Amourgis v. LSUC, (1984) 5 O.A.C. 286 (DC)

Judge:Galligan, Labrosse and O'Brien, JJ.
Court:Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Case Date:September 12, 1984
Jurisdiction:Ontario
Citations:(1984), 5 O.A.C. 286 (DC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Amourgis v. LSUC (1984), 5 O.A.C. 286 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Amourgis v. Law Society of Upper Canada

Indexed As: Amourgis v. Law Society of Upper Canada

Ontario Divisional Court

Galligan, Labrosse and O'Brien, JJ.

September 25, 1984.

Summary:

A lawyer pleaded guilty to many allegations of professional misconduct. The Discipline Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada and Convocation disbarred him for such conduct. The lawyer appealed and also applied for judicial review of the Committee's and Convocation's decisions.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5242

Discipline - Procedure - Adjournments - On conditions - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the Discipline Committee and Convocation of the Law Society of Upper Canada had inherent power to grant or refuse adjournments in the course of disciplinary proceedings and, as part of that inherent power, they had the power to impose reasonable conditions, regardless of the lack of specific statutory authority as to what those conditions might be - See paragraph 9.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5242

Discipline - Procedure - Adjournments - On conditions - A lawyer pleaded guilty to misconduct, but before being penalized, requested permission to withdraw his plea, then sought an adjournment - The Discipline Committee of the Law Society refused the adjournment unless the lawyer agreed not to practice law in the interim - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the condition requested was reasonable and justified - In refusing to grant the adjournment in the absence of such undertaking, the court held that the Committee did not breach natural justice or deny the lawyer a fair hearing - See paragraphs 12 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

Re Stone and Law Society of Upper Canada (1980), 26 O.R.(2d) 166, appld. [para. 10].

Counsel:

M. Kerbel, Q.C., for the appellant;

T.J. Lockwood, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal and application were heard before Galligan, Labrosse and O'Brien, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on September 12, 1984. The decision of the court was delivered orally by Galligan, J., and released on September 25, 1984.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP