. when he was no longer solicitor of
record for S.K., contrary to Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct;
3. The respondent failed to act with integrity when he alleged that another lawyer, D.G.,
“lied” to the Court, contrary to Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Professional Conduct;
4. Between July 23, 2007 and August 17, 2007, in written communication sent to another
lawyer, D.G., the respondent communicated by his words and tone in a manner that was
abusive, offensive and otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional
communication from a lawyer, contrary to Rule 6.03(5) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct;
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed June 28, 2011:
1. Between July 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008, in written communications sent to another
lawyer, AM, the respondent communicated by his words and tone in a manner that was
abusive, offensive and otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional
communication from a lawyer, contrary to Rule 6.03(5) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed February 22, 2012:
1. Between March 18, 2008 and March 2011, the respondent communicated to J.W.,
another lawyer, in written communications and by his words and tone in a manner that
was abusive, offensive and otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional
communication from a lawyer, contrary to Rule 6.03(5) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
JAN-LEE McKENZIE HUGHES
From: Town of Oakville, Ontario
First hearing: during the week of June 4, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Jan Parnega-Welch
Lawyer’s Counsel: Neil Perrier
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Amended Notice of
Application filed October 25, 2011:
1. Contrary to Rules 2.01(1) and 4.01(5)(c) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct (the “Rules”),
you knowingly swore, served and filed multiple affidavits in Court File No. FC-06-23060001 (“your Family Law Matter”) that contained fabricated evidence, including the
following documents:
(a) letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated September 21, 2004,
(b) letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated October 27, 2004.
(c) letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated February 22, 2010,
(d) letter purportedly written and signed by M.P., dated June 1, 2010,
(e) letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated July 9, 2010,
(f) a second letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated July 9, 2010, and
(g) letter purportedly written and signed by E.S., dated July 26, 2010.
2. In the alternative, contrary to Rules 2.01(1) and 4.01(5)(c) of the Rules, you swore,
served and filed multiple affidavits in your Family Law Matter that contained documents
which you knew or ought to have known were not authentic, including the following:
(a) letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated September 21, 2004,
(b) letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated October 27, 2004.
(c) letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated February 22, 2010,
(d) letter purportedly written and signed by M.P., dated June 1, 2010,
(e) letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated July 9, 2010,
(f) a second letter purportedly written and signed by J.S., dated July 9, 2010, and
(g) letter purportedly written and signed by E.S., dated July 26, 2010.
KIMBERLY LYNNE TOWNLEY-SMITH
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Hearing reconvened: June 7, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Glenn M. Stuart
Lawyer not represented
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed May 26, 2010
Failing to Maintain the Integrity of the Profession
1. The Respondent breached Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to
conduct herself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession by her
initiation and/or conduct of the following proceedings launched and/or conducted in the
name of her client, Kim Baryluk:
• Kim Baryluk (c.o.b. The Wyrd Sisters) v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, 05-CV-297404PD3) (“Ontario Warner Bros Action #1”);
• Kim Baryluk d.b.a. The Wyrd Sisters v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al.
(Federal Court of Canada, Toronto T-1138-07) (“Federal Warner Bros Action”);
• Kim Baryluk (c.o.b. The Wyrd Sisters) v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al.
(Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 07-CV-39784) (“Ontario Warner Bros Action
#2”);
• Kim Baryluk (c.o.b. The Wyrd Sisters) v. Colin Livingstone Campbell, John C.
Wilkins Jr., Ronald M. Dash (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 07-CV-039852)
(“Ontario Judges Action”);
• Kim Baryluk (c.o.b. The Wyrd Sisters) v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al.
(Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba, CI 07-01-53990) (“Manitoba Warner Bros
Action”).
In particular, the Respondent:
(a) repeatedly sought to litigate the issue of alleged conspiracy/corruption on the part of
judges of the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto based on the same grounds and
issues;
(b) repeatedly sought to have opposing counsel and judges removed from the case based
on alleged improper behaviour;
(c) made allegations of improper conduct, including criminality, against an everexpanding group of individuals directly and indirectly involved in the above
proceedings and subsequent related events;
(d) launched or threatened to launch motions, stays and appeals in the course of the
above proceedings which were then abandoned or not pursued; and
(e) resisted efforts made by the courts and opposing counsel to move the above
proceedings forward and towards completion in a timely way.
Failing to Encourage Respect for the Administration of Justice
2. The Respondent breached Rule 4.06(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to
encourage public respect for the administration of justice. In particular:
(a) in the statement of claim, and in her responding motion materials and submissions on
a motion to quash the statement of claim in the Ontario Judges Action, the
Respondent made one or more of the following public unfounded allegations -- bias,
improper ex parte communications with opposing counsel, interference and/or
corruption, abuse of power, lying, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to cover-up
judicial misconduct, improper removal of documents from a court file, and transcript
tampering -- against Justice Colin Campbell, Justice John Wilkins, Master Ronald
Dash, Chief Justice Heather Smith, Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, Regional Senior
Justice Warren Winkler, Regional Senior Justice Charles Hackland, the
administration of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal, the
Ministry of the Attorney General, and the Government of Ontario, and
(b) in submissions before Justice Christopher Martin of the Queen’s Bench of Manitoba
in the Manitoba Warner Bros Action, the Respondent made public unfounded
allegations of his bias and corruption.
Offering Evidence and Opinions While Acting as Advocate
3. The Respondent breached Rule 4.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by:
(a) submitting her own affidavits to the Court in the Ontario Warner Bros Action #1 and
continuing to act as counsel in those same proceedings; and
(b) in effect, appearing as an unsworn witness in the Ontario Judges Action by expressing
her personal opinions and beliefs and asserting facts that ought to have been the
subject of proof, by way of oral and written submissions to the Court.
