Ontario Lawyers Gazette - The Law Society of Upper Canada

February, 2002In keeping with the Law Society of Upper Canada’s mandate to governOntario’s legal profession in the public interest, the Law Societydisciplined the following lawyers. The notation following a lawyer’sname indicates year of call to the Bar and his/her age. Orders forwhich a member receives an admonition are not posted. A hearingpanel, which usually includes two lawyers and a lay person, isresponsible for determining the appropriate disposition of the matter.For matters published in the Ontario Lawyers Gazette prior to 2002,please see past Lawyers Gazettes or past discipline releases.David Michael Bartkiw, (1994, 39) of the City of Burlington, was foundguilty of conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor for:• on February 1, 2000, before the Honourable Mr. Justice R.Jennis, in the Ontario Court of Justice at Hamilton, following hisplea of guilty, he was convicted of the offence that:on or about the 20 th day of March 1999, at the City of Hamilton,he did have the care or control of a motor vehicle havingconsumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentrationthereof in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100millilitres of blood, contrary to the provisions of section 253(b) ofthe Criminal Code of Canada;• on March 14, 2000, before the Honourable Mr. Justice D.Cooper, in the Ontario Court of Justice at Hamilton, following hisplea of guilty, he was found guilty of the offence that:on or about the 6 th day of August 1999, at the town ofFlamborough he did unlawfully commit an assault contrary to theprovisions of section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada;• on December 22, 2000, before the Honourable Mr. Justice W.S.Sharpe, in the Ontario Court of Justice at Burlington, followinghis pleas of guilty, he was convicted of the offences that:i) on or about the 22 nd day of August in the year 2000, at the Cityof Burlington he did, while bound by a probation order made byOntario Court of Justice, Judge D. Cooper, in the City ofHamilton, on April 11 th , 2000, fail without reasonable excuse tocomply with such order, to wit: abstain from thepurchase/possession/consumption of alcohol or otherintoxicating substances, contrary to section 733.1(1) of theCriminal Code of Canada;1

ii) on or about the 22 nd day of August in the year 2000, at the Cityof Burlington he did, while bound by a probation order made byOntario Court of Justice, Judge D. Cooper, in the City ofHamilton, on April 11 th , 2000, fail without reasonable excuse tocomply with such order, to wit: not to associate or hold anycommunication directly or indirectly with (Mary Doe), unless shegives her consent, contrary to section 733.1(1) of the CriminalCode of Canada;iii) on or about the 22 nd day of August in the year 2000, at theCity of Burlington he did in person and by telephone, knowinglyutter a threat to cause death, contrary to section 264.1(1) of theCriminal Code of Canada;iv) on or about the 2 nd day of October in the year 2000, at theCity of Burlington he did, while bound by a probation order madeby the Ontario Court of Justice in Hamilton on April 11, 2000 failwithout reasonable excuse to comply with such order, to wit: bycontacting the victim directly contrary to section 733.1(1) of theCriminal Code;v) on or about the 6th day of October 2000, at the City ofBurlington he did, while bound by a probation order made by theOntario Court of Justice in Hamilton on April 11, 2000 fail withoutreasonable excuse to comply with such order, to wit: bycontacting the victim directly contrary to section 733.1(1) of theCriminal Code;vi) on or about the 10th day of October 2000, at the City ofBurlington he did, while bound by a probation order made by theOntario Court of Justice in Hamilton on April 11, 2000 fail withoutreasonable excuse to comply with such order, to wit: bycontacting the victim indirectly contrary to section 733.1(1) of theCriminal Code;vii) on or about the 2nd day of October 2000, at the City ofBurlington he did, while bound by a probation order made by theOntario Court of Justice in Hamilton on April 11, 2000 fail withoutreasonable excuse to comply with such order, to wit: byconsuming alcohol contrary to section 733.1(1) of the CriminalCode;viii) on or about the 2nd day of October 2000, at the City ofBurlington he did, being at large on your recognizance enteredinto before a justice and being bound to comply with a conditionof that recognizance directed by the said justice fail withoutlawful excuse to comply with that condition to wit: by contactingthe victim directly contrary to section 145(3) of the CriminalCode;2

ix) on or about the 6th day of October 2000, at the City ofBurlington he did, being at large on his recognizance enteredinto before a justice and being bound to comply with a conditionof that recognizance directed by the said justice fail withoutlawful excuse to comply with that condition to wit: by contactingthe victim directly contrary to section 145(3) of the CriminalCode; and,x) on or about the 2nd day of October 2000, at the City ofBurlington he did, being at large on his recognizance enteredinto before a justice and being bound to comply with a conditionof that recognizance directed by the said justice fail withoutlawful excuse to comply with that condition to wit: by consumingalcohol contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code.Hearing panel ordered that:• the member's rights and privileges are suspended for a period offour months commencing at the conclusion of his currentadministrative suspension;• the member is to continue his course of treatment with theOntario Bar Assistance Program until that program is satisfiedthat he no longer requires their services; and• the member shall pay to the Law Society, within 90 days ofNovember 20, 2001, costs in the amount of $1,500.00.(Counsel for Society, Emile Carrington/Counsel for member, duty counsel)Frederick Matthew George Blucher (1984, 52), of the City of Torontowas found guilty of professional misconduct for: Failing to co-operate with a Law Society investigation by failing toproduce the books and records of his practice for the period fromJuly, 1999 to September, 2000 despite numerous requests by theLaw Society; and failing to serve a client by failing to file a Statement of Defence onhis behalf, by misleading and/or failing to advise him about thestatus of his litigation, by failing to respond to his numeroustelephone calls and messages, and by failing to account to him.Hearing panel ordered that: the member be suspended for a period of one month commencingthe date of this order to run consecutive to the administrativesuspension presently being served; the member produce the books and records of his practice to thesatisfaction of the Secretary of the Law Society; the member pay costs to the Law Society, which are hereby fixedin the amount of $1,000, to be paid within 3 months of the date ofthis order (July 19, 2001); and3

