“Dilly Dally”

The Crown’s theory was that the Lawyer and Mr. Ivezic plotted to murder Mr. Lanteigne together. While Mr. Ivezic carried out the murder, the Crown posited that, on the day of the murder, the Lawyer lured Mr. Lanteigne to his home where Mr. Ivezic was lying in wait.

 

While the Crown’s case against Mr. Ivezic was described as “overwhelming” and included DNA evidence found underneath the victim’s fingernails, the case against the Lawyer was circumstantial. It largely consisted of a financial motive; communications between the Lawyer and Mr. Ivezic, including on the day of the murder; and, importantly, an email the Lawyer sent from Greece to the victim, in which he asked him to go straight home from work that fateful day and not “dilly dally”. Mr. Lanteigne did go straight home. When he arrived, Mr. Ivezic attacked and killed him in his foyer.

 

The defense argued that the “dilly dally” email had to be considered in the context of other email communications between the Lawyer and the victim in the days leading up to the murder. It put forward an innocent explanation for the “dilly dally” email that could have been accepted by the jury.

 

The jury convicted both Mr. Ivezic and the Lawyer. The Lawyer appealed his conviction on the basis that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable. His appeal was dismissed. Doherty J.A., writing for the panel of the Court of Appeal, described the Crown’s case against the Lawyer as “far from overwhelming”. However, he determined that, while it was open for the jury to interpret the circumstantial evidence in the way put forward by the defense, it was also open to the jury to wholly reject it in favour of the Crown’s interpretation. He concluded that the jury “could have been satisfied that the guilt of the [Lawyer] was the only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence considered as a whole.”

 

The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal without reasons.

 

Sanction as the presumptive penalty

 

In our view, first degree murder is an appropriate case. In cases of fraud or misappropriation, the presumptive penalty is revocation because the conduct is indicative of proven dishonesty and a lack of integrity. That is, the type of conduct is such that no other penalty would suffice, absent exceptional circumstances. It is hard to imagine more serious misconduct in a lawyer’s personal capacity than to intentionally, and with planning and deliberation, take the life of another. It goes beyond dishonesty and a lack of integrity; it demonstrates a complete disregard for human life. First degree murder is therefore much more serious than the type of financial misconduct that currently leads to presumptive revocation…

 

Given the gravity of the misconduct, expanding presumptive revocation to cases in which first degree murder has been proven will not be unfair to lawyers and paralegals and will not water down the Tribunal’s approach to presumptive revocation. At the same time, it will maintain the public’s confidence in the legal professions, in their ability to self-regulate, and in the Tribunal’s process.

 

(Mike Frisch)