Failing to Treat the Court with Fairness, Courtesy and Respect
4. The Respondent breached Rule 4.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct while
advocating for her client, Kim Baryluk, in the Ontario Warner Bros Action #1 by failing
to treat adjudicators with fairness, courtesy and respect by:
(a) making unfounded allegations of bias, improper ex parte communications with
opposing counsel, interference, abuse of power, harassment and other misconduct
against adjudicators Justice Colin Campbell, Justice John Wilkins, Justice Carolyn
Horkins, and Justice Mary Ann Sanderson by way of correspondence, submissions
and materials filed with the Court; and
(b) failing to follow the direction of adjudicators regarding the procedural conduct of the
proceedings by, inter alia:
(i)
continuing to allege the bias of Justice Colin Campbell and Justice John
Wilkins without bringing a motion for recusal as she had been directed to do;
(ii)
excessively and improperly communicating with the Court through letters and
continuing to do so after she was asked to stop; and
(iii) communicating with Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, Chief Justice Heather
Smith, Regional Senior Justice Warren Winkler, and Regional Senior Edward
Then in an effort to circumvent rulings and/or judges not to her liking.
Failing to Be Courteous, Civil and Act in Good Faith
5. The Respondent breached Rule 4.01(6) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that she
failed to be courteous, civil and act in good faith towards Regional Senior Justice Charles
Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Ontario Judges Action, when she
made unfounded allegations that he had tampered with a transcript, acted for the
improper purpose of suppressing corruption, and committed the criminal offences of
breach of trust and extortion.
6. The Respondent breached Rule 4.01(6) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that she
failed to be courteous, civil and act in good faith towards Justice Christopher Martin of
the Queen’s Bench of Manitoba in the Manitoba Warner Bros Action, when she made
unfounded allegations that he was biased, corrupt, and had committed the criminal
offences of breach of trust and extortion.
7. The Respondent breached Rule 4.01(6) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that she
failed to be courteous, civil and act in good faith towards counsel Jonathon Stainsby,
Peter Griffin and Charles Scott, who at various times acted as counsel for Warner Bros.
Entertainment Inc., in the Ontario Warner Bros Action #1, the Federal Warner Bros
Action, and the Ontario Warner Bros Action #2, by:
(a) making unfounded allegations that they had tendered false evidence, had improper ex
parte communications with judges of the Superior Court, conspired with the Court,
misled or lied to the Court, lied to the Respondent, improperly attacked the
Respondent’s conduct, and harassed the Respondent;
(b) accusing them, without factual foundation, of taking steps in the litigation for an
improper purpose; and
(c) seeking to advocate by way of correspondence with judges in between court
appearances without seeking the consent of opposing counsel to do so.
Failing to Respond to and Cooperate With the Law Society
8. The Respondent breached Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act by failing to substantively
respond to and cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to produce
information and documentation requested in letters dated March 12, 2010, March 29,
2010, and April 16, 2010.
THANGAVEL KESAVAN
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Motion to be heard: June 11, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Bill Holder
Former Lawyer’s Counsel: Peter Copeland
Particulars from the Former Lawyer’s Notice of Motion filed May 25, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR AN ORDER:
1. That the Law Society make disclosure of all information and documentary materials in its
possession relating to the alleged conflict, and in particular:
- All information, documents, notes, and records of communications relating to any
disclosure of the conflict to the Law Society at the time of the referral of the
prosecution to Mr. Dewart;
- All information, documents, notes and records of communications with Dewart
Gleason LLP relating to the alleged conflict since it was raised by the Appellant’s
counsel on November 8, 2011 or such earlier date as the Law Society became aware
of the alleged conflict; and,
- All details and facts relating to the status of the practices of Mr. Dewart and Mr.
Gleason from the date of the referral of the Law Society file to Mr. Dewart up until
the date of the formal retainer of Dewart Gleason LLP.
MIREILLE SIMONE JOCELYNE MARIE LANDRY
De: Ottawa, Ontario
Reprise de l’audience: 11 juin 2012
L’avocate du Barreau: Louise Hurteau
L’avocat de l’intimé: J. Pierre Champagne
Les détails de l'inconduite professionnelle alléguée dans l'avis de requête du Barreau du HautCanada déposé le 16 janvier 2009:
1. Vous n’avez pas assuré un service juridique consciencieux, prompt et rentable dans une
affaire concernant vos clients J.G. et M.C. ayant trait à une instance civile:
a. Vous avez omis de déposer une réclamation dans le délai donné aux clients et
initialement induit les clients en erreur concernant le statut du dossier;
b. Vous avez omis de préparer et d’assurer que vos clients étaient prêts pour les
interrogatoires au préalable;
c. Vous avez omis de préparer et de déposer une plaidoirie écrite traitant des dépens
suite à une motion;
d. Vous avez omis de rapporter à vos clients les motifs de l’ordonnance des dépens
de la somme de 32 500,00 $;
e. Vous avez pris une décision unilatérale de ne pas demander permission d’en
appeler de l’ordonnance des dépens et avez omis d’obtenir des instructions de vos
clients;
2. Vous avez omis de rendre un ou des comptes à vos clients J.G. et M.C.pour la somme de
3 000,00 $.