the member pay $1,500 to the client, to be paid within 5 months ofthe date of this order.(Counsel for Society, Janice Duggan/Counsel for member, MarekTufman)Adam John Bull (1986, 42), of the City of Toronto, was found guilty ofprofessional misconduct for: between December 12, 1995, and December 4, 1996, he withdrew$9,259.18 from his mixed trust account for fees which had not yetbeen billed, contrary to s.14(8)(c) of Regulation 708, R.R.O. 1990,as amended, made pursuant to the Law Society Act; between March 20, 1996, and January 27, 1997, he misapplied$1,793.49 from the funds held in trust on behalf of all his clients, tothe benefit of clients for whom he held either no money orinsufficient monies in trust; and between May 30, 1996, and November 7, 1996, hemisappropriated $5,562.34 from the funds held in trust, on behalfof all his clients.Hearing panel ordered that: the member's rights and privileges are suspended for four monthscommencing October 1, 2001; the member shall continue in therapy until the Secretary of the LawSociety receives a report from the member's treating psychiatristthat satisfies the Secretary that the member is capable of meetinghis obligations as a lawyer without additional treatment; the member shall authorize his treating psychiatrist to provide tothe Secretary of the Law Society reports on the psychiatrist'streatment of the member, including confirmation that the memberis continuing in treatment, as follows:i. the first report to be received by the Secretary on November1, 2001,ii. a report to be received by the Secretary every four monthsthereafter for two years,iii. a report to be received by the Secretary every six monthsthereafter;with the exception of acting as an independent contractor in thecapacity of a per diem duty counsel for Legal Aid Ontario, themember is prohibited from practising as a sole practitioner andshall practise either as an employee or associate of anothermember approved by the Secretary of the Law Society or inpartnership with another member approved by the Secretary of theLaw Society;4

the member shall notify the Secretary of the Law Society in writingwhenever the member acts as an independent contractor in thecapacity of a per diem duty counsel for Legal Aid Ontario; and the member shall not maintain any trust accounts in connectionwith his law practice.(Counsel for Society, Amanda Worley /Counsel for member Daniel Moore)John Paul Burk (1964, 63) of the City of Mississauga was found guilty ofprofessional misconduct for:• participating in a transaction whereby mortgage monies wereobtained and disbursed from his client, a bank, in relation to theproperty at 2024 Dufferin Street, Toronto (the "Property") by:• failing to disclose to the bank that the purchase price paid toanother bank for the property was less than the principalamount of the bank's mortgage;• failing to disclose to the bank the existence of theagreement of purchase and sale for the property betweenanother bank and individual “A” for $148,000;• commissioning a false and misleading land transfer taxaffidavit, in that, although land transfer tax was paid on theamount of $160,000, said affidavit in paragraph 4(a)provided for consideration in the amount of $160,000, whenthe actual consideration paid was less than that amount;• altering the consideration on the deed to be registered forthe sale of the property by another bank to reflect theincreased purchase price of $160,000;• failing to disclose to the bank that the mortgage fundsadvanced were the only funds used to complete thetransaction, and, were partially disbursed to individual “A”and third parties, when those funds were intended to bepaid on account of the purchase price of the property;• failing to advise the bank that he was acting for individual“A” and individual “A”, in trust;• acting in conflict of interest by failing to protect the interestof the bank that provided first mortgage financing by failingto disclose to the bank that he was also acting for thevendor and that the properties were being flipped at a profit;• participating in a transaction whereby mortgage monies wereobtained and disbursed from his client, a trust company, in relationto the property at 746 Dupont Street, Toronto by:• failing to disclose to the trust company that the purchaseprice paid to a second trust company for the property wasless than the principal amount of the trust company’smortgage;5

• failing to disclose to the trust company the existence of theagreement of purchase and sale for the property betweenindividual “A” and a second trust company for $127,000;• commissioning a false and misleading land transfer taxaffidavit, in that, although the land transfer tax was paid onthe amount of $149,000, said affidavit in paragraph 4(a)provided for consideration in the amount of $149,000, whenthe actual consideration was less than that amount;• altering the consideration on the deed to be registered forthe sale of the property by the second trust company toreflect the increased purchase price of the property of$149,000;• failing to disclose to the trust company that the mortgagefunds advanced were the only funds used to complete thetransaction, and, were partially disbursed to individual “A”,when those funds were intended to be paid on account ofthe purchase price of the property;• commissioning a statutory declaration by individual “A1” onJanuary 30, 1995 that he knew, or ought to have known,falsely stated that the down payment for the purchase of theProperty came from individual “A1”’s own resources andwas not borrowed;• misleading the trust company in his final report by crossingout the provision in the report requiring disclosure of thepurchase price of the property;• failing to disclose to the trust company that he was acting forindividual “A”, in trust;• acting in conflict of interest by failing to protect the interestof the trust company who provided first mortgage financingby failing to disclose to the trust company that he was alsoacting for the vendor and that the properties were beingflipped at a profit;• participating in a transaction whereby mortgage monies wereobtained and disbursed from his client, a trust company, in relationto the property at 752 Dupont Street, Toronto by:• failing to disclose to the trust company that the purchaseprice paid by another trust company for the property wasless than the principal amount of its mortgage;• failing to disclose to the trust company the existence of theagreement of purchase and sale for the property betweenindividual “B” and another trust company for $110,000;• commissioning a false and misleading land transfer taxaffidavit, in that, although the land transfer tax was paid onthe amount of $149,000, said affidavit in paragraph 4(a)6

