No Stay Pending Appeal Of Cheating Findings

A motion for stay pending appeal has been denied by the Ontario Law Society Appeal Division of a decision revoking a license

Between 2015 and 2017, Mr. Saran pursued licensure in Ontario but failed the licensing exams seven times. He then withdrew from the Ontario licensing process and enrolled in the Nova Scotia licensing process. He failed licensing exams in Nova Scotia five times.

Mr. Saran recommenced his licensing efforts in both Nova Scotia and Ontario in 2021. In Nova Scotia, the process offered a new option to complete an admissions course without successfully completing licensing exams. In Ontario, the process still required successfully writing the licensing exams.

Mr. Saran wrote and passed the Ontario solicitor’s exam online for his 2021 Regular Process Application on November 19, 2021. He was scheduled to write his barrister’s exam in March 2022. In the meantime, he was advised by the Barrister Society of Nova Scotia that he successfully completed its alternate licensing process. He was called to the Bar in Nova Scotia on January 14, 2022.

Mr. Saran applied for licensure in Ontario as an interjurisdictional transfer on January 10, 2022 through the National Mobility Act (NMA Application). His 2021 Regular Process Application and his NMA Application were concurrently active until February 16, 2022, when Mr. Saran’s NMA Application was accepted, and he withdrew from the regular Ontario licensing process.

He made declarations under oath and was called to the Bar on February 24, 2022.

Subsequent investigations of organized cheating on the November 2021 exam

With respect to Mr. Saran specifically, Caveon [Test Security] concluded that it was 143 times more likely that he copied answers from the cheating key than if he answered independently. Mr. Saran’s result for second part of the solicitor exam demonstrated that his exam results were clustered with others and that there was a chance of less than 1 in 10 quintilliard of observing such a cluster of similarity to other test-takers assuming independent test-taking.

Stay denied

The majority found that he had acted dishonestly in the Law Society’s licensing process, demonstrating a serious lapse in his character.

In particular, at paragraph 137, the majority found:

When the cheating happened, he kept it secret. When confronted, he falsely denied having received any materials, both in writing and verbally over many months. Eventually, he acknowledged having unwittingly gained access to the prohibited material. It is clear that Mr. Saran has demonstrated that he regrets  being in the position he is in. However, he has not demonstrated remorse, as he has not fully and freely acknowledged the underlying wrong he has done.

The majority also found that Mr. Saran’s testimony before them was not credible.

Cheating on an admission exam, making material misrepresentations to the Law Society in a licensing application and during an investigation, as well as not being forthright in his testimony before the Tribunal raise very serious issues of integrity.

(Mike Frisch)