3. Vous êtes en violation d’un engagement donné au Barreau du Haut-Canada au mois de
juillet 2006 en ayant omis de répondre de manière rapide aux communications écrites et
orales du Barreau;
4. Vous avez omis de répondre aux communications d’un avocat en temps utile.
DOROTHY ELIZABETH DeMERCHANT
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Hearing reconvened: June 11 and 12, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Paul Stern
Lawyer’s Counsel: Philip Campbell
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed May 4, 2009:
1.
a.
In connection with the matters detailed below, you acted in a conflict of interest within
the meaning of Rule 2.04 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended from time to
time, in that you failed to make adequate disclosure of your conflict of interest and to
obtain the informed consent of your clients, as required by the Rule.
The sale to Canwest Global Communications:
Between May 1, 2000 and September 30, 2001, you rendered legal services in
connection with the sale by Hollinger International Inc. and its subsidiaries, and
Hollinger Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership, and its subsidiaries, of
newspaper assets to Canwest Global Communications, which included the
provision of non-competition covenants and payments in respect of which the
interests of two or more of your clients were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Canadian Newspapers Limited
Partnership and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc. and its subsidiaries, and the
following recipients of the non-competition payments, The Ravelston Corporation
Limited, and Messrs. Conrad Black, Peter Atkinson, and John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
who was to receive compensation for their non-competition covenant;
ii)
how much was to be received;
iii)
what was the true purpose of the non-competition payments;
iv)
which vendor would bear the burden of the payments;
v)
what was required to be publicly disclosed in connection with the
payments; and
vi)
what was the appropriate tax treatment for the payments.
i.
b. The sale to Osprey Media Holdings Inc.:
i.
In the period between Feb. 1, 2001 and March 31, 2002, you rendered legal
services in connection with the sale by Hollinger International Inc. and Hollinger
Canadian Newspapers Limited General Partnership (“HCNLP”) and their
subsidiaries, of newspaper assets to Osprey Media Holdings Inc. which included
the provision of non-competition covenants and payments in respect of which the
interests of two or more of your clients were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries, HCNLP and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc.
and its subsidiaries, and the recipients of the non-competition payments, The
Ravelston Corporation Limited, and Messrs. Conrad Black, Peter Atkinson, and
John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
who was to receive compensation for their non-competition covenant;
ii)
how much was to be received;
iii)
what was the true purpose of the non-competition payments;
iv)
which vendor would bear the burden of the payments;
v)
what was required to be publicly disclosed in connection with the
payments; and
vi)
what was the appropriate tax treatment for the payments.
c. The Sale of NP Holdings Company:
i.
In the period of October 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002, you rendered legal services
in connection with the sale by Hollinger International Inc. and/or its subsidiaries
of NP Holdings Company to The Ravelston Corporation Limited and/or its
subsidiaries, a transaction in respect of which the interests of two or more of your
clients were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with Hollinger
International Inc. and/or its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc. and its subsidiaries, and
The Ravelston Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries, and the following The
Ravelston Corporation Limited shareholders Messrs. Conrad Black, Peter
Atkinson, and John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
The valuation of NP Holdings Company;
ii)
The liability of your client NP Holdings to Canwest, and the similar
liability of your client Hollinger International Inc. to Canwest;
iii)
The infusion of $22.5 million from your client Hollinger Canadian
Publishing Holdings Co. (“HCPH”) to your client NP Holdings; and
iv)
The creation and terms of a promissory note from your client HCPH
promising to pay your client NP Holdings $22.5 million.
d. The loan to 504468 N.B. Inc. (“504”):
i.
In the period between May 1, 2000 and March 31, 2003, you rendered legal
services in connection with a loan from Hollinger International Inc. and/or its
subsidiaries, to 504, an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Hollinger Inc., in
the amount of US$36.8 million where the interests of two or more of your clients
were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with 504 and with
Hollinger International Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc. and its
subsidiaries, The Ravelston Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries, and Messrs.
Conrad Black, Peter Atkinson, and John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
ii)
iii)
e.
Your knowledge and advice as to whether there was an alternative to
making the loan;
The security, or lack thereof, to be provided to your lender client by your
borrower client; and
The reduction of the interest rate in favour of your borrower client in a
manner detrimental to your lender client.
The Offsetting Debt Transaction - the 504 debt to HII and the HCPH (NP Holdings)
debt to RMI:
i.
In the period between March 1, 2003, and September 30, 2003, you rendered legal
services in connection with the reduction of the loan debt owed by 504 to
Hollinger International Inc., from US$20.4 million to US$4.7 million, by means
of offsetting the promissory note previously entered into by HCPH to NP
Holdings, now through corporate reorganizations owing to Ravelston
Management Inc., where the interests of two or more of your clients were not
aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with 504, Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc. and its subsidiaries, The
Ravelston Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries including Ravelston
Management Inc., and Messrs. Conrad Black, Peter Atkinson, and John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
Whether or not the HCPH to NP Holdings promissory note could be
utilized to offset the debt where it was initially intended to be a contingent
asset only;
ii)
Whether your client Hollinger International Inc. continued to have an
independent obligation to Canwest where it had now paid the same
obligation to Ravelston Management Inc. unconditionally;
iii)
Whether or not proper approval was obtained for this related party
transaction; and
iv)
Who remained liable to Canwest upon demand for payment by Canwest
on the $22.5 million obligation.
f. Conrad Black’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship:
i.
In the period January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2003, you rendered legal services
in connection with Mr. Conrad Black’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship,
where the interests of two or more of your clients were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries,, Hollinger Inc. and its subsidiaries, The
Ravelston Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries, and Mr. Conrad Black.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
Whether renunciation of Canadian citizenship by your client Mr. Black
would be detrimental to the interests of your other clients Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries, and Hollinger Inc. and its
subsidiaries, particularly due to:
a.
ii)
The effect of s. 19 of the Income Tax Act (whereby advertisers
would not be allowed to deduct advertising expense in media
controlled by a non-Canadian); and
b.
