Excluded

The British Columbia Law Society Tribunal Hearing Panel has excluded a person who had an alleged grudge against the Respondent from her ongoing disciplinary proceeding

The Citation against the Respondent alleges that on various occasions, the Respondent failed to deposit client trust funds as soon as practicable, failed to report trust shortages, misappropriated or improperly withdrew trust funds, and failed to prepare timely trust reconciliation reports.  The hearing of the Citation commenced in 2020 and continued March 10, 2025 (“Continuation”), pursuant to the decision in Law Society of BC v. Hemminger, 2024 LSBC 34. The purpose of the Continuation is for the Panel to hear evidence from the Respondent and other witnesses about the Respondent’s mental health at the time of the events at issue in the Citation.

On November 28, 2024, Mr. Leudke applied to the Tribunal for permission to record the proceedings in the Continuation. The Panel denied Mr. Leudke’s application and held that, subject to any order that might be made to exclude members of the public from the hearing, Mr. Leudke could attend and observe the Continuation: Law Society of BC v. Hemminger, 2024 LSBC 46.

On March 11, 2025, Mr. Leudke attended to observe the Continuation. The Respondent then applied for an order to exclude Mr. Leudke from the Continuation hearing. The Law Society consented to that order. The parties and Mr. Leudke made oral submissions regarding the order sought. Mr. Leudke opposed the proposed order.

Asserted basis for exclusion

The Respondent also submitted that the evidence contained in her affidavit of December 4, 2024, which was filed in response to Mr. Leudke’s application to record the proceedings, explains why an order to exclude him from the Continuation is necessary.  The affidavit evidence shows that Mr. Leudke was a self-represented litigant in long-running family law proceedings in which the Respondent represented the opposing party.  The Respondent submitted that the affidavit shows that since those proceedings, Mr. Leudke has cast the Respondent as his nemesis and has relentlessly posted about her on social media. 

Balancing

we have considered, as a matter of proportionality, whether the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects. We appreciate that an order excluding Mr. Leudke from the Continuation is an order which should not be granted lightly.

In our view, the order represents a proportionate balancing of the public interest in an open hearing and the Respondent’s dignity and privacy interests. We are satisfied that there is a serious risk that Mr. Leudke would exploit sensitive personal information about the Respondent on social media. It would be a misuse of the legal process to permit “core biographical” information to be weaponized for these purposes. Moreover, we agree with the Law Society that the detailed biographical information sought to be protected by the order is of little value to the public’s understanding of the issues at stake in the Citation. Mr. Leudke’s interest in attending the hearing in order to express an opinion on the Respondent’s medical information is outweighed by the Respondent’s interest in protecting her dignity. Freedom of expression will not be unduly limited by excluding Mr. Leudke from the hearing. 

(Mike Frisch)