A Teenage Goddess

The Alberta Law Society Hearing Committee has issued a report finding that an attorney engaged in conduct deserving of sanction in some but not all charged instances.

Among the sustained citations was conduct in sending sexually explicit videos to a prospective employee

The Committee finds that where a conflict exists between Mr. Gill’s evidence and that of SM, we find the evidence of SM more reliable and credible. In assessing credibility, the Committee has considered the evidence of SM and Mr. Gill on a standalone basis, bearing in mind such factors as memory, accuracy, evasiveness, interest in the proceedings and whether the witness’s story is inherently believable. In making this determination of credibility, the Committee has considered the following:

(a)  SM was clearly shocked by the Videos, suggesting she had no notion as to what the Videos contained. The Videos left SM shaken and traumatized, and she was clearly distressed by the Videos. The stress experienced by SM and her reaction to the Videos was corroborated by her uncle’s evidence. It is clear that SM was not expecting the Videos, and she was certainly taken back and shocked by their contents.

(b)  SM appeared to be making a good faith effort to fully and accurately give evidence and there was nothing which would suggest that she was deliberately lying or failing to disclose relevant information.

(c)   SM’s recollection and memory of the interviews was consistent. There was nothing to indicate that SM’s memory had been distorted as a result of conversations with others or by the passage of time.

(d)  SM appeared confident in her testimony and there was nothing in her manner of speech or physical demeanour to suggest that she was not being honest.

(e)  In the email from Mr. Gill, where he forwarded the Videos, he does not make any reference to prior discussions during the interview with SM. In other words, there is nothing in the email from Mr. Gill to suggest that SM should be expecting the Videos.

(f)   Mr. Gill stated that his HR assistant was present, along with a brief appearance by another student, during the interview with SM, but no corroborating witness was presented.

With respect to a 19 year old intern

The evidence regarding citation 8 is not disputed:

(a)  Mr. Gill would confide in BW about intimately personal matters including his unhappy marriage.

(b)  Mr. Gill provided his credit card to BW to buy a Michael Kors purse as a reward, which was done after BW had only been an intern for a week, and Mr. Gill asked her to wear it at the office.

(c)   Mr. Gill markedly complimented BW by saying she was brilliant, smart and exceptional, even when BW was doing mundane tasks.

(d)  Mr. Gill would text message BW outside of work hours such as sending her good morning and evening texts.

(e)  The events at the Earls restaurant involved Mr. Gill sending BW a stream of text messages, including text messages that Mr. Gill had purchased a gift to match BW’s black dress, that “they were connected in a special way”, that BW was “priceless”, that Mr. Gill would perish or die without her, describing BW as a “goddess” and that her smile was “pure”.

(f)   That BW left the restaurant crying and that she never returned to Mr. Gill’s office, even though she had not completed her 100 hours of internship.

 The Committee recognizes that Mr. Gill appears to have been intoxicated at the time of the Earls restaurant incident. While that may be the case, that cannot in any manner be a defence of the conduct of Mr. Gill. The text messages were clearly sexually suggestive and inappropriate.

The matter will be reconvened to consider “sanction, costs, notices and any other outstanding issues.” (Mike Frisch)