Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1 (1)
Legal Profession Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

License Denied

By Michael Frisch

The Ontario Law Society Hearing Division has denied an application for a law license

We find that Mr. Dumanian made deliberately false or misleading statements in his application for a licence to practise law by not fully disclosing allegations of sexual misconduct made against him while attending the University of Alberta; by minimizing the nature of those allegations; and by failing to disclose the extent and nature of the penalties arising from the finding of his misconduct by the university. Therefore, pursuant to By-Law 4, s. 8(2), he has failed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a licence to practise law.

We also find that Mr. Dumanian has not been candid and forthright with the Law Society throughout the licence application process and in his testimony before us, and we conclude that he is not currently of good character.
 
The underlying allegations
 
The allegations of misconduct against Mr. Dumanian involved sexual contact without consent on four occasions, with a different female undergraduate student on each occasion, at his UA graduate student residence. The alleged incidents occurred between September 2014 and August 2015. All four incidents were reported to UA within a month of each other, in or around September 2015. The incidents were not reported to the police.
 
A hearing was conducted at the University of Alberta
 
Ms. Eerkes found that “Mr. Dumanian’s behaviour was not just problematic, it was habitual and predatory. He frequented fraternity parties where he knew that younger undergraduate women would be drinking, and therefore vulnerable.”
 
After an appeal in which he was found to have accepted the findings of wrongdoing
 

the Appeal Board reduced the length of suspension to one year, to be served retroactively, and made an order of exclusion from the University of Alberta for the same period as the order of suspension. The Appeal Board also imposed the following probation conditions on Mr. Dumanian for the remaining period of his degree program:

a.      no direct or indirect contact with the four complainants;

b.      not to reside in UA residential housing;

c.      abstain from the possession, use and/or consumption of alcohol while on UA properties and/or at activities or functions; and

d.      not to attend at any UA campus without first obtaining written permission from UA security.

On the bar application, he reported the incidents but

 We conclude that this description does not provide details of the penalty imposed and is not complete as required in the application for licence.

…We find that, in his application for licence, Mr. Dumanian intentionally misrepresented the basis of the resolution of the sexual misconduct allegations, omitted the fact that he had admitted to the misconduct in order to obtain a more lenient penalty, and falsely claimed that he had maintained his innocence throughout the UA process.

(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process