provided for consideration in the amount of $149,000, whenthe actual consideration paid was less than that amount;• altering the consideration on the deed to be registered forthe sale of the property to reflect the increased purchaseprice of the property of $149,000;• failing to disclose to the trust company that the mortgagefunds advanced were the only funds used to complete thetransaction, and, were partially disbursed to third parties,when those funds were intended to be paid on account ofthe purchase price for the property;• misleading the trust company in his final report by crossingout the provision in the report requiring disclosure of thepurchase price of the property;• failing to disclose to the trust company that he was acting forindividual “B” and individual “B” in trust;• acting in conflict of interest by failing to protect the interestof the trust company who provided first mortgage financingby failing to disclose to the trust company that he was alsoacting for the vendor and that the properties were beingflipped at a profit;• participating in a transaction whereby mortgage monies wereobtained and disbursed from his client, a trust company, in relationto the property at 758 Dupont Street, Toronto by:• failing to disclose to the trust company that the purchaseprice paid to another trust company for the property wasless than the principal amount of the trust company’smortgage;• failing to disclose to the trust company the existence of theagreement of purchase and sale for the property betweenindividual “C” and another trust company for $105,000;• commissioning a false and misleading land transfer taxaffidavit, in that, although the land transfer tax was paid onthe amount of $152,000, said affidavit in paragraph 4(a)provided for consideration in the amount of $152,000, whenthe actual consideration was less than that amount;• altering the consideration on the deed to be registered forthe sale of the property to reflect the increased purchaseprice of the property of $152,000;• failing to disclose to the trust company that the mortgagefunds advanced were the only funds used to complete thetransaction, and, were partially disbursed to third parties,when those funds were intended to be paid on account ofthe purchase price of the property;7

• failing to disclose to the trust company that he was acting forindividual “C” and individual “C”, in trust;• acting in conflict of interest by failing to protect the interestof the trust company who provided first mortgage financingby failing to disclose to the trust company that he was alsoacting for the vendor and that the properties were beingflipped at a profit;• he participated in a transaction whereby mortgage monies wereobtained and disbursed from his client, a trust company, in relationto the property at 40 Ossington Avenue, Toronto by:• failing to disclose to the trust company that the purchaseprice paid to a credit union for the property was less thanthe principal amount of the trust company's mortgage;• failing to disclose to the trust company the existence of theagreement of purchase and sale for the property betweenthe credit union and individual “A1” for $115,000;• failing to disclose to the trust company that on April 16,1996, two deeds of sale were registered on title to theproperty as follows:• the credit union to individual “A1” for theconsideration of $115,000;• individual “A1” to individual “D” for theconsideration of $195,000;• failing to disclose to the trust company that the mortgagefunds advanced were the only funds used to complete thetransaction, and, were partially disbursed to third parties,when those funds were intended to be paid on account ofthe purchase price of the property;• commissioning a statutory declaration from individual “D” onApril 2, 1996 that he knew, or ought to have known, falselystated that:• the down payment for the purchase of theproperty was from individual “D’s” ownresources and not borrowed;• there was no secondary financing on theproperty;• failing to disclose to the trust company that he wasalso acting for individual “A1” and individual “A”, intrust;• acting in conflict of interest by failing to protect theinterest of the trust company who provided firstmortgage financing by failing to disclose to the trustcompany that he was also acting for the vendor andthat the properties were being flipped at a profit;8

• he participated in a transaction whereby mortgage monies wereobtained and disbursed from his client, a trust company, in relationto the property at 108 Yarmouth Road, Toronto by:• failing to disclose to the trust company that the purchaseprice paid to individual “C” for the property was less than theprincipal amount of the trust company’s mortgage;• failing to disclose to the trust company the existence of theagreement of purchase and sale for the property betweenindividual “C” and individuals “E” and “F” for $157,000;• commissioning a false and misleading land transfer taxaffidavit, in that, although the land transfer tax was paid onthe amount of $212,000, said affidavit in paragraph 4(a)provided for consideration in the amount of $212,000, whenthe actual consideration was less than that amount;• altering the consideration on the deed to be registered forthe sale of the property by individuals “E” and “F” to reflectthe increased purchase price of the property of $212,000;• failing to disclose to the trust company that the mortgagefunds advanced were the only funds used to complete thetransaction, and, were partially disbursed to individual “A1”and third parties, when those funds were intended to bepaid on account of the purchase price of the property;• commissioning a statutory declaration that he knew, orought to have known, falsely stated that the down paymentfor the purchase of the property was from individual “A1”’sown resources and not borrowed;• misleading the trust company in his final report by advisingthat the address had an "A" after the number 108;• failing to disclose to the trust company that he acted forindividual “C” and individual “C1";• acting in conflict of interest by failing to protect the interestof the trust company who provided first mortgage financingby failing to disclose to the trust company that he was alsoacting for the vendor and that the properties were beingflipped at a profit;• he participated in a transaction whereby mortgage monies wereobtained and disbursed his client, a trust company, in relation tothe property at 238 Glenholme Avenue, Toronto by:• failing to disclose to the trust company that the purchaseprice paid to a second trust company for the property wasless than the principal amount of trust company’s mortgage;9