The potential breach of the National Post partnership agreement
with Canwest.
What was required to be publicly disclosed respecting the potential
consequences of Mr. Black’s actions.
DARREN ELLIOT SUKONICK
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Hearing reconvened: June 11 and 12, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Paul Stern
Lawyer’s Counsel: Ian R. Smith
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed May 4, 2009:
1.
In connection with the matters detailed below, you acted in a conflict of interest within
the meaning of Rule 2.04 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended from time to
time, in that you failed to make adequate disclosure of your conflict of interest and to
obtain the informed consent of your clients, as required by the Rule.
a. The sale to Canwest Global Communications:
i.
Between May 1, 2000 and September 30, 2001, you rendered legal services in
connection with the sale by Hollinger International Inc. and its subsidiaries, and
Hollinger Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership, and its subsidiaries, of
newspaper assets to Canwest Global Communications, which included the
provision of non-competition covenants and payments in respect of which the
interests of two or more of your clients were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Canadian Newspapers Limited
Partnership and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc. and its subsidiaries, and the
following recipients of the non-competition payments, The Ravelston Corporation
Limited, and Messrs. Conrad Black, Peter Atkinson, and John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
who was to receive compensation for their non-competition covenant;
ii)
how much was to be received;
iii)
what was the true purpose of the non-competition payments;
iv)
which vendor would bear the burden of the payments;
v)
what was required to be publicly disclosed in connection with the
payments; and
vi)
what was the appropriate tax treatment for the payments.
b. The sale to Osprey Media Holdings Inc.:
i.
In the period between Feb. 1, 2001 and March 31, 2002, you rendered legal
services in connection with the sale by Hollinger International Inc. and Hollinger
Canadian Newspapers Limited General Partnership (“HCNLP”) and their
subsidiaries, of newspaper assets to Osprey Media Holdings Inc. which included
the provision of non-competition covenants and payments in respect of which the
interests of two or more of your clients were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries, HCNLP and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc.
and its subsidiaries, and the recipients of the non-competition payments, The
iii.
Ravelston Corporation Limited, and Messrs. Conrad Black, Peter Atkinson, and
John Boultbee.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
who was to receive compensation for their non-competition covenant;
ii)
how much was to be received;
iii)
what was the true purpose of the non-competition payments;
iv)
which vendor would bear the burden of the payments;
v)
what was required to be publicly disclosed in connection with the
payments; and
vi)
what was the appropriate tax treatment for the payments.
c. The Sale of NP Holdings Company:
i.
In the period of October 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002, you rendered legal services
in connection with the sale by Hollinger International Inc. and/or its subsidiaries
of NP Holdings Company to The Ravelston Corporation Limited and/or its
subsidiaries, a transaction in respect of which the interests of two or more of your
clients were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with Hollinger
International Inc. and/or its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc. and its subsidiaries, and
The Ravelston Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries, and the following The
Ravelston Corporation Limited shareholders Messrs. Conrad Black, Peter
Atkinson, and John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
The valuation of NP Holdings Company;
ii)
The liability of your client NP Holdings to Canwest, and the similar
liability of your client Hollinger International Inc. to Canwest;
iii)
The infusion of $22.5 million from your client Hollinger Canadian
Publishing Holdings Co. (“HCPH”) to your client NP Holdings; and
iv)
The creation and terms of a promissory note from your client HCPH
promising to pay your client NP Holdings $22.5 million.
d. The loan to 504468 N.B. Inc. (“504”):
i.
In the period between May 1, 2000 and March 31, 2003, you rendered legal
services in connection with a loan from Hollinger International Inc. and/or its
subsidiaries, to 504, an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Hollinger Inc., in
the amount of US$36.8 million where the interests of two or more of your clients
were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with 504 and with
Hollinger International Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc. and its
subsidiaries, The Ravelston Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries, and Messrs.
Conrad Black, Peter Atkinson, and John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
Your knowledge and advice as to whether there was an alternative to
making the loan;
ii)
iii)
e.
The security, or lack thereof, to be provided to your lender client by your
borrower client; and
The reduction of the interest rate in favour of your borrower client in a
manner detrimental to your lender client.
The Offsetting Debt Transaction - the 504 debt to HII and the HCPH (NP Holdings)
debt to RMI:
i.
In the period between March 1, 2003, and September 30, 2003, you rendered legal
services in connection with the reduction of the loan debt owed by 504 to
Hollinger International Inc., from US$20.4 million to US$4.7 million, by means
of offsetting the promissory note previously entered into by HCPH to NP
Holdings, now through corporate reorganizations owing to Ravelston
Management Inc., where the interests of two or more of your clients were not
aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with 504, Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hollinger Inc. and its subsidiaries, The
Ravelston Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries including Ravelston
Management Inc., and Messrs. Conrad Black, Peter Atkinson, and John Boultbee.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
Whether or not the HCPH to NP Holdings promissory note could be
utilized to offset the debt where it was initially intended to be a contingent
asset only;
ii)
Whether your client Hollinger International Inc. continued to have an
independent obligation to Canwest where it had now paid the same
obligation to Ravelston Management Inc. unconditionally;
iii)
Whether or not proper approval was obtained for this related party
transaction; and
iv)
Who remained liable to Canwest upon demand for payment by Canwest
on the $22.5 million obligation.
f. Conrad Black’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship:
i.
