December 2007 Upcoming Hearings (as of November 20, 2007

)

WING LIN WONG From: Town of Markham, Ontario To be heard: December 3, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Elizabeth Parenteau Licensee’s Counsel: not represented Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated October 11, 2007: 1. You breached Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that you failed to respond to communications from the Law Society including a telephone call on January 30, 2007 and letters dated April 9, 2007, May 16, 2007 and June 7, 2007.

MARGARET CAIRINE BEST From: City of Yellowknife, North West Territories To hear submissions on penalty: December 3, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Suzanne Jarvie Member’s Counsel: not represented Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated November 1, 2006: 1. Between May 19, 2004 and September 9, 2004, you misappropriated the sum of $7,503.00, in total, more or less, which you held in trust on behalf of your client B.B.; and 2. From May 2002 to November 2005, inclusive, you failed to maintain the books and records of your law practice as required by By-law 18, made under the Law Society Act; and 3. You failed to serve your client, T.C., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, by: a) failing to forward documentation to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in furtherance of T.C.’s case, despite being instructed and agreeing to do so; b) failing to subsequently advise T.C. that you did not forward documentation to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and that the documentation was lost; c) failing to communicate with T.C., who resided in Peterborough, regarding your inability to attend a pre-arranged meeting at your home in Toronto on February 9, 2004.

2

ROBIN DOUGLAS SCOTT From: Town of Whitby, Ontario To be heard: December 4 and 5, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Scott Clarke Licensee’s Counsel: Louis Strezos Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated May 31, 2007: 1. You failed to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of your client, AB, to the standard of a competent lawyer, contrary to Rule 2.01 (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to secure title insurance in respect of a property upon its purchase by AB. You failed to be honest and candid when advising AB, your client, contrary to Rule 2.02 (1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by misleading AB to believe that you had secured title insurance in respect of a property when you had not. You failed to reply to communication from the Law Society, contrary to Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to respond to communication from a Law Society investigator. You failed to fulfill an undertaking given to the Law Society, contrary to Rule 6.03 (8) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, namely, an undertaking, dated 13 December 2006, to fully comply with the requirements of Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. You failed to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of your client, MB, to the standard of a competent lawyer, contrary to Rule 2.01 (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to provide to MB copies of an original will and power of attorney as requested by her and by failing to respond to communications from MB in a timely manner. You failed to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of your purchaser client, KS, to the standard of a competent lawyer, contrary to Rule 2.01 (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to have removed from title of a property a right of first refusal upon the closing of a real estate transaction, by failing to provide to KS a reporting letter and closing documents following a real estate transaction, and by failing to respond to communications from KS in a timely manner. You failed to fulfill an undertaking given to Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor, contrary to Rule 6.03 (8) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to obtain and register a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property in accordance with your undertaking to do so given to Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor. You failed to answer communications from Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor, another lawyer, which communications required an answer, contrary to Rule 6.03 (6) of

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

3

the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to respond to communications from Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor, regarding your failure to obtain and register a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property in accordance with your undertaking to do so. 9. You failed to meet financial obligations in relation to your practice, contrary to Rule 6.01 (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to reimburse Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor, for expenses incurred by him in obtaining and registering a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property following your failure to do so in accordance with your undertaking. You failed to conduct yourself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession, contrary to Rule 6.01 (1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to provide to RD, who was not your client, but who was a party to a real estate transaction in respect of which you acted, a Transfer/Deed of Land in accordance with your assurance to RD that you would do so and by failing to respond to communications from RD regarding your failure to provide to RD a Transfer/Deed of Land. You failed to fulfill an undertaking given to Peter C. Heath, Barrister & Solicitor, contrary to Rule 6.03 (8) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to obtain and register a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property in accordance with your undertaking to do so given to Peter C. Heath, Barrister & Solicitor. You failed to answer with reasonable promptness communications from Peter C. Heath, Barrister & Solicitor, another lawyer, which communications required an answer, contrary to Rule 6.03 (6) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to respond to communications from Peter C. Heath, Barrister & Solicitor, regarding your failure to obtain and register a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property in accordance with your undertaking to do so. You failed to meet financial obligations in relation to your practice, contrary to Rule 6.01 (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to reimburse Peter C. Heath, Barrister & Solicitor, within a reasonable period of time for expenses incurred by him in obtaining and registering a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property following your failure to do so in accordance with your undertaking.