• failing to disclose to the trust company the existence of theagreement of purchase and sale for the Property betweenthe second trust company and individual “A1" for $115,000;• failing to disclose to the trust company that on March 15,1996, two deeds of sale were registered on title to theproperty as follows:• the second trust company to individual “A1"for the consideration of $115,000;• individual “A1" to individual “G” for theconsideration of $190,000;• failing to disclose to the trust company that the mortgagefunds advanced were the only funds used to complete thetransaction, and, were partially disbursed to third parties,when those funds were intended to be paid on account ofthe purchase price of the property;• failing to disclose to the trust company that he also acted forindividual “A1", individual “A" and individual “A", in trust;• acting in conflict of interest by failing to protect the interestof the trust company who provided first mortgage financingby failing to disclose to the trust company that he was alsoacting for the vendor and that the properties were beingflipped at a profit;• he participated in a transaction whereby mortgage monies wereobtained and disbursed from his client, an insurance company, inrelation to the property at 15 Gosford Blvd., Unit 2, Toronto by:• failing to disclose to the insurance company that thepurchase price paid to individuals “H” and “I” for the propertywas less than the principal amount of the life insurancecompany’s mortgage;• failing to disclose to the insurance company the existenceof the agreement of purchase and sale for the propertybetween individuals “H” and “I” and individual “B”, in trust for$111,000;• commissioning a false and misleading land transfer taxaffidavit, in that, although the land transfer tax was paid onthe amount of $123,000, said affidavit in paragraph 4(a)provided for consideration in the amount of $123,000, whenthe actual consideration was less than that amount;• altering the consideration on the deed to be registered forthe sale of the property by individuals “H” and “I” to reflectthe increased purchase price of the property of $123,000;• failing to disclose to the insurance company that themortgage funds advanced were the only funds used tocomplete the transaction, and, were partially disbursed to10

third parties, when those funds were intended to be paid onaccount of the purchase price of the property;• commissioning a statutory declaration that he knew, orought to have known, falsely stated that the down paymentfor the purchase of the property was from individual “J”’sown resources and not borrowed;• failing to advise the insurance company that he was actingfor individual “B”, in trust;• acting in conflict of interest by failing to protect the interestof the insurance company who provided first mortgagefinancing by failing to disclose to the insurance companythat he was also acting for the vendor and that theproperties were being flipped at a profit;• he failed to maintain his books and records in accordancewith Subsections 6(1) and (2) of By-law 18 of the LawSociety Act.Hearing panel ordered that:• the member is permitted to resign his membership in the LawSociety;• the member is prohibited from acting or practising as a barrister orsolicitor and from holding himself out as a barrister or solicitor; and• the member shall pay to the Law Society, within twenty-four (24)months of the date of this order, costs in the amount of $5,000.00.(Counsel for Society, William Donegan/Counsel for member, J. DouglasCrane)David Buzaglo (1989, 41), of the City of Toronto, was found guilty ofprofessional misconduct for: failing to co-operate with a Law Society investigation by:a) failing to produce his books and records for the period June, 1999to December 31, 1999, and client files, despite repeated requestsfrom the Law Society; andb) failing to reply in a timely and responsive fashion to the LawSociety regarding complaints made by his clients despite attemptsby Law Society Investigators and Resolution and ComplianceOfficers to contact him by letter and telephone.Hearing panel ordered that: The member's rights and privileges are suspended for one month,commencing December 1, 2001 and thereafter indefinitely until thebooks and records of the member’s practice are fully completedand brought up to date to the satisfaction of the Secretary of theLaw Society.(Counsel for Society, Janice Duggan/Counsel for member, Trent Morris)11

Valmiki Krishna Chowbay (1994, 42), of the City of Vaughan was foundguilty of professional misconduct for: failing to produce the books and records of his practice despiteletters dated November 10, 1998, March 10, 1999, March 24, 1999,and April 21, 1999 and telephone calls on August 21, 1998,September 23, 1998, October 8, 1998, November 3, 5, 12, 1998,April 19, 1999, August 18, 1999, and August 20, 1999 requestingthat he do so; and failing to produce a reporting letter on a real estate transaction tothe Law Society despite letters dated August 30, 1999 andSeptember 27, 1999 and a telephone request on August 9, 1999.Hearing panel ordered that: the member's rights and privileges be suspended for three monthscommencing May 16, 2001; the suspension shall continue indefinitely until the memberproduces the books and records of his practice to the satisfactionof the Secretary of the Law Society; the member produce the documents in the DH matter to the LawSociety; forthwith upon resumption of practice, the member must cooperatein a review of his practice under section 42 of the Law Society Actat the option of the Secretary of the Law Society; and the member pay costs to the Law Society, which are hereby fixedin the amount of $1,500.(Counsel for the Society, Suzanne Jarvie/Counsel for the member,duty counsel)Robert James Dack, (1987, 41) of the Town of Strathroy, was foundguilty of professional misconduct for:• the member made inappropriate sexual and non-sexualcomments to Mary Doe between September 1998 and June1999, inclusive, which Mary Doe found inappropriate anddegrading.Hearing panel ordered that:• the member is reprimanded; and• the member is to continue gender sensitivity training and is toproduce to the Law Society a letter confirming the member’sattendance at, participation in, progress in and completion ofthe training.(Counsel for Society, Jennifer Scott /Counsel for member,unrepresented)Dennis-Gwyn Gross (1987, 47), of the town of Thorold was foundguilty of conduct unbecoming a barrister or solicitor for:12

