Senjule v. Law Society of Upper Canada, (2013) 309 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

• Judge: Swinton, Pomerance and Lederer, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: April 24, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2013), 309 O.A.C. 1 (DC);2013 ONSC 2817

Senjule v. LSUC (2013), 309 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.014

Senjule v. Law Society of Upper Canada

(74/12; 2013 ONSC 2817)

Indexed As: Senjule v. Law Society of Upper Canada

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Swinton, Pomerance and Lederer, JJ.

May 24, 2013.

Summary:

A disciplinary panel found that Senjule had knowingly participated in mortgage fraud and revoked his licence to practice law. Senjule appealed, asserting that the panel's denial of two requests for adjournments on medical grounds resulted in a breach of natural justice. An appeal panel dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness or natural justice. Senjule appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2484

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Adjournments - A disciplinary panel found that Senjule had knowingly participated in mortgage fraud and revoked his licence to practice law - Senjule appealed, asserting that the panel's denial of two requests for adjournments on medical grounds resulted in a breach of natural justice - An appeal panel dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness or natural justice - The Ontario Divisional Court agreed - The hearing panel balanced the appropriate factors in determining whether the adjournments should be granted and, if so, on what conditions - The decisions reflected a judicious exercise of discretion - Senjule bore the onus to establish a proper evidentiary foundation for the adjournment requests - He failed to do so - The material filed by Senjule left many important questions unanswered - See paragraphs 23 to 29.

Administrative Law - Topic 2484

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Adjournments - A disciplinary panel found that Senjule had knowingly participated in mortgage fraud and revoked his licence to practice law - Senjule appealed, asserting that the panel's denial of two requests for adjournments on medical grounds resulted in a breach of natural justice - An appeal panel dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness or natural justice - The Ontario Divisional Court agreed - The court rejected Senjule's assertion that the panel's requirement that he refrain from practicing law as a condition of one of the adjournments was both arbitrary and punitive - It was open to the hearing panel to conclude, on balancing the relevant factors, that the protection of the public was engaged - The hearing had been outstanding for several months and had been adjourned many times - The medical evidence provided a less than satisfactory basis for believing that attendance at the hearing would impair Senjule's health - The evidence had established a prima facie case of mortgage fraud involving millions of dollars - The condition was necessary both to protect potential clients and to maintain public confidence in the tribunal and its processes - See paragraphs 30 to 35.

Administrative Law - Topic 6204

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Scope or standard of review - Of discretionary power - A disciplinary panel found that Senjule had knowingly participated in mortgage fraud and revoked his licence to practice law - Senjule appealed, asserting that the panel's denial of two requests for adjournments on medical grounds resulted in a breach of natural justice - Senjule appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court stated, "The decision to permit or deny an adjournment falls squarely within the discretion of the hearing panel.... Given the deference that is usually accorded discretionary determinations, the standard of review in this case is akin to one of reasonableness. The inquiry must focus on whether the panel took account of relevant considerations in balancing the competing interests, and whether it made a decision consistent with the interests of justice. Natural justice and procedural fairness were infringed only if it can be said that the panel exercised its discretion in an unreasonable or non-judicious fashion." - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5242

Discipline - Procedure - Adjournments - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 2484 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5582

Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6204 ].

Cases Noticed:

Olech v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) (1994), 70 O.A.C. 144 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 21].

Amourgis v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1984), 5 O.A.C. 286; 12 D.L.R.(4th) 759 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

Igbinosun v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2009), 265 O.A.C. 27; 2009 ONCA 484, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Graeme Hamilton, for the appellant, Dunstan Dan Senjule;

William Holder, for the respondent, Law Society of Upper Canada.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 24, 2013, by Swinton, Pomerance and Lederer, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. On May 24, 2013, Pomerance, J., delivered the following endorsement for the court.