Restricted Not Suspended

The Tribunal Hearing Division of the Ontario Law Society concludes that an interim suspension is not appropriate but that the attorney should be subject to practice restrictions

Barbara J. Murchie (for the panel):– The Law Society brings a motion for an interlocutory suspension of Mr. Borak’s licence to practise law because it believes there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant risk of harm to the public or the public interest in the administration of justice if he continues to practise. It says the risk arises from particular actions he took and billing practices he employed: (a) he submitted immigration applications for clients pursuant to a government program that did not exist; (b) he withdrew money from trust without remitting invoices to clients; (c) he misapplied and inappropriately used client fees for lobbying efforts; and (d) he failed to serve three individual clients in different ways.

Mr. Boraks vigorously resists the motion. He presents an entirely different perspective on all of the allegations except trust fund improprieties. He testified that the applications he submitted were requested by government representatives pursuant to a legitimate government program that was promised and in development. He agrees that he didn’t send invoices to clients before taking money from trust, but testified, and the Law Society does not dispute, that he prepared those invoices internally and did the work. Mr. Boraks explained that he charges clients flat fees for all services and disbursements. The services he provides include general lobbying, but clients are not charged for lobbying – he pays for that out of his general account. He has explanations for the three individual allegations.

For the reasons that follow, we have concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Boraks’ trust improprieties present a significant risk of harm to the public and the public interest in the administration of justice unless his licence to practise law is subject to restrictions pending the hearing of these allegations on the merits. We find that a full interlocutory suspension is not necessary to protect the public.

The panel discussed the allegations. 

The restriction

 Commencing immediately, the respondent’s licence is subject to the following practice restrictions on an interlocutory basis.

2.      Subject to paragraph 3, the respondent shall practise only:

a.      as an employee of another licensee (the employer) approved in writing by the Executive Director, Professional Regulation or her designate (the Executive Director); or

b.      under the supervision of another licensee (the supervisor) pursuant to a plan of supervision approved in writing by the Executive Director.

3.      The respondent may continue to practise law under the practice restrictions imposed June 4, 2019, pending approval by the Executive Director of the proposed employer or proposed supervisor and plan of supervision (the proposal), provided that he notifies the Executive Director in writing of the proposal within 14 days of this order. If no proposal has been approved within 60 days of the date of this order, the parties may seek further directions from this panel.

(Mike Frisch)