10.

11.

12.

13.

4

THOMAS CHARLES O’MALLEY From: City of Oshawa, Ontario To be heard: December 4 and 5, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Lisa Freeman Licensee’s Counsel: Louis Strezos Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated May 8, 2007: 1. You breached Rules 3.04 and 3.05 when you distributed or caused to be distributed the following letters and advertisement: i. your letter dated April 22, 2005 entitled “Announcing A Real Estate Lawyer Who Actually Guarantees Excellent Service For Your Clients”; the advertisement you placed in Issue 13, Vol. 3 of the magazine “Ten Eight” in April/May 2005; your letter to existing clients, dated July 8, 2005, promising them a digital camera in exchange for their business.

ii.

iii.

KENNETH WOLFGANG MOVAT From: City of Toronto, Ontario To be heard: December 4 and 5, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Susan Heakes Licensee’s Counsel: Joseph Castaldo Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated May 15, 2007: 1. You executed an undertaking dated March 2, 2005 in which you acknowledged that your client had delivered to you the sum of $120,000.00 to be held in trust for another party when in fact you had not received that money; You executed an undertaking dated March 2, 2005 in which you acknowledged that your client had delivered to you the sum of $364,765.35 to be held in trust for another party when in fact you had not received that money; and, You misled another counsel by advising him that security for specific bonds (in the amounts of $120,000.00 and $364,765.35) were being held in trust when in fact it was not.

2.

3.

5

BILL WONG From: City of Toronto, Ontario To continue to be heard: December 6, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Naomi Overend Member’s Counsel: Jerry Herszkopf Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated July 18, 2006: 1. In or about November 1999 you, through your corporation, 1208143 Ontario Ltd., borrowed money from your client, B.S., in breach of Rule 7 of the then Rules of Professional Conduct; In the alternative to particular 1, in or about November 1999, 1208143 Ontario Ltd., a corporation in which you had a substantial interest, borrowed money from you client, B.S., without the client’s interests being protected, and despite the fact the client was not independently represented in this transaction; In the alternative to particulars 1 and 2, in or about November 1999, you represented B.S. with respect to an investment in 1208143 Ontario Ltd., a corporation in which you had an interest, without ensuring that the client’s interests were protected by the client receiving independent legal advice and without obtaining a written certificate of independent legal advice; On or about September 26, 2000, you advised your client, B.S., to make a further investment in or loan to 1208143 Ontario Ltd., a corporation in which you had an interest, without ensuring that your client’s interests were protected by the client receiving independent legal representation or advice; In or about December 2001, you forged B.S.’s signature on a trading authorization with Brant Security; In or about May 2002, you amended the November 4, 1999 Agreement between you, 1208143 Ontario Ltd. and B.S, to transfer $100,000 of the $200,000 shareholder loan from B.S. to yourself, without the knowledge or authorization of B.S.; In or about November 1999 and September 2000, you took money for your fees and disbursements from trust without first rendering an account; On or about September 26, 2000, November 6, 2001 and February 7, 2002, you misappropriated $43,926.21 by removing the money from your trust account that was in respect of (a) disbursements which had been previously paid, (b) a fictitious disbursement and (c) advances which were improperly characterized as disbursements; You rendered an account, dated November 6, 2001, in which you charged amounts for disbursements that were not fair and reasonable;

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

6

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

You rendered an account, dated February 2, 2002, in which you charged amounts for fees and disbursements that were not fair and reasonable; You rendered an account, dated February 2, 2002, in which you failed to adequately and clearly detail the amounts charged for fees and disbursements; You failed to provide a copy of your account, dated February 2, 2002, to your client, B.S., until December 2003; In or about December 2001, you failed to deposit $94,000 provided by your client, B.S., to trust; On or about July 23, 2002, you commissioned a document that was not signed in your presence; On or about July 24, 2002, you failed to act with integrity by encouraging your client, B.S., to forge his daughter’s signature on documents in connection with a real estate transaction; On or about July 24, 2002, you submitted documents for registration with respect to the L.L. purchase that contained these forged signatures; On or about July 24, 2002, you transferred an amount from trust to general for your fees and disbursements in the L.L. purchase transaction, without first issuing a fee billing; In or about November 2002, you misled the Law Society by advising it that you did not close the L.L. purchase transaction; and You failed to produce the L.L. client file/documents to the Law Society.