In the period January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2003, you rendered legal services
in connection with Mr. Conrad Black’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship,
where the interests of two or more of your clients were not aligned.
ii.
You had a solicitor-client relationship at the material times with Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries,, Hollinger Inc. and its subsidiaries, The
Ravelston Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries, and Mr. Conrad Black.
iii.
Your conflict of interest involved the following issues:
i)
Whether renunciation of Canadian citizenship by your client Mr. Black
would be detrimental to the interests of your other clients Hollinger
International Inc. and its subsidiaries, and Hollinger Inc. and its
subsidiaries, particularly due to:
b.
The effect of s. 19 of the Income Tax Act (whereby advertisers
would not be allowed to deduct advertising expense in media
controlled by a non-Canadian); and
c.
ii)
The potential breach of the National Post partnership agreement
with Canwest.
What was required to be publicly disclosed respecting the potential
consequences of Mr. Black’s actions.
JOSPEH REBELSON GOUVEIA
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearing: June 11 or 12, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Anne-Katherine Dionne
Lawyer not represented
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed February 14, 2012:
1. the respondent abandoned his law practice in or around January or February 2011.
2. beginning in February 2011 and continuing to the present, the respondent failed to
provide his current address(es), phone number(s), and email address(es) for his business
and home, despite requests for this information by a Law Society investigator in six
letters, contrary to By-Law 8, section 3(1).
3. regarding the Lawyer’s administrative suspension ordered on September 29, 2010,
(a) the respondent failed to advise S.T., an existing client, in advance of the
commencement of his administrative suspension that he would be unable to complete
her matter; that she would need to retain another licensee to complete the work; and
that he would transfer the file to another licensee or return the file to S.T., contrary to
By-Law 7.1 (Part II, section 9);
(b) when S.T. attended the respondent’s office on November 26, 2010, the respondent
failed to (i) advise S.T. of the suspension order and (ii) provide the name of another
licensee to whom the respondent had given S.T.’s file, contrary to By-Law 7.1 (Part
II, section 10);
(c) when S.T. attended the respondent’s office on November 26, 2010, the respondent
had S.T. sign an Authorization and Direction regarding settlement discussions and the
release of funds, contrary to the Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended Or Who
Have Given An Undertaking Not to Practice.
4. regarding the complaint of S.T., beginning in February 2011, the respondent failed to
cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to respond to requests for
information and documents made in letters dated February 16, 2011; April 28, 2011; June
6, 2011; and August 10, 2011, contrary to section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule
6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. regarding the complaint of the Law Society of Upper Canada, beginning in April 2011,
the respondent failed to cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to
respond to requests for information and documents made in letters dated April 11, 2011;
April 14, 2011; April 28, 2011; June 6, 2011; and August 10, 2011, contrary to section
49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
6. regarding the complaint of S.S., beginning in March 2011, the respondent failed to
cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to respond to requests for
information and documents made in letters dated March 7, 2011; April 12, 2011; and
May 16, 2011, contrary to section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 6.02 of the Rules
of Professional Conduct.
7. regarding the complaint of P.M., beginning in April 2011, the respondent failed to
cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to respond to requests for
information and documents made in letters dated April 6, 2011 and May 16, 2011,
contrary to section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
8. regarding the complaint of M.H., beginning in April 2011, the respondent failed to
cooperate with an investigation of the Law Society by failing to respond to requests for
information and documents made in letters dated April 6, 2011 and May 16, 2011,
contrary to section 49.3 of the Law Society Act and Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
DAVIES BAGAMBIIRE
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Motion to be heard: June 11, 12, or 13, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Glenn M. Stuart
Lawyer’s Counsel: Ed Morgan
Particulars from the Lawyer’s Notice of Motion filed April 13, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR:
a. an Order dismissing the Application.
MICHAEL ANDREW OSBORNE
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
Hearing reconvened: June 12, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Sean Dewart
Lawyer’s Counsel: Charles Wagman
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed September 21, 2010:
1. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(5) and 5.01(2) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, in that:
a. he participated in or knowingly assisted in dishonest or fraudulent
conduct by his vendor and purchaser clients, or associated persons,
to obtain mortgage funds under false pretences in connection with
the transactions (the “Transactions”) involving the properties
identified in Schedule “A” hereto; or
2. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(1) by failing to be honest and candid when
advising his lender clients and purchaser clients in connection with the
Transactions, by failing to disclose material facts to his lender clients, including:
a. recent re-sales and price escalations of properties;
b. the non-payment of deposits to the respondent as provided for in
the agreements of purchase and sale governing the Transactions;
c. the granting of credits for additional purported deposits not
provided for in the agreements, or for other items not provided for
in the agreements;
d. closing funds not being advanced by purchasers;
e. shortfalls between the closing funds received (consisting solely of
the mortgage advances) and the closing funds required to complete
the Transactions;
f. the existence of surplus mortgage funds;
g. payments to purchasers from sale proceeds;
h. payments to non-parties from sale proceeds;
i. discrepancies between purchase prices shown in agreements and
the actual consideration paid on closing; and
j. the existence of non arms length transactions.
3. The respondent breached Rule 2.01(2) by failing to serve his lender clients and
purchaser clients in the Transactions to the standard of a competent lawyer. In
particular:
a. the respondent failed to disclose material facts to his lender clients
and purchaser clients;
b. the respondent failed to make reasonable inquiries regarding the
unusual features of the Transactions; and
c. the respondent failed to review or follow express lender
instructions.
