Law Society of Ontario v. Leahy

Law Society of Ontario v. Leahy Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-12-10 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 1010 Docket numbers C65203, C65808 Judges Juriansz, Russell G.; Brown, David M.; Roberts, Lois B. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Law Society of Ontario v. Leahy, 2018 ONCA 1010 DATE: 20181210 DOCKET: C65203 and C65808 Juriansz, Brown and Roberts JJ.A. BETWEEN Law Society of Ontario Applicant (Respondent) and Timothy Edward Leahy Respondent (Appellant) Timothy Edward Leahy, acting in person Simon Bieber and Alex Fidler-Wener, for the respondent Heard: December 6, 2018 On appeal from the order of Justice Victoria R. Chiappetta of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 7, 2018, and from the order of Justice E. Morgan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 1, 2018, with reasons reported at 2018 ONSC 4722. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals from two orders that permanently enjoin him from advertising, holding himself out and practising as a lawyer in Ontario. [2] The appellant sought to file fresh evidence. Other than the transcript of the March 7, 2018 hearing before Chiappetta J., we do not admit the appellant’s affidavit evidence. It does not meet the criteria for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal because it mainly consists of argument. [3] Section 26.1(1) of the Law Society Act prohibits a non-licensee from providing legal services or holding himself out as a lawyer in Ontario. The appellant’s licence to practise law in Ontario was revoked on December 10, 2014 and has not been reinstated. He did not appeal his disbarment. Accordingly, he has no licence to practise law in Ontario. [4] The appellant complains about various steps in the proceedings at which he perceives he was treated unfairly. He ascribes ill will to the Law Society and its counsel and former counsel, whom he accuses of deliberately manipulating the process against him. We see no merit in the appellant’s submissions that he was not treated fairly or that the respondent committed multiple abuses of process. Neither the record nor the motion judges’ reasons support it. Moreover, if there were any procedural irregularities in the March 7th hearing, they were cured in the July 25th hearing. We note that the motion judge on the July 25th hearing explicitly incorporated the March 7, 2018 order into his of August 1, 2018, as an omnibus order. [5] The appellant’s criticism of isolated items of evidence during his submissions could not refute the overwhelming evidence before the two motion judges. This evidence clearly demonstrated that following the revocation of his licence, the appellant continued to hold himself out as a lawyer entitled to practise law in Ontario on various websites, in other media, and through corporations, which he controlled, and continued to offer legal services to clients for remuneration. The appellant, in the earlier proceedings, had not only admitted he was practicing law but had claimed the right to do so. [6] Before us the appellant stated that he had not practised law during the preceding fourteen months. If true, this does nothing to undermine the basis on which the injunctive orders were made and the Law Society’s entitlement to a permanent injunction. [7] Morgan J., in careful reasons, analysed each of the several bases upon which the appellant claims the right to practice law and to appear in the Federal Court. We agree with his reasons for rejecting each of these claims. [8] We conclude that the motion judges correctly found the appellant was in clear breach of s. 26.1 of the Law Society Act. It was therefore open to them to grant permanent injunctive relief under s. 26.3 of the Act to bring an end to the appellant’s prohibited conduct. [9] The appeals are dismissed. [10] The respondent is entitled to its costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $22,000. “R.G. Juriansz J.A.” “David Brown J.A.” “L.B. Roberts J.A.”