Revocation Rejected
The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has imposed an eight month suspension
In Law Society of Ontario v Chima, 2025 ONLSTH 21, we found Mr. Chima had engaged in professional misconduct contrary to Rule 6.3-3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by sending his client communications of a sexual nature and by making unwelcome advances and engaging in verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature towards her.
Mr. Chima admitted sending the sexual communications. Although he did not say so explicitly, we understand he does not accept our findings concerning the unwelcome advances and having engaged in any inappropriate verbal or physical sexual conduct.
The Law Society had alternative proposals with respect to the appropriate sanction
The Law Society argued that revocation was appropriate if, having regard to the Lawyer’s absence of remorse, insight and any evidence of rehabilitation we could not be satisfied Mr. Chima would not repeat his misconduct and the public would be at risk. However, if we accepted that the Lawyer was remorseful and had attained insight into his misconduct, a suspension of eight months, together with an order that he attend the upcoming continuing professional development program on addressing harassment and discrimination in the legal professions, would be appropriate. Ms. Kala advised that, if a suspension was ordered, it should take effect immediately notwithstanding that Mr. Chima is presently subject to an undertaking not to practise while another matter is being investigated.
Aggravating factors
The misconduct occurred over several months despite the client’s attempts to communicate her discomfort by responding to the inappropriate texts with biblical quotes. The misconduct was not a single “slip up” or a momentary lapse in judgement. Mr. Chima’s actions escalated from sexist and sexual texts to inappropriate sexual comments and advances. They culminated in touching of a sexual nature when he placed his hand on the client’s breast.
The client was extremely vulnerable. She believed the Lawyer was experienced and trusted him to represent her in a matter of extreme importance to her. She
had very limited financial resources. She had neither the resources nor the means to seek out other counsel.
Respondent had no prior discipline.
The committee
To be candid, we struggled with our determination in this matter. While Mr. Chima expressed remorse and told us he had discussed his conduct with members of his church community, it was not evident that he truly understood and appreciated his misuse of power or that he accepted full responsibility for his actions. This was clear from his plan not to meet with women clients without another person present. It is hi
s responsibility to manage his future behaviour – not the responsibility of a chaperone.
On the other hand, the Lawyer’s misconduct, while odious, was not as odious as that engaged in by the respondents in Bondzi-Simpson, Fathi or Piruzza. Further, unlike in those matters, there is evidence of at least some remorse and insight. Further, we are convinced Mr. Chima fully appreciates the seriousness of this proceeding and, if permitted to continue to practise, will do all that he can to avoid any further discipline.
In the end, we concluded that an eight-month suspension and required attendance at the upcoming Continuing Professional Education program titled “Addressing Harassment and Discrimination in the Legal Professions 2025: Part 1 of 2” was appropriate. It meets the goals of specific and general deterrence, the Lawyer’s ongoing education and rehabilitation and will maintain the public’s confidence in the legal professions.
From the misconduct findings
Below are descriptions of some (but not all) of the content found in the messages and videos sent by the Lawyer to AA:
a) An image of a little boy and girl, both wearing only their underwear. The little boy is seen peering into a little girl’s underwear. The caption above the little girl states, “Mommy says it’s a future gold mine and I should not show it to any boys.” The caption above the little boy states, “Really, My [sic] dad says it’s where all his money goes.”
b) An image of a woman and a man who have the following conversation:
Woman: “Honey, before we got married, you used to give me gifts and expensive jewelry [sic].”
Man: “Yes… So [sic]?”
Woman: “How come you don’t do it anymore?”
Man: “Have you seen a fisherman give worms to the fish after catching it?”
c) An image which is captioned “Mother of all advertisement [sic].” The image contains an ad for an imaging and photo company which reads “we can shoot your wife & frame your mother-in law [sic]” and also “if you want we can hang them too!”
d) A cartoon image of a courtroom scene with a character stating, “If physical relationship with wife without her consent is termed as rape then Shopping without a husband’s consent should be termed as Robbery [sic]”
e) A sexualized image of larger woman wearing tight clothing with the caption,” Think big Dream big Believe big and the result will be big [sic].”
f) An image that reads “Million Dollar Truth” and “Wife is Cute when she is Mute” as well as “Husband is Honey when he gives Money [sic].”
g) A video featuring a man, who is allegedly a massage therapist for professional models, massaging women in bikinis and speaking about the difficulties of his job. The video caption reads “Everybody Hates Their JOB LMAO [sic].”
h) A video of a comedy skit involving an elevator, painted as a naked woman’s private parts, and men who can enter the elevator after flashing their private parts.
(Mike Frisch)