SCHEDULE “A”
Property
Description
Property 1:
Property 2:
Property 3:
Property 4:
Property 5:
Property 6:
Property 7:
Property 8:
Property 9:
Property 10:
Property 11:
Property 12:
151 Old Surrey Lane, Richmond Hill
603 Royal York Road, Toronto
909 Bay Street – Suite 616, Toronto
338 Harvie Avenue, Toronto
889 Bay Street – Suite 902, Toronto
889 Bay Street – Suite 802, Toronto
55 Bloor Street East – Suite 1506, Toronto
730 Lansdowne Avenue, Toronto
10 Yonge Street – Suite 410, Toronto
41 Greenwin Village Road, Toronto
650 Queens Quay West – Suite 1217, Toronto
55 Bloor Street East – Suite 802, Toronto
BRIAN ALLAN LUDMER
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearing: June 13, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Amanda Worley
Lawyer’s Counsel: William Trudell
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed November 30, 2011:
1. In the course of representing his client, S.L., in a family law matter, the respondent failed
to conduct himself with courtesy, civility and good faith and, communicated with various
individuals including his client’s former wife, and opposing counsel, in a manner that
was abusive, offensive or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of the professional
communication from a lawyer, contrary to Rules 6.03 (1) and (5) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed August 12, 2011:
(1) In or about July 2007, while representing his client, N.S., in a family law dispute, the
respondent directed B.B., a social worker hired by his client, to provide misleading
information to a Court-appointed custody and access assessor, Dr. B., contrary to Rule
6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct;
(2) In or about April 2007, the respondent misrepresented his status in the family law dispute
of his client, N. S., to the Court-appointed custody and access assessor, Dr. B., contrary
to Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; and,
(3) In the course of representing his client, N. S., the respondent communicated with various
individuals including his client’s former wife, her counsel and Dr. B., in a manner that
was abusive, offensive or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of the professional
communication from a lawyer, contrary to Rule 6.03 (5) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
JACK STEPHEN LAMBERT
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearing: June 15, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Susan Bryson
Lawyer’s Counsel: Lynda Morgan
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed August 9, 2011:
1. The respondent breached Rule 5.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”)
in that he abdicated his professional responsibilities by failing to supervise his real estate
practice between April and September of 2005, including transactions involving the
properties identified in Schedule A hereto, which were completed in that period (the
“Transactions”). The respondent failed to supervise, including:
a. he acted on matters on which he did not meet or otherwise communicate with the
clients;
b. he failed to review client files and documents in his name prior to closing;
c. transactions were completed without his knowledge.
2. In connection with the Transactions, the respondent mishandled funds of over $2.65
million, which he withdrew from his trust account and paid to a non-licensee, contrary to
former By-law 19 made pursuant to the Law Society Act.
3. The respondent breached Rule 2.07 of the Rules by failing to protect the property and
interests of his lender, borrower, purchaser and vendor clients in that:
a. in connection with the Transactions, he lost control of trust funds of over $2.65
million in that he paid them out to a non-licensee before registering on title the
Transfer or Charge, and before ensuring that the mortgagee on title had been paid out.
He relied upon the non-licensee to make payments that were due on closing, although
it was the respondent’s responsibility to verify that such payments had been made;
b. he has lost files relating to eight client matters. In the alternative, he has failed to
produce to the Law Society files relating to the said client matters;
c. he did not register or ensure that a refinancing mortgage on Transaction 7 had been
registered.
4. The respondent breached former By-law 19, section 4, made pursuant to the Law Society
Act, in the following respects:
a. he misapplied client trust funds of almost $218,400 when he paid them out to a nonlicensee, for the benefit of other clients, on Transactions 3 and 6. The respondent
paid out the trust funds prior to receiving the mortgage proceeds or client funds from
which the payments were to have been properly paid. His trust account did not go
into overdraft, instead, trust funds from other matters covered the payments;
b. he paid funds to himself from trust totalling $79,750 purportedly for compensation, or
fees and disbursements, in connection with the Transactions, but the payments did not
reference client matters or the work performed and have not been accounted for by
the respondent.
5. The respondent breached Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules by failing to serve his clients in
connection with the Transactions, including:
a. there was a delay in registering Transfers and Charges on title following his receipt of
mortgage proceeds and closing funds;
b. he failed to prepare reporting letters and trust ledger statements for clients;
c. trust ledger statements sent to his clients did not accurately reflect his receipt and
disbursement of funds from trust;
d. his client trust ledger was not consistent with the bank record;
e. Transactions were closed without a statement of adjustments, direction or re-direction
re funds;
f. he allowed documents to be sent out on letterhead showing his name, and/or over his
name, but without his approval;
g. he failed to pay funds from trust pursuant to directions from borrowers and vendors or
their counsel;
h. he did not register the mortgage on title on behalf of his lender and borrower clients
in Transaction 7.
Schedule A
1. 322 Lester Street, Waterloo
2. 10 Northtown Way, PH 1, Toronto
3. 22 Tania Crescent, Vaughan
4. 75 Edward Jeffreys Avenue, Markham
5. 1111 – 20 Harding Boulevard, Richmond Hill
6. 202 – 30 Harrison Garden Boulevard, Toronto
7. 301 Weldrick Road, Richmond Hill
8. 2909 – 22 Sheppard Avenue East, Toronto
9. 491 16th Avenue, Richmond Hill
10. 14 Grayson Crescent, Toronto
HARVEY JOSEPH NAIMAN
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearing: during the week of June 18, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Sean Dewart
Lawyer’s Counsel: Harvin Pitch
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed September 22, 2011:
a. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that:
i. he participated in or knowingly assisted in fraudulent or dishonest conduct by his
vendor and purchaser clients, and himself, or associated persons, to obtain mortgage
proceeds under false pretences in connection with transactions involving the
properties listed in schedule A annexed hereto;
ii. alternatively, he failed to be on guard against being duped by unscrupulous clients or
associated persons in connection with the transactions;
b. The respondent breached Rule 2.04(3), (6) and (8) by acting for multiple parties with
conflicting interests without any or adequate disclosure.
c. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(1) by failing to be honest and candid when advising
his lender clients and purchaser clients in connection with the Transactions, by failing to
disclose material facts to his lender clients, including:
i. recent re-sales and price escalations of properties;
ii. the non-payment of deposits as provided for in the agreements of purchase and sale
governing the Transactions;
iii. the granting of credits for additional purported deposits not provided for in the
agreements, or for other items not provided for in the agreements;
iv. closing funds not being advanced by purchasers;
v. payments to non-parties from sale proceeds;
vi. discrepancies between purchase prices shown in agreements and the actual
consideration paid on closing;
vii. the beneficial ownership of the properties in issue in the transactions.
d. The respondent breached Rule 2.01(2) by failing to serve his lender clients and purchaser
clients in the Transactions to the standard of a competent lawyer. In particular:
i. the respondent failed to disclose material facts to his lender clients and purchaser
clients;
ii. the respondent failed to make reasonable inquiries regarding the unusual features of
the Transactions; and
iii. the respondent failed to review or follow express lender instructions.
SCHEDULE “A”
Property
Property 1:
Property 2:
Property 3:
Property 4:
Property 5:
Property 6:
Property 7:
Property 8:
Property 9:
Property 10:
Property 11:
Property 12:
Description
135 Marlee Avenue, Suite 505, Toronto
135 Marlee Avenue, Suite 2202
135 Marlee Avenue, Suite 1702
135 Marlee Avenue, Suite 1101
412 Perth Avenue, Toronto
135 Marlee Avenue, Suite 1504
1001 Bay Street, Suite 412
150 Northland Avenue, Toronto
1225 Bathurst Street, Toronto
387 Daralea Heights, Mississauga
106 Water Street, Kitchener
423 Margueretta Street, Toronto
ARIF RAZA
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearing: June 18 to 22, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Sean Dewart
Lawyer’s Counsel: Ferhan Javed
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed July 8, 2009:
1. You breached Rules 1.02, 2.02(5), and 6.01 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (the
“Rules”) by participating and/or knowingly assisting in dishonest or fraudulent conduct to
obtain mortgage funds under false pretences in connection with the purchase, sale, and
mortgage transactions involving the properties set out at Schedule “A” (“the
Transactions”) hereto.
2. In the alternative to Paragraph 3(1), you breached Rules 2.02(5) and 5.01(2) of the Rules
by failing to be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of unscrupulous clients and
third parties and by abdicating your professional responsibilities by failing to supervise
your real estate practice in connection with the purchase, sale, and mortgage transactions
involving the properties set out at Schedule “A” hereto.
3. You breached Rule 2.02 (1) of the Rules by failing to be honest and candid when
advising your lender clients in connection with the transactions. In particular, you failed
to disclose material facts to your lender clients, including the following:
a. The property had previously sold on the same day for a significantly lower purchase
price and/or the property had previously sold within five weeks for a significantly
lower purchase price;
b. Deposits were repeatedly made payable to unspecified payees with no evidence of
actual payment with respect to these deposits;
c. You paid out mortgage proceeds to persons having no legal interest or connection to
the transaction;
d. The vendor named in the purchase agreement was not the owner registered on title;
4. You breached Rules 2.01(2) and 2.02(1) of the Rules by failing to serve your lender
clients in a conscientious and diligent manner, or to the standard of a competent lawyer,
in connection with all the properties. In particular:
a. You failed to disclose material facts to your lender clients, as set out in Particular 3(3)
above;
b. In some or all of the transactions, you failed to follow the express written instructions
of your lender clients; and
c. You failed to make reasonable inquiries about the discrepancies or irregularities in
each transaction. In the alternative, if you did make such inquires, you failed to
disclose the information to your lender clients, advise of the resulting risk, and take
steps to protect the interests of your lender clients.
SCHEDULE “A”
List of properties
1. 783 Sammon Avenue, Toronto;
2. 120-2205 South Millway, Mississauga;
3. 3461 Ashcroft Crescent, Mississauga;
4. 113 Craven Road, Toronto;
5. 177 Coxwell Avenue, Toronto;
6. 25 Robinson Avenue, Toronto;
7. 482 Whitmore Avenue, Toronto;
8. 948 Dundas Street East, Toronto;
9. 3 Byng Avenue, Toronto;
10. 119 Valmount Avenue, Toronto;
11. 3481 Ashcroft Crescent, Mississauga.
GREGORY EDWARD BRANT CASTELLANO
From: City of Guelph, Ontario
Motion to be heard: June 18, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Jan Parnega-Welch
Lawyer not represented
Particulars from the Law Society’s Notice of Motion filed March 30, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1. An order that:
a. Volume I of the Applicant’s Brief of Authorities, containing Tabs 1, 2, and 3, be
received in the absence of the public;
b. any submissions that refer to the decisions in Volume I of the Applicant’s Brief of
Authorities be held in the absence of the public, and
c. the Applicant’s Statement of Law be received in the absence of the public.
2. An order under section 39 of the Law Society Act requiring the respondent Lawyer
Licensee Gregory Edward Brant Castellano to be examined by Dr. Jan Malat, a
psychiatrist and member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and to
undergo such psychiatric or neuropsychiatric assessment and testing as Dr. Malat
considers necessary for his assessment of Mr. Castellano.
