False Licensing Answers Draw Sanction

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has dismissed an application for licensing and retroactively revoked a license 

Dr. Agbarakwe did not disclose that he had previously been licensed in Alberta or that his licensure ended in disbarment. He asserted in his evidence that he had answered questions 7 and 13 accurately, to the best of his knowledge at the time he completed the form. Particularly, he said that he did not know that he had been suspended, and he did not know or understand that his resignation under section 61 of the Legal Profession Act resulted in his deemed disbarment. We do not find this evidence to be credible, based upon the preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing, as discussed below.

The Law Society argued that Dr. Agbarakwe made false statements in his licensing application by answering questions 7 and 13 of the good character section in the negative. We agree. We conclude that Dr. Agbarakwe knew that his answers to these good character questions were false and misleading, and that he gave deliberately false answers. Accordingly, he is deemed not to have met the good character requirements at the time that he made the application.

Name change

Dr. Agbarakwe has changed his name several times during the relevant events. When he was licensed with the LSA, he went by the name Cyriacus Agbarakwe. On May 7, 2012, after he had become an inactive member of the LSA and was under investigation in Alberta, he changed his name to C. Obi Chukwu, which is the name under which he applied for and received a licence from the LSO. On November 2, 2020, Dr. Agbarakwe changed his name to Cyriacus Obi Agbarakwe. On February 16, 2021, he advised the LSO of his name change, and that his preferred name was Dr. Cyriacus Agbarakwe, since he had recently completed a PhD in Education.

Knowledge

We find on the preponderance of the evidence that when he completed the LSO licensing application, Dr. Agbarakwe not only knew that he had been suspended, but he knew that he had also been disbarred. Disbarment was the inevitable result of a successful section 61 application. Dr. Agbarakwe had been represented by a lawyer when he first made a request for a section 32 application, and the LSA said it would only accept a section 61 resignation application. We find that it is unlikely that Dr. Agbarakwe did not discuss with his lawyer the difference between the two forms of resignation at the time. The statement of admitted facts that he signed expressly confirmed that the effect of the application would be disbarment. In his LSO investigation interview, Dr. Agbarakwe confirmed that he received the Notice to Profession which confirmed his disbarment, and he did not object to its contents or appeal the decision.

Conclusion

We find that Dr. Agbarakwe made deliberate, false and misleading representations in his application for an L1 licence. Therefore, he is deemed not to have met the requirements for issuance of that licence, and the application for a licence is refused.

(Mike Frisch)