|
RECENT
NEWS
|
Law
Society decisions: |
|
Newspaper
articles/columns: |
|
Aug.
18, 2006: decision on admission |
|
June
24, 2006: Globe
& Mail - A CALL to the
BAR |
|
June
28, 2007: decision on costs |
|
Aug.
15, 2006: Toronto
Star - Mother regrets `terrible' mistake
|
|
April
24, 2008: appeal decision on costs |
|
Aug.
15, 2006: Globe
& Mail - A lawyer's 'good character'
indeed |
|
|
|
Aug.
16, 2006: Globe
& Mail - Forever her daughter's
keeper |
|
|
|
Aug.
17, 2006: Toronto
Star - Fast ruling likely on Shore's quest
|
|
|
|
Aug.
18, 2006: Globe
& Mail - A touch of kindness at end of a
hard road |
|
|
|
Aug. 19,
2006: Globe
& Mail - Student lawyer 'of good
character,' panel says |
|
|
|
Aug. 21,
2006: Toronto
Star - Would-be lawyer `of good
character' |
|
|
|
May 17,
2008: Globe
& Mail - Being held to the sternest of tests is good -
if it's applied to all |
In December 2005, after
Sharon had graduated from Law School and had written the bar
admission exams, she worked at a law firm to complete the mandatory
10 months of articles. Once she completed articling, she would be
called to the bar and admitted to the Law Society as a
lawyer.
Before this
could happen, the two lawyers who had represented Lisa's nurses,
Marlys Edwardh
and Elizabeth McIntyre, made a complaint about Sharon to the Law Society of Upper Canada (the
governing body of lawyers in Ontario). They told the Law
Society that Sharon was unfit to practice and
was of bad character, and that she should be denied admission to the
bar.
The Law Society
ordered Sharon to appear at an admission
hearing, where it alleged that she was not of good character and
that she should not be admitted to the bar.
On August 18,
2006, a Hearing Panel, composed of benchers (similar to directors)
of the Law Society, found
that Sharon was a person who throughout her entire adult life was
possessed of the "highest integrity, candour, empathy, and honesty", that she was of
good character, and that she should be admitted to the bar.
Sharon was admitted to the bar in
September 2006 and has since been practicing as a lawyer.
On June
28, 2007, the same Hearing Panel ordered the Law Society to pay
Sharon $91,500 (on a substantial indemnity basis) to compensate
her for most of the legal costs she incurred for a hearing that had been
completely unwarranted right from the start. The Hearing Panel found
that the Law Society had had evidence in hand that Sharon was of
good character back in March 2006 when she first responded to the
complaint that had been made against her.
The Law Society
appealed. On Nov. 6, 2007, the Law Society argued before an Appeal
Panel of the Law Society (composed of different benchers of the Law Society)
that the hearing was warranted and that no costs should be
payable.
On
April 24, 2008, the Appeal Panel allowed the Law Society’s
appeal. The Appeal Panel found that the decision of the Hearing
Panel was unreasonable in virtually every respect, that the
admission hearing had been completely warranted, and that no costs
were payable.
|