On July 24, 2000, before the Honourable Mr. Justice Taliano, in theSuperior Court of Justice at St. Catharines, he was convicted of fivecounts of defrauding various members of the public, by deceit,falsehood or other fraudulent means, of money exceeding onethousand dollars, contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code ofCanada; andprofessional misconduct for:between the period February 26, 1999 to December 15, 1999, hemisappropriated $9,474.35, more or less, from the trust funds of 13clients, as detailed in paragraphs (a) through (n):(a) he misappropriated $500.00 from HL and AL;(b) he misappropriated $300.00 from PK and MK;(c) he misappropriated $700.00 from JR and UR;(d) he misappropriated $700.00 from JC;(e) he misappropriated $937.74 from DL;(f) he misappropriated $700.00 from GF and EF;(g) he misappropriated $400.00 from AC and AC;(h) he misappropriated $307.00 from MT, PT and BT;(i) he misappropriated $330.00 from EB;(k) he misappropriated $2700.00 from BO;(l) he misappropriated $700.00 from GL and TL;(m) he misappropriated $700.00 from NM and JM; and(n) he misappropriated $500.00 from GR and ER;he failed to adequately serve his clients listed in subparticulars 2(a)(b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (h) (i) (k) (l) and (n), by failing to report to them ina meaningful way the details of purchase and/or sale transactions,thereby seeking to avoid detection of his misappropriation scheme;andhe misappropriated $1750.00 from 37 clients, the names andparticulars of which are set out in Schedule "1a" & "1b", by failingto register discharges of mortgages.Hearing panel ordered that:the member is disbarred as a barrister, his name is struck off theroll of solicitors, his membership in the Law Society is revoked andhe is prohibited from acting or practising as a barrister or solicitorand from holding himself out as a barrister or solicitor.the member shall pay to the Law Society, for the Lawyers Fund forClient Compensation, the sum of $8,730.00.the member shall repay to the Law Society, for the Lawyers Fundfor Client Compensation, the amount of any grant made from thefund to the member's clients mentioned in the amended Notice ofApplication after the date of this order.(Counsel for Society, Michael Bader/Counsel for member, norepresentation)13

Stuart Edward Hendin (1975, 57), of the City of Ottawa was found guiltyof professional misconduct for:1. between February 1, 1998 and February 28, 2000, approximately,he misappropriated a total of $108,000, more or less, from clienttrust funds as follows:(a)he misappropriated a total of $60,000, more or less, frommonies held in his firm’s mixed trust account on behalf of hisfirm’s client LM: (i) $50,000, more or less, on or aboutFebruary 4, 1998; and (ii) $10,000, more or less, on orabout February 18, 2000;(b) on or about August 5, 1999, he misappropriated $18,000,more or less, from monies held in his firm’s mixed trustaccount on behalf of his firm’s client, LI;(c)(d)(e)(f)on or about December 14, 1999, he misappropriated$3,000, more or less, from monies held in his firm’s mixedtrust account on behalf of his firm’s client, ZH;on or about December 13, 1999, he misappropriated$2,244, more or less, from monies held in his firm’s mixedtrust account on behalf of his firm’s client, HW;on or about February 26, 1999, he misappropriated$20,000, more or less, from monies held in his firm’s mixedtrust account on behalf of his firm’s client, R; andhe misappropriated a total of $5,000, more or less, frommonies held in his firm’s mixed trust account on behalf of hisfirm’s client, LF: (i) $2,675, more or less, on or aboutOctober 27, 1999 and (ii) $2,040, more or less, on or aboutDecember 14, 1999; and2. between October 28, 1999 and February 28, 2000, approximately,he failed to maintain sufficient monies on deposit in his firm’s mixedtrust account to meet all of his obligations with respect to moneyheld in trust for his firm’s client LM, contrary to section 8 of By-Law19, made pursuant to the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.8 asamended.Hearing panel ordered that: the member is permitted to resign his membership in the LawSociety; and the member is prohibited from acting or practising as a barrister orsolicitor and from holding himself out as a barrister or solicitor.(Counsel for Society, Catherine Braid/Counsel for member Bryan Carroll)Mark Elliot Joseph, (1982, 49) of the City of Toronto, was found guiltyof professional misconduct for:• during the period from approximately March 1995 to April 1995and in the course of the solicitor-client relationship, the member14

initiated a personal relationship with his client Mary Doe andthereafter engaged in a sexual relationship with his client MaryDoe in circumstances where he knew his client was vulnerable.Hearing panel ordered that:• the member’s rights and privileges be suspended for a period ofthree months commencing on the 1 st day of February, 2001.(Counsel for Society, Glen Stuart/Counsel for member, unrepresented)John Robert Peddle Jr. (1977, 50), of the Town of Aurora was foundguilty of professional misconduct for: between approximately July, 1997 and February, 1998, he actedas solicitor for his client, SP, and his company and acted asescrow agent for a group of investors represented by DS and hiscompany in respect of various investment transactions.Pursuant to an agreement entered between the two companies,he was to hold investment monies, in trust, as escrow agent. Inthe course of acting as escrow agent, he received $180,000(US) and $400,000 (US) he was to hold, in trust, as escrowagent. In the course of these investment transactions, he failedto be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of his client,SP; in respect of the above transactions, between or about August20 and August 22, 1997, he mishandled $180,000 (US) or$248,760 (Cdn), more or less, he was to hold, in trust, as escrowagent, as he failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that therepresentations made to him as to the status of the investmentswere accurate and disbursed the investors’ funds in a mannerwhich failed to ensure that the investors’ interests wereprotected, in that he:(i) disbursed $42,800 (Cdn), more or less, to himself;(ii) disbursed $81,580 (Cdn), more or less, to LK; and(iii) disbursed $124,380 (Cdn), more or less, to hisclient, SP, and his creditors; and in respect of the above transactions, in or about the period October1997, he mishandled approximately $145,500(US) of the$400,000(US), more or less, to be held by him, in trust, as escrowagent, in the manner in which he disbursed the sum of$145,500(US) back to DS.Hearing panel ordered that: the member's rights and privileges are suspended for a period ofthree months commencing November 15, 2001; except in the circumstances specified in this paragraph, themember shall not act as an escrow agent with respect toinvestment funds without the prior authorization of the Secretary ofthe Law Society. The member may act as an escrow agent,15