EUGENIO TOTERA
From: Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario
Hearing reconvened and motion to be heard: June 20, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Timothy Gleason and Heidi Rubin
Lawyer’s Counsel: Bradley Teplitsky
Particulars from the Lawyer’s Notice of Motion filed February 24, 2012:
THE MOTION IS FOR:
a. an Order dismissing Application LCN25/11, the Law Society of Upper Canada v.
Eugenio Totera; and,
b. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Panel may
permit.
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed March 22, 2011:
1. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(5) and 5.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
in that:
a. he participated in or knowingly assisting in fraudulent or dishonest conduct by his
vendor and purchaser clients, or associated persons, to obtain mortgage funds under
false pretences in connection with the transactions (the "Transactions") involving
properties identified on Schedule "A" hereto; or
b. alternatively, he failed to be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of
unscrupulous clients or associated persons in connection with the Transactions.
2. The respondent breached Rule 2.02(1) by 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, including:
a. recent re-sales and price escalations of properties;
b. non-payment of deposits to the respondent as provided for in the agreements of
purchase and sale governing the Transactions;
c. unconfirmed deposits purportedly paid directly to vendors;
d. the granting of credits for additional purported deposits not provided for in the
agreements, or for other items not provided for in the agreements;
e. closing funds not being advanced by purchasers;
f. payments to purchasers from sale proceeds;
g. payments to non-parties from sale proceeds; and
h. the involvement of a specific non-party facilitator in numerous suspect transactions.
3. The respondent breached Rule 2.01(2) by failing to serve his lender and purchaser clients
in the Transactions to the standard of a competent lawyer. In particular,
a. the respondent failed to disclose material facts to his lender clients;
b. the respondent failed to make reasonable inquiries regarding the unusual features of
the Transactions; and
c. the respondent failed to review or follow express lender instructions.
SCHEDULE "A"
Property
Description
Property 1:
Property 2:
Property 3:
Property 4:
Property 5:
Property 6:
Property 7:
Property 8:
Property 9:
Property 10:
Property 11:
Property 12:
650 Queens Quay, Suite 1217, Toronto
889 Bay Street, #902, Toronto
20A Rochdale Avenue, Toronto
2604 Hornsgate Drive, Mississauga
889 Bay Street, Suite 802, Toronto
55 Bloor Street East, Suite 1506, Toronto
910 Golden Farmer Way, Mississauga
10 Yonge Street, Suite 410, Toronto
1002 Victoria Park Avenue, Toronto
3470 Danforth Avenue, Toronto
24 Sayor Drive, Ajax
45 Hammerstone Crescent, Vaughan
JENNIFER ANN BISHOP
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearing: June 21 and 22, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Elizabeth Parenteau and Danielle Smith
Lawyer’s Counsel: Graeme Hamilton and William Trudell
Particulars from the Law Society’s Notice of Application filed November 17, 2010:
1. The applicant makes application for: a determination by the Law Society Hearing Panel
of whether, within the meaning of section 37 of the Law Society Act, by reason of
physical or mental illness, other infirmity, or addiction to or excessive use of alcohol or
drugs,
a. The respondent has been incapacitated and incapable of meeting her obligations
as a licensee; and,
b. The respondent is incapacitated and incapable of meeting her obligations as a
licensee.
DAVID GRANT ISAAC
From: City of Mississauga, Ontario
First hearing: June 21 and 22, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Owen Minns
Lawyer not represented
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed October 31, 2011:
1. contrary to By-Law 9, made pursuant to section 62 of the Law Society Act,
the respondent failed to maintain the required books and records of his law practice for
the period of January 2009 to January 2011; and
2. in the alternative to particular (1), contrary to section 49.3 of the Law Society Act, the
respondent failed to cooperate with the Law Society by failing to produce the books and
records of his practice for the period of January 2009 to January 2011, as requested in
several letters and telephone messages from January 2011 to June 2011.
TADESSE GEBREMARIAM
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearing: June 22, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Loretta Arci
Paralegal not represented
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed April 4, 2012:
1. From November 2010 to October 2011, the Respondent breached section 49.3 of the Law
Society Act in that he failed to cooperate fully with the Law Society by:
a. failing to produce all of the documents and books and records requested of him; and
b. failing to schedule and attend an interview with the Law Society despite requests to
do so.
2. In the alternative to particular (1a) as it relates to the Respondent’s books and records, the
Respondent failed to maintain books and records, contrary to By-law 9, section 18, made
under the Law Society Act.
RYSZART GEORGE LITKOWSKI
From: City of Toronto, Ontario
First hearing: June 22, 2012
LSUC Counsel: Nisha Dhanoa
Lawyer not represented
Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Law Society’s Notice of Application
filed May 8, 2012:
1. Contrary to section 49.3 of the Law Society Act, the respondent failed to cooperate with
an investigation of the Law Society by:
a. Failing to produce documents and attend for and cooperate with an interview as
requested by the Law Society in phone calls dated April 26, 2011, June 15, 2011, in
emails dated July 7, 2011, July 21, 2011, August 5, 2011, August 9, 2011, August 10,
2011 and in letters dated October 7, 2011 and April 5, 2012.
b. Failing to produce specified books and records requested by the Law Society in
emails dated July 7, 2011, July 21, 2011, August 5, 2011, August 9, 2011, August 10,
2011 and in letters dated October 7, 2011 and April 5, 2012.
2. In the alternative to particular (1)(b), contrary to By-Law 9, made pursuant to the Law
Society Act, the respondent failed to maintain proper books and records of his law
practice since at least January, 2010.