Criminal Charges Do Not Draw Interim Suspension
The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has denied a motion for an interlocutory suspension of an attorney
In the face of Mr. Worsoff’s direct, unchallenged denial of the charges, we were unable to conclude that a reasonable, informed member of the public would regard the failure to suspend the Lawyer’s licence as posing a significant harm in the administration of justice, and to public confidence in the legal profession and its regulation.
To the contrary, we had to conclude that on the record before us, a suspension of the Lawyer’s licence would undermine confidence in the administration of justice in the same ways. A reasonable, informed member of the public would understand the basic values of Canadian law, including the weighing and giving significance to direct, uncontradicted and unchallenged evidence and the importance of the Lawyer’s livelihood and reputation.
Pending criminal charges
On May 9, 2023, an individual reported to the police that as a minor between 2008 and 2013, she was sexually abused by Mr. Worsoff. On November 29, 2023, Mr. Worsoff was charged with four counts: sexual touching of a minor, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and uttering a threat to cause death to the minor.
The Lawyer turned himself into the police, and he was arrested and released on an undertaking with standard conditions. He has complied with those conditions, and has attended in court as required. On December 12, 2023, Mr. Worsoff’s counsel reported the charges to the Law Society, and stated that the Lawyer maintained his innocence and would vigorously defend the charges.
The Law Society’s contentions
The Law Society’s position can be summarized as follows:
• The nature of the allegations in this case is so serious that the existence of the criminal charges is sufficient to trigger the significant risk of harm to the public interest in the administration of justice, regulation of and confidence in the legal professions.
• Denying this motion would cause an informed, reasonable member of the public to lose confidence in the legal professions and their regulation by the Law Society.
• The Law Society was not asking us to reject Mr. Worsoff’s credibility.
• The merits of the criminal charges are not a matter for the Tribunal, but should be left to the court to decide. We need not opine on the Lawyer’s guilt, because the court will do so.
• If the Law Society were to call the alleged victim, the panel would be litigating the criminal matter, which is not its function.
• Therefore, the Law Society did not seek an adjournment or otherwise call evidence to contradict Mr. Worsoff’s testimony.
• In the risk calculus under s 49.27 of the Act, we should place more weight on the charges and the GOR than the Lawyer’s denial. The denial is one factor to consider, but it is not determinative.
• Case law has supported the Law Society’s position, because the Tribunal has granted suspension motions based on serious criminal charges alone, while recognizing and factoring in a licensee’s presumption of innocence. Mr. Worsoff’s testimony that he is in fact not guilty does not improve his position under the interlocutory suspension jurisprudence.
Conclusion
To summarize then, we were not pointed to any case in which the responding party in an interlocutory suspension motion arising out of sexual offence allegations has affirmatively denied the charges under oath. We do not have to rely on or override an evidentiary presumption that Mr. Worsoff is not guilty; we have uncontradicted and unchallenged first-hand evidence to that effect. While the GOR is admissible first- or second-hand hearsay under the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, we give it little weight in the face of sworn testimony to the contrary.
(Mike Frisch)