without the prior authorization of the Secretary, where it isnecessary to hold monies in order to effect real estate transactionsand commercial transactions involving the buying and selling ofbusinesses for his clients; the member shall pay to the Law Society a fine in the amount of$5,000. The terms of payment of the fine are to be agreed uponby the parties; and the member shall pay to the Law Society costs in the amount of$1,500. The costs shall not be payable until after the end of theperiod of suspension mentioned in paragraph 1, and the terms ofpayment of the costs are to be agreed upon by the parties.(Counsel for Society, Amanda Worley/Counsel for member Mark Sandler)Francesco Antonio Sabetti, (1987, 43) of the City of Toronto was foundto have failed to comply with the order of the Law Society Hearing Paneldated February 3, 1999 as follows:• pursuant to paragraph 3 of the order, he failed, despite requestsfrom the Law Society, to authorize a doctor to report to the LawSociety when requested or at such time when the doctordetermines that counselling is no longer required;• pursuant to paragraph 5 of said Order, he failed to provide, withinthe time specified in the order, a written report to the Secretary ofthe Law Society concerning the progress of the integration of hisexisting files into Pace, Johnson, and only did so after requestsfrom the Law Society;• pursuant to paragraph 6(d) of the order, he failed to provide to theLaw Society an acknowledgement that his supervising lawyer, Mr.Algirdas Pace is authorized to release any and all informationregarding any breach of the Law Society Act and its accompanyingregulations, by-laws and rules, despite numerous requests madein writing by the Law Society;• pursuant to paragraph 8 of the order, he failed to respond to LawSociety correspondence within 30 days, and in particular he failedto reply to correspondence from the Law Society dated August 10,1999 and August 17, 2000;• pursuant to paragraph 10 of the order, he failed to perform 200hours of community service within one year of the date of theaforementioned order at a location agreeable to the Secretary ofthe Law Society, and, failed to report to the Law Society in writingrespecting the completion of such service;• pursuant to paragraph 11 of the order, he failed to pay the totalamount of costs and expenses of the Law Society which were fixedin the total amount of $8,000 within 12 months of his return topractice; and16

• pursuant to paragraph 8 of the order he failed to respond to LawSociety correspondence within thirty days, and in particular hefailed to reply to correspondence from the Law Society datedMarch 15, 2001.Hearing panel ordered:• the member's rights and privileges are suspended for a period ofone (1) day;• the member shall pay to the Law Society, within 30 days, costs inthe amount of $1,500.00.(Counsel for Society, William Donegan/Counsel for member, E. Frank)Brian Westley Strutt (1987, 68) of the Town of Waterdown was foundguilty of professional misconduct for:Company ABetween approximately December, 1993 and July, 1994, he acted asescrow agent and solicitor with respect to a purported loan of US $10,000,000 from or through X and/or Y to company A. In the course ofthe transaction, company A paid US $135,000 to him. In or about March,1994, he paid US $67,500 to X and/or Y.(i In respect of the above transaction, he acted in circumstances inwhich there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest, in that:(a) he acted as escrow agent and solicitor for financiers,X and/or Y, as well as for the borrower, company A,in this loan transaction, without discussing with thesaid parties the existence and implications andconsequences of his conflict of interest.(ii(iiiIn respect of the above transaction, he failed to take appropriatesteps to preserve his client's funds and dealt with and disbursed hisclient's funds in a manner inconsistent with his client's interests andinstructions, in that:(a) he released the client's funds to X and/or Y withoutauthorization or other lawful justification;(b) he released the client’s funds to X and/or Y in breachof the terms of the underlying Investment and EscrowAgreements; and(c) he failed to conduct reasonable and sufficient duediligence prior to releasing the client's funds.In respect of the above transaction, he failed to serve his client ina conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, in that:17

(a)(b)he failed to provide any or adequate accounting orreporting letters to his client; andhe failed to comply with underlying agreementsaffecting his client's rights.(ivHe failed to guard against becoming the dupe of X and/or Y whowere attempting to illegitimately entice funds from his other clients,by promoting illegitimate financing schemes.Company BBetween approximately November, 1993 and June, 1995, he acted asescrow agent and solicitor with respect to a purported loan of US$40,000,000 from or through X and/or Y to company B. In the course ofthe transaction company B paid US $50,000 to him. Of that sum, in orabout January, 1994, he paid US $6,250 to company Z and/or JH and, inor about May, 1994, he paid US $40,750 to RM in Zurich, Switzerland.(i In respect of the above transaction, he acted in circumstances inwhich there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest, in that:(a) he acted as escrow agent and solicitor for financiers,X and/or Y, as well as for the borrower, company B,in this loan transaction, without discussing with thesaid parties the existence and implications andconsequences of his conflict of interest;(b) he acted as solicitor for the said borrower in litigationagainst the said financier clients;(ii(iiiIn respect of the above transaction, he failed to take appropriatesteps to preserve his client's funds and dealt with and disbursed hisclient's funds in a manner inconsistent with his client's interests andinstructions, in that:(a) he released the client's funds to third parties withoutauthorization or other lawful justification;(b) he released the client’s funds to third parties inbreach of the terms of the underlying Investment andEscrow Agreements; and(c) he failed to conduct reasonable and sufficient duediligence prior to releasing the client's funds.In respect of the above transaction, he failed to serve his client ina conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, in that:(a) he failed to provide any or adequate accounting orreporting letters to his client; and18

