The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division found that an attorney is presently incapacitated
The Lawyer commenced a number of proceedings in the Federal Court to seek verification and compensation for what he perceived to have been a covert government campaign to recruit him for spy service. He believed that the campaign was waged through his family, colleagues, friends and romantic partners who were all spies in the service of the government.
The allegations made and the procedural tactics the Lawyer employed in these proceedings went beyond aggressive advocacy. They eventually led to an order from Justice Fothergill that the Lawyer would no longer be allowed to represent himself. Under said order, all the proceedings that the Lawyer commenced were stayed unless the Lawyer retained counsel to represent him, or until his capacity to practise law was fully and finally addressed by this Tribunal (the Order).
In accordance with the Order, the Lawyer retained counsel and continued his proceedings at the Federal Court.
Justice Fothergill’s Order is a culmination of increasingly critical findings from judges commenting on not only the lack of reality of the allegations that the Lawyer made in his pleadings, but also the complete lack of judgment in the Lawyer’s tactics that were characterized as ineffective, costly, wasteful to the system, displaying a lack of good faith and amounting to an abuse of process. They are described below with reference to the court file number of each matter.
In T-1721-17, the Lawyer commenced action against the former Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service for a declaration that the latter acted “without statutory power and usurped his power” in relation to a scheduled motion to strike. This action was struck without leave to amend. In his reasons, Prothonotary Kevin Aalto held that this action, “… is nothing short of an abuse of process and is frivolous and vexatious … so clearly futile that it has no chance of success. It is astonishing that a lawyer licensed to practice law in Ontario would issue such a claim.”
In T-268-17, the Lawyer sought a total of over $20 million in damages from the government and various individuals for their allegedly covert activities targeting him. The court struck out the claim with respect to a group of defendants without leave to amend. The Lawyer’s appeal was dismissed.
In striking said claims, the court held that the Lawyer had failed to plead sufficient material facts to support his allegations and, by his counsel’s admission, no further amendment to the facts were proposed should leave to amend be granted.
The Lawyer appealed another order respecting production of documents for the remaining claims. Justice Richard Mosley dismissed the appeal and viewed the Lawyer’s claims against the remaining individual defendants as “a form of harassment.”
In obiter, Justice Mosley echoed the diagnosis of Dr. Morgan and characterized the Lawyer’s impugned conduct as “what appears to be delusional behaviour.”