Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1 (1)
Legal Profession Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

By Michael Frisch

The Ontario Law Society Hearing Division

York Regional Police came to investigate the Licensee as a result of a multi-jurisdictional probe into police corruption. As part of its investigation, York Regional Police obtained judicial authorization to intercept communications between the Licensee and York Regional Police Officer Richard Senior. Those communications revealed that the Licensee and Senior discussed the dispositions of Provincial Offences Act matters for Senior’s friends. The Licensee and Senior were in a romantic, sexual relationship at the time.

On October 10, 2018, the Licensee was charged with one count of obstructing justice contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code and one count of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to s. 122 of the Code. Both offences were alleged to have occurred in Markham between May 25 and October 9, 2018.
 
The Licensee’s trial took place in November and December 2019 at the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket before Justice D.A. Harris. On January 17, 2020, the Licensee was convicted of both offences. On March 4, 2020, the Licensee received a conditional sentence of imprisonment for three months with various conditions that permitted her to maintain employment.
 
 The Licensee appealed her conviction and sentence to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which dismissed her appeal on July 8, 2021. A motion for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on December 9, 2021.
 
The misconduct involved traffic tickets issued to friends of Senior.
 
Revocation imposed
 

While she has co-operated with the Law Society throughout the investigation, the Licensee has never admitted the underlying misconduct and only admitted to the criminal convictions after her appeal and leave to appeal were unsuccessful.

The misconduct here was serious. The Licensee occupied a position of trust within the justice system. She misused that trust by using her position as prosecutor to fix tickets for her friend, a police officer. Her charges were the subject of adverse media coverage. Her misconduct had consequences for the administration of justice, as it tended to lessen public confidence in the justice system and in the paralegal profession.
 
The Licensee offered no evidence of extenuating circumstances.
 
Finally, as outlined earlier we accept that the Licensee is not a risk to the public.
 
In our view, the mitigating factors discussed above are outweighed by the seriousness of the underlying misconduct and the potential impact of that misconduct on the administration of justice. In our view, this requires a significant penalty. In our view, revocation of the Licensee’s licence is necessary to send a message to the professions that conduct of this kind cannot be tolerated.
 
(Mike Frisch)
 

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process