(b)he failed to comply with underlying agreementsaffecting his client's rights.(iv)He failed to guard against becoming the dupe of X and/or Ywho were attempting to illegitimately entice funds from hisother clients, by promoting illegitimate financing schemes.Company CBetween approximately December, 1993 and June, 1995, he acted asescrow agent and solicitor with respect to a purported loan of US$2,000,000 to US $6,000,000 from or through X and/or Y to company C.In the course of the transaction company C paid US $125,000 to him. Ofthat sum, in or about January, 1994, he paid US $12,500 to company Zand/or JH and, in or about May, 1994, he paid US $94,500 to RM inZurich, Switzerland.(i)In respect of the above transaction, he acted in circumstances inwhich there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest, in that:(a)he acted as escrow agent and solicitor for financiers,X and/or Y, as well as for the borrower, company C,in this loan transaction, without discussing with thesaid parties the existence and implications andconsequences of his conflict of interest;(ii)In respect of the above transaction, he failed to takeappropriate steps to preserve his client's funds and dealtwith and disbursed his client's funds in a mannerinconsistent with his client's interests and instructions, inthat:(a)(b)(c)he released the client's funds to third parties withoutauthorization or other lawful justification;he released the client’s funds to third parties inbreach of the terms of the underlying Investment andEscrow Agreements; andhe failed to conduct reasonable and sufficient duediligence prior to releasing the client's funds.(iii)In respect of the above transaction, he failed to serve hisclient in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, inthat:19

(a)(b)he failed to provide any or adequate accounting orreporting letters to his client; andhe failed to comply with underlying agreementsaffecting his client's rights.(iv)He failed to guard against becoming the dupe of X and/or Ywho were attempting to illegitimately entice funds from hisother clients, by promoting illegitimate financing schemes.Company DBetween approximately October, 1993 and June, 1995, he acted asescrow agent and solicitor with respect to a purported loan of US$3,000,000 from or through X and/or Y to company D. In the course ofthe transaction company D paid US $65,000 to him. Of that sum, in orabout January, 1994, he paid US $6,256.50 to company Z and/or JH and,in or about May, 1994, he paid US $13,750 to RM in Zurich, Switzerland.(i) In respect of the above transaction, he acted in circumstances inwhich there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest, in that:(a) he acted as escrow agent and solicitor for financiers,X and/or Y, as well as for the borrower, company D,in this loan transaction, without discussing with thesaid parties the existence and implications andconsequences of his conflict of interest; and(b) he acted as solicitor for the said borrower in litigationagainst the said financier clients;(ii)In respect of the above transaction, he failed to takeappropriate steps to preserve his client's funds and dealtwith and disbursed his client's funds in a mannerinconsistent with his client's interests and instructions, inthat:(a)(b)(c)he released the client's funds to third parties withoutauthorization or other lawful justification;he released the client’s funds to third parties inbreach of the terms of the underlying Investment andEscrow Agreements; andhe failed to conduct reasonable and sufficient duediligence prior to releasing the client's funds.20

(iii)In respect of the above transaction, he failed to serve hisclient in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, inthat:(a)(b)he failed to provide any or adequate accounting orreporting letters to his client; andhe failed to comply with underlying agreementsaffecting his client's rights.(iv)He failed to guard against becoming the dupe of X and/or Ywho were attempting to illegitimately entice funds from his otherclients, by promoting illegitimate financing schemes.Company EBetween approximately October, 1993 and June, 1995, he acted asescrow agent and solicitor with respect to a purported loan of US$8,300,000 from or through X and/or Y to company E. In the course of thetransaction company E paid US $50,000 to him. Of that sum, in or aboutJanuary, 1994, he paid US $6,256 to company Z and/or JH and, in orabout May, 1994, he paid US $37,950 to RM in Zurich, Switzerland.(i)(ii)In respect of the above transaction, he acted incircumstances in which there was or was likely to be aconflicting interest, in that:(a) he acted as escrow agent and solicitor forfinanciers,X and/or Y, as well as for the borrower,Company E, in this loan transaction, withoutdiscussing with the said parties the existence andimplications and consequences of his conflict ofinterest; and(b) he acted as solicitor for the said borrower in litigationagainst the said financier clients;In respect of the above transaction, he failed to takeappropriate steps to preserve his client's funds and dealtwith and disbursed his client's funds in a mannerinconsistent with his client's interests and instructions, inthat:(a)he released the client's funds to third parties withoutauthorization or other lawful justification;21

(b)(c)he released the client’s funds to third parties inbreach of the terms of the underlying Investment andEscrow Agreements; andhe failed to conduct reasonable and sufficient duediligence prior to releasing the client's funds.(iii)In respect of the above transaction, he failed to serve hisclient in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, inthat:(a)(b)(c)he failed to provide any or adequate reporting lettersto his client;he failed to comply with underlying agreementsaffecting his client's rights; andhe provided an incorrect accounting to his client.(iv)He failed to guard against becoming the dupe of X and/or Ywho were attempting to illegitimately entice funds from hisother clients, by promoting illegitimate financing schemes.Company FBetween approximately February and May, 1994, he acted as escrowagent and solicitor with respect to a purported investment of US $175,000in a purported joint venture between X and/or Y and, company F. In thecourse of the transaction company F paid the US $175,000 to him and aswell paid US $5,000 to him as an escrow fee. Of the US $175,000, in orabout March, 1994, he paid US $25,000 to company Z and/or JH and, inor about May, 1994, he paid US $149,850 to RM in Zurich, Switzerland.(i)In respect of the above transaction, he acted incircumstances in which there was or was likely to be aconflicting interest, in that:(a) he acted as escrow agent and solicitor for financiers,X and/or Y, as well as for the investor, company F, inthis loan transaction, without discussing with the saidparties the existence and implications andconsequences of his conflict of interest; and(b)he acted as solicitor for the said investor in litigationagainst the said financier clients;(ii)In respect of the above transaction, he failed to takeappropriate steps to preserve his client's funds and dealt22

