Admission Stayed Pending Appeal
The Ontario Law Society Appeal Division has stayed a decision to admit an applicant
The good character hearing involved an analysis of whether AA, who engaged in the sexual abuse of children in 2009, including his own child, and who was dishonest about that sexual abuse with the Law Society and others for many years, was currently of good character.
AA first applied to be licensed as a lawyer in 2012, but did not disclose the sexual abuse. A week or so prior to his call to the bar in 2014, an anonymous letter revealing child sexual abuse committed by AA prompted the Law Society to launch an investigation into his good character and put a halt to his call to the bar. During that investigation, the hearing panel noted that AA “continued to withhold medical records and information about his serious sexual misconduct”: licensing reasons at para. 15. In 2017, AA discontinued his licensing application.
Following that discontinuance, AA engaged in steps as described by the hearing panel to “try to atone for his actions”: licensing reasons at para. 21. He reapplied to be licensed as a lawyer and in January 2019 the Law Society commenced a second good character investigation.
The good character hearing took place in August and September 2022, concluding on September 12, 2022. On July 25, 2023, the hearing panel released its reasons finding AA was of good character.
Conclusion
Having considered the evidence of the Law Society and of AA, the submissions of counsel, whether there is a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm and the balance of convenience, we find that the Law Society has discharged its onus and the interests of justice require a stay. We grant the relief sought, being a stay of the licensing order pending appeal. However, we do so with the expectation that the appeal be expedited. It is in the best interests of all that the matter of the licensing of AA be resolved as soon as possible.
Christopher Bredt (dissenting):– At the hearing of the Law Society’s motion for a stay on September 13, 2023, the majority of the panel granted the stay. I dissented. While I agree with the majority that the Law Society has established that there was a serious issue to be tried, I do not agree that the Law Society established that in the circumstances of this case there was either irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the stay. In particular, I do not agree with the Law Society’s position that the mere fact that this matter has garnered media attention and negative comments on social media is sufficient to establish irreparable harm.
The dissent noted the lengthy process
I agree with the majority that it is imperative that the appeal be expedited. It is in the best interests of all that the matter of the licensing of AA be resolved as soon as possible.
(Mike Frisch)
Posted in: