“Into Drugs (Cocaine)”
The Law Society of Upper Canada Hearing Division Tribunal has concluded that sufficient evidence was shown for an interlocutory suspension
In accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Law Society’s evidence was presented by affidavit on relatively short notice. The Law Society was not required to prove professional misconduct, or even the likelihood of professional misconduct. As noted, the respondent did not contradict or indeed challenge the Law Society’s evidence, although he is entitled to do so if and when these matters proceed to a conduct application. In short, the evidence at a future conduct hearing may be different. For all of these reasons, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for this motion panel to recite the facts beyond what is required for the purposes of s. 49.27.
In May 2017 the Law Society received a complaint from a client of the respondent, alleging that she gave him $125,000 in trust in March 2017 and he refused to return it. She has provided documentary proof of the $125,000 bank draft payable to the respondent, and his trust statement that indicates that $65,000 of it was paid to his numbered company.
The Law Society’s investigator has attempted to reach Mr. Mann to obtain his representations and copies of relevant financial records. The investigator has left several telephone messages, hand-delivered a letter to his office, and asked the respondent’s assistant to have Mr. Mann call him. The investigator gave the respondent two weeks’ notice that he would come to his office to discuss the investigation, but the office was locked and unlit when the investigator attended. The investigator has not heard from him since then.
The Law Society received another complaint about the respondent in June 2017. A couple alleged that they gave him $8,000 as retainer funds for a wrongful dismissal action. Although the respondent billed the first $5,000 for services rendered, he then requested and received an additional $3,000. He has not responded to the couple’s attempts to contact him. They also said that the respondent’s assistant advised them to find another lawyer because Mr. Mann had not been in the office for a month, was facing criminal charges, had been in and out of jail, and was “into drugs (cocaine).” The assistant also said she has no record of the two payments they say they made in December 2016 and April 2017, comprising the additional $3,000 retainer.
The Law Society contacted the London courthouse to determine whether the respondent was facing criminal charges as reported by his assistant. It learned that there are eight outstanding Informations dated between March 2016 and June 2017, summarized as follows:
1) The March 2016 Information includes five charges of assault and one of unlawful confinement. The notation on the Information says it is a domestic matter.
2) Another assault charge was laid in May 2016. Again, the notation indicates it is a domestic matter. The named victim is different from the victim in the March 2016 charges.
3) Several breach of recognizance charges were laid in September 2016, May 2017 and June 2017.
4) A possession of a controlled substance charge was laid in June 2017.
5) A charge alleging a failure to appear in court as scheduled was laid in April 2017.
The respondent did not report any of these charges to the Law Society. By-Law 8, s.2(1) requires licensees to inform the Law Society in writing when they have been charged with an indictable offence under the Criminal Code or an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Informations indicate that while the Crown has elected to proceed summarily with the charges laid in September 2016, it has either not made its election or is proceeding by indictment on the other charges.
Thus
The two allegations by Mr. Mann’s clients present reasonable grounds to believe they, as well as his other clients and potential clients, are at risk of harm if the respondent continues to practise law while the Law Society investigates complaints against him. All of the listed points engage issues of lack of integrity, which are central to public confidence in the administration of justice. Indeed, quite apart from client interests, the last three allegations provide reasonable grounds to believe that public confidence in the administration of justice, and therefore the public interest in the administration of justice by the courts and the Law Society, will be undermined if the respondent continues to practise with the imprimatur of the Law Society.
(Mike Frisch)