with and disbursed his client's funds in a mannerinconsistent with his client's interests and instructions, inthat:(a)(b)(c)he released the client's funds to third parties withoutauthorization or other lawful justification;he released the client’s funds to third parties inbreach of the terms of the underlying Investment andEscrow Agreements; andhe failed to conduct reasonable and sufficient duediligence prior to releasing the client's funds.(iii)In respect of the above transaction, he failed to serve hisclient in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, inthat:(a)(b)he failed to provide any or adequate accounting orreporting letters to his client; andhe failed to comply with underlying agreementsaffecting his client's rights.(iv)he failed to guard against becoming the dupe of X and/or Ywho were attempting to illegitimately entice funds from hisother clients, by promoting illegitimate financing schemes.OtherHe transferred out of trust clients’ trust funds in the amount of U.S.$6,563.00 more or less, in that during the period of July 12, 1994 toAugust 19, 1994, he transferred interest in the amount of US $6,000 andUS $563.36, earned on these funds, to his general account withoutauthorization.In or about February, 1994, he transferred clients’ trust funds, into the USDollar Money Market Mutual Fund, thereby maintaining trust accounts atan unauthorized financial institution, in an unauthorized account, incontravention of section 14 of Regulation 708 made under the LawSociety Act.He failed to maintain all the books and records required by section 15 (1)(j) of Regulation 708 made under the Law Society Act.23

He failed to co-operate with the Law Society during the course of itsinvestigation, by failing to fully answer all questions and produce allrequested documents, despite requests from the Law Society, the lastrequest having been made in the Law Society’s letter to the Member datedFebruary 27, 1996.Hearing panel ordered that:C the member is granted permission to resign, his resignation to beeffective as of July 31, 2001;C the member shall undertake never to apply for readmission to themembership of the Law Society of Upper Canada; andC the member shall pay costs to the Law Society of Upper Canadain the amount of $10,000.(Counsel for Society, Michael Royce, Amanda Worley/Counsel formember, David Godard)Robert William Wilson (1979, 47) of the City of Toronto, was found guiltyof professional misconduct for:• he failed to serve client A in a conscientious, diligent and efficientmanner by failing to take reasonable and appropriate action in atimely fashion and/or by failing to return trust funds owing to hisclient in a timely fashion, contrary to Rules 2 and 6 of the Rules ofProfessional Conduct [now Rules 2.01 and 2.07];• he failed to reply to communications from a fellow solicitor contraryto Rule 14 of the Rules of Professional Conduct [now Rule 6.03];• he failed to serve client B in a conscientious, diligent and efficientmanner by failing to take reasonable and appropriate action in atimely fashion and/or by failing to keep his client advised of thestatus of his matter, contrary to Rule 2 of the Rules of ProfessionalConduct [now Rule 2.01];• he failed to reply to communications from a fellow solicitor contraryto Rule 14, of the Rules of Professional Conduct [now Rule 6.03];• he failed to serve client C, in a conscientious, diligent and efficientmanner by failing to provide a full accounting of retainer monieswhen requested by the estate executors and/or by failing torespond in a timely manner to communications from the executors,contrary to Rules 2 and 6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct[now Rules 2.01 and 2.07];• he failed to reply to communications from a fellow solicitor in atimely manner, contrary to Rule 14 of the Rules of ProfessionalConduct [now Rule 6.03];• he failed to serve client D in a conscientious, diligent and efficientmanner by failing to take reasonable and appropriate action in atimely fashion and/or by failing to respond to client D’s written and24

verbal requests for information in a timely fashion and/or to adviseclient D of the ongoing status of the file; and• he failed to reply in a timely and responsive fashion to the LawSociety’s written communications, dated May 27 and July 6, 1999and telephone calls of June 11, 15 and 24, 1999.Hearing panel ordered:• the member is to be reprimanded on a date to be fixed by theHearings Coordinator of the Law Society;• as of September 15, 2001, the member will practise only as anemployee or associate of a member of the Law Society (“theemployer/associate”) and in accordance with a detailed Plan ofEmployment/Association, both of which must receive the approvalof the Secretary of the Law Society;(a) the Secretary may unilaterally refuse to accept anyproposed employer/associate if he or she does not believethat the proposed employer/associate or the proposed Planof Employment/Association would be suitable;(b) in the event that the employer/associate becomes unable orunwilling to continue to have the member as his/heremployee/associate or the member wishes to cease hisemployment/association with the employer/associate, themember shall notify the Secretary of the Law Society inwriting, forthwith, and provide the name of the newproposed employer/associate and the new proposed Planof Employment/Association. In the interim period betweenthe date the employment/association ceases and theSecretary’s approval of the new employer/associate isobtained, the member is prohibited from practising law;(c) notwithstanding the obligations of the Secretary aforesaid,in the first instance, the employer/associate shall be JohnRuderman and the member will practise in association withMr. Ruderman in accordance with the Plan of Associationattached to this Order;• the member shall submit written reports to the Secretary of the LawSociety of Upper Canada as follows:(a)(b)such reports will be provided(i)(ii)quarterly during the first 12 months of association(i.e. on or by December 1, 2001, March 1, 2002,June 1, 2002 and September 1, 2002); andsemi-annually during the second 12 month period ofassociation (i.e. on or by March 1, 2003 andSeptember 2, 2003).each report will include:(i) a copy of the member’s current active file list;25

(c)(ii) any changes in his practice which have occurredduring the reporting period (e.g. new clients, changein office personnel); and(iii) a brief summary of the meetings with hisemployer/associate during the reporting period asoutlined in the Plan of Employment/Association;every report will be reviewed by the employer/associate whowill indicate, in writing,(i)(ii)that he/she has reviewed the report; andhis/her agreement or disagreement with the contents;and• the member shall pay to the Law Society, on or before September30, 2001, costs in the amount of $500.00.(Counsel for Society, Catherine Braid/Counsel for member, JonathanMarler)26