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

Charges Draw Interlocutory Suspension

By Michael Frisch

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has ordered an interlocutory suspension of an attorney charged with sex-related crimes

On April 19, 2023, Mr. Vieira was arrested. Mr. Vieira is charged with:

1.   three counts of luring a person under 16 by means of telecommunication;

2.   three counts of distributing sexually explicit material to a person under 16;

3.   invitation to sexual touching;

4.   making child pornography; and

5.   possession of child pornography.

Mr. Vieira’s arrest and charges resulted from a four-month covert online investigation by the Toronto Police Service.

Reasoning

We conclude from the currently available evidence that, if proven, this conduct will lead to at least a lengthy suspension and quite likely to revocation.

In our opinion, revocation is the likely outcome if this alleged conduct is proven because it will be necessary to assure the public that such conduct is not tolerated in order that confidence in the profession be maintained. In our opinion, the attempted sexual predation of a 13-year-old girl, if proven, would make this a stronger case for revocation than Rooney. The allegations of making and possession of child pornography add strength to this conclusion. In our opinion, maintaining confidence in the profession similarly now require that an interlocutory order be made.
 
We reach this conclusion fully accepting that Mr. Vieira may be found not guilty. The MacKay case makes this point clear as Mr. MacKay was ultimately acquitted of the charges against him. Mr. Vieira’s life is no doubt already turned upside down by the charges against him. An interlocutory order, particularly a suspension, will make this even worse. He is presumed innocent and may ultimately be acquitted. Depending how things turn out, making an interlocutory order may turn out to have been devastating and unfortunate. We must be cautious. That said, we conclude that an interlocutory order is the necessary and appropriate in the face of these criminal charges in order to protect the public interest in the administration of justice.
 
(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process