Oversight Explanation Rejected

An application for admission has been denied by the Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division

In 2001, the applicant was charged with assault arising out of an incident that took place at a bar. In 2002, he entered into a recognizance under section 810 of the Criminal Code and the assault charge was withdrawn.

In 2003, the applicant was admitted to the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa and obtained civil and common law degrees in 2007. During that time, the applicant was charged with two additional criminal offences. The first occurred in 2005, when he was charged with breaching the curfew condition of his recognizance after police officers encountered him in a bar during frosh week. To this charge, he entered a guilty plea and was given a conditional discharge.

 In September 2005, he began a relationship with another law student, SP, but it became, in the applicant’s description, “toxic.” The relationship ended in November 2006. He was subsequently charged with the offence of criminal harassment of his ex-girlfriend. This second charge remained unresolved when he applied to the Barreau du Québec in 2007 for a licence to practise law in Québec.

In his application to the Barreau, dated February 13, 2007, the applicant disclosed the first charge, which he described as a “breach of undertaking” and the second, outstanding charge of criminal harassment, which he described as “communicating with girlfriend.” Because of these two disclosures, the Barreau required him to appear before its Committee for Access to the Profession (the Barreau Committee).

The Barreau Committee has the authority to inquire into whether the applicant has the moral character, conduct, skills, knowledge and qualifications required to practise law in Québec. The Barreau Committee exercises its powers on a continuous basis, from the time the applicant applies for admission to the Barreau’s Professional Training School (i.e., l’École de formation professionelle) until the applicant applies to be entered on the Roll of the Order. The Barreau Committee may decide at any time during this period to summon an applicant or a student to inquire about matters within its authority.  This is the Barreau’s equivalent of the Law Society’s process of licensure for the practice of law.

The Barreau Committee held a hearing

 On March 11, 2009, in response to the applicant’s request for a good conduct certificate from Ottawa Police Services, Ottawa Police Services issued an “Inability to Deliver a Good Conduct Certificate” form, which indicated that the applicant had been accused or convicted of a Criminal Code offence, i.e. “criminal harassment x2.”

On April 2, 2009, while the applicant was still engaged in the process for admission to the Québec bar, he pled guilty to criminal harassment of his former girlfriend. At the sentencing hearing, the court granted a conditional discharge with probation for one month.

•           The applicant and SP began dating in September 2005, after meeting at the University of Ottawa Law Faculty.

•           SP described the relationship as troubled because the applicant would often verbally abuse her while intoxicated.

•           In the summer of 2006, they had an argument and the applicant “punched a hole in the wall.”

•           The applicant was “known to push the victim around but no injuries or reports were made at [the] time.”

•           In May 2006, SP left for Europe and, upon her return, ended the relationship with the applicant.

•           On September 6, 2006, SP and the applicant encountered each other at a bar in Gatineau, Québec.

•           The applicant became intoxicated and threw a “glass and ice at [SP],” which struck SP.

•           The applicant then removed his belt and threw it at SP’s head while she stood on a stage at the event hosted by the bar.

•           The following month, SP and the applicant attempted to reconcile.

•           During the period of this attempted reconciliation, the applicant became intoxicated and sent numerous unwanted emails, text messages, telephone calls and voicemail messages to SP, which were described as “rude and condescending.”

•           The attempted reconciliation had failed by November 2006.

•           After the second breakup, the applicant continued calling, emailing and sending text messages to SP, which caused her to fear for her safety.

•           The applicant’s harassment of SP continued in December 2006 and again in February 2007.

He had been admitted in Quebec

The applicant had been a licensed lawyer in Québec from 2009 to 2013. He had practised law in a Montréal law firm. He would have known from his own experience with the licensing process of the Barreau of his obligation to be candid in his responses to questions on the application form. From his education and experience, he would have known that a solemn oath or declaration, certifying the truthfulness of the information in the application form, required him to consider carefully and deliberately the accuracy of the information disclosed and to ensure that the application was complete in all respects. In our view, a “rushed” application is not a valid explanation for misrepresentations, by commission or omission, in an application for a licence.

Application disclosures here

The applicant’s disclosure of his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol triggered a good character investigation by the Law Society. The applicant did not disclose to the Law Society’s investigator that he entered into a recognizance in 2002, that he pleaded guilty to a breach of a condition of the recognizance in 2005 and that he pleaded guilty to a criminal harassment charge in 2009. On June 23, 2015, the Law Society concluded its investigation and issued a lawyer’s licence to the applicant on September 24, 2015.

In the summer of 2021, the Law Society learned that the applicant had pled guilty to the offence of criminal harassment in 2009. The Law Society opened a further investigation, and the applicant retained counsel. During the investigation, the applicant made statements through his lawyer and when he was interviewed by the Law Society investigator on May 24, 2022. In those statements, the applicant acknowledged that he did not disclose his past guilty pleas to the breach of the recognizance and the criminal harassment charges. He did not intentionally omit this information from his licensing application, he explained, but had forgotten the incidents as he had put them behind him. He said he had nothing to hide, should have been more thoughtful and should have sought clarification about the information the question sought to elicit from him before submitting his application for licensing.

His testimony at the hearing of the application was much to the same effect. When asked why he had failed to disclose his assault conviction in 2002, his conviction for breaching his undertaking in 2005, and his conviction for criminal harassment in 2009, the applicant testified, “That whole part of my life was a really dark moment…. To be honest, I sort of put it behind me and just decided to move on with a new chapter of my life to move to Ontario. To be honest, it was just a stupid mistake and I just completely forgot to disclose any of that in the application.”

Asked to explain how he could have forgotten those noteworthy events, he said,

I just put it behind me and just totally blocked it out of my life and my mind. When I was filling out the application to the Ontario bar, I probably should have paid more attention to the questions, and maybe spent more time filling out the form and just seek clarification if I needed it. But I was rushed, I rushed into it. I was excited that I had passed the bar, and the only thing left was to submit my application. And then I could move to Ontario. And I was super excited about that. It was a dumb mistake, to be honest. I had nothing to hide. I wouldn’t be here if I had just sort of gave it more thought, to be honest with you.

Conclusion

 The objective facts of his experience with the licensing process with the Barreau du Québec, the significance in his life of the events leading up to his prior criminal convictions and the facts as read into the record at his sentencing on the charge of criminal harassment undermine the credibility of his testimony that his failure to disclose his criminal convictions on his application was an oversight and was not deliberate. If his explanation is to be believed, we would be required to accept that he could not recall events that shaped his life from as early as 2003 through 2009. The objective evidence does not support his explanation.

We find that the applicant made deliberate false and misleading representations on his 2015 application for an L1 licence. He is therefore deemed not to have met the requirements for the issuance of an L1 licence under the Act. The application for licensing is refused.

(Mike Frisch)