16. 17. 18. 19.

7

ALIAMISSE OMAR MUNDULAI From: City of Toronto, Ontario To be heard: December 6, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Deborah McPhadden Licensee’s Counsel: not represented Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated September 21, 2007: 1. In or about the period October 2006 to September 2007, you failed to cooperate with an investigation being conducted into your conduct by the Law Society, by failing to provide information requested, including: a. the names of clients for whom you are acting in criminal matters, b. the names and phone numbers of agents appearing in court on your behalf in criminal matters, and c. the dates and locations of the courthouses where agents have appeared on your behalf in criminal matters since September 28, 2006.

MARVIN BARRY SHIFMAN From: Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario To be heard: December 6, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Danielle Smith Licensee’s Counsel: not represented Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated October 19, 2007: 1. You breached Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as sections 49.2 and 49.3 of the Law Society Act, in that you failed to respond substantively to communications from the Law Society and you failed to cooperate with the Law Society’s attempts to schedule a date for a Spot Audit of your practice starting on March 21, 2006, despite communications from the Law Society between March 2006 up to and including June 1, 2007.

8

MICHAEL JAMES TAYLOR From: City of Toronto, Ontario To be heard: December 6, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Amanda Worley Licensee’s Counsel: not represented Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated September 19, 2007: 1. You failed to co-operate with the Law Society regarding a complaint made by J.W.L. in that you failed to produce the requested information and documents despite communications to you from the Law Society’s investigator on November 24, December 11 and December 27, 2006 and, January 22, January 25 and March 22, 2007. 2. You failed to co-operate with the Law Society regarding a complaint made by B.F. in that you failed to produce the requested information and documents despite communications to you from the Law Society’s investigator on February 13, March 7, March 22 and April 13, 2007. 3. You failed to reply to the Law Society regarding an inquiry into your failure to report a matter LawPRO, despite communications to you by the Law Society’s investigator on December 14, 2006 and March 19, April 23 and May 8, 2007. Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated October 29, 2007: 1. You failed to co-operate with the Law Society regarding complaints made by R.C., J.Q. and W.P., in that you failed to produce the requested information and documents despite communications to you from the Law Society’s investigator on May 3 and May 8, June 1, June 12, June 27, July 12, July 26 and August 9, 2007.

9

PRETAM KAUR PUREWAL From: City of Brampton, Ontario To hear submissions on penalty: December 10, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Sean Dewart Member’s Counsel: not represented Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated February 2, 2006: 1. In the period from May 2002 to April 2003, a. you failed to serve your clients Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, MCAP Mortgage Corporation, TD Canada Trust and CIBC Mortgages Inc. (the “Clients”) in a conscientious and diligent fashion and to perform legal services to the standard of a competent lawyer when acting and reporting on the mortgage financing of the properties listed in Schedule A annexed hereto (the “Transactions”); b. you were not honest and candid in advising your Clients in and while acting on the Transactions; c. you knowingly assisted in or encouraged dishonesty, fraud, crime and/or illegal conduct in and when acting on the Transactions; d. you failed to handle property, in the form of mortgage loan advances entrusted to you by your Clients, as a careful and prudent owner would when dealing with property of like description; e. you failed to observe all relevant rules and law about the preservation of the Clients property, entrusted to you; f. you appropriated trust funds for the payment of fees and disbursements otherwise than as permitted by by-laws under the Law Society Act; and g. you failed to conduct yourself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession in and while acting on the Transactions;

thereby breaching Rules 2.01(2), 2.02(1), 2.02(5), 2.07(1), 2.08(11) and 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
SCHEDULE “A’

1.

Property: Date:

113 Tisdale – Hamilton April 2002

Borrower: Lender:

Miller Bank of Montreal

10 2. Property: Date: Borrower: Lender: 567 Dufferin Street – Toronto May 2002 Green/Wiggan Bank of Nova Scotia

3.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

14 Alameda Ave. – Toronto May 2002 Fazil Royal Bank of Canada

4.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

80 Sherman Avenue – Toronto June 2002 Tennant Bank of Montreal

5.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

362 Harvie Avenue – Toronto July 2002 Watson MCAP Mortgage Corporation

6.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

246 Wellington Street – Brantford July 2002 Miller Royal Bank of Canada

7.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

39 Ross Street – St. Thomas August 2002 Thomson Royal Bank of Canada

8.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

11 Blakley Avenue – Toronto October 2002 Corion MCAP Mortgage Corporation

9.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

137 Taylor Avenue – Kirkland Lake November 2002 Gagne Royal Bank of Canada

11 10. Property: Date: Borrower: Lender: 27 Francis Street – Hamilton November 2002 Evans/Rouse TD Canada Trust

11.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

156 Mill Street – Kitchener December 2002 Rennick/Hassanali CIBC Mortgages Inc.

12.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

236 Sterling Road – Toronto December 2002 Nunes/Liu Bank of Nova Scotia

13.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

204 Wellington Street – Chatham December 2002 Clermont/Frenzel Royal Bank of Canada

14.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

2040 Concession 2 – Alfred Lefaivre December 2002 Edwards Royal Bank of Canada

15.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

630 Elm Street – Port Colborne January 2003 Brown Royal Bank of Canada

16.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

89 Clyde Street – Hamilton February 2003 Baidwan/Wickramasinghe CIBC Mortgages Inc.

17.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

86 Ashley Street – Hamilton February 2003 Chin Royal Bank of Canada

12

18.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

113 Tisdale, Hamilton February, 2003 Liu/Nunes CIBC Mortgages Inc.

19.

Property: Date: Borrower: Lender:

22 Louis Street – Port Colborne May 2003 Khan Royal Bank of Canada

CONSTANTINO GIOVANNI D’AGOSTINO From: City of North Bay, Ontario To be heard the week of: December 10 to 14, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Tanus Rutherford Licensee’s Counsel: Charles M. Loopstra, Q.C. Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated May 23, 2007: 1. You breached Rule 2.02(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”), in that: (a) you participated in or knowingly assisted in dishonest or fraudulent conduct to obtain mortgage funds under false pretences in connection with the purchase and mortgage transactions (the “Transactions”) involving the properties (the “Properties”) identified in Schedule A hereto; or (b) alternatively, you failed to be on guard against being duped when advising your clients in connection with the Transactions. You breached Rule 2.02(1) of the Rules, by failing to be honest and candid when advising your lender clients in connection with the Transactions. In particular, you failed to disclose material facts to your lender clients, including the following: (a) each Property was transferred twice on the same day with a significant price increase; (b) the purchaser received a credit on closing for a further deposit not specified in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale; (c) the purchaser’s closing costs, legal fees and other expenses were deducted from the balance due on closing to the interim vendor; and (d) the purchaser did not contribute any funds on closing towards a down payment, closing costs or legal fees.

2.

13

3.

You breached Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules, by failing to serve your lender clients in a conscientious and diligent manner, or to the standard of a competent lawyer in connection with all of the Transactions. In particular: (a) you failed to disclose material facts to your lender clients, as set out in particular 2 above; (b) you failed to follow the express written instructions of your lender client; and (c) you failed to make reasonable inquiries into the re-sales, further deposits, and closing cost deductions. SCHEDULE “A” 964 Galt Street, North Bay 631 Dane Avenue, North Bay 1238 Derland Road, Corbeil 208 Highland Road, North Bay 850 Lakeshore Drive, Unit 21, North Bay 19 Mercer Drive, North Bay 41 Van Horne Crescent, North Bay

PETER GUY MARTIN From: City of Toronto, Ontario To be heard the week of: December 10 to 14, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Scott Clarke Member’s Counsel: not represented Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated April 17, 2007: 1. You held yourself out as or represented yourself to be a barrister or solicitor while your rights and privileges were suspended, contrary to s. 50(1)(a) of the Law Society Act, in accounts that you rendered to Legal Aid Ontario as a solicitor for work performed while you were suspended.

14

IDORENYIN EDET AMANA From: City of Cornwall, Ontario To be heard: December 14, 2007 LSUC Counsel: Louise Hurteau Member’s Counsel: not represented Particulars of alleged conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor from the Amended Notice of Application dated May 28, 2007: 1. On or about February 15, 2006, you were found guilty of the offence of illegally practicing the profession of advocate in the Province of Québec contrary to sections 132, 133, 136(a) and 136(e)4 of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, R.S.Q. chapter B-1, the specific of the offence reading as follows:
À Montréal, district de Montréal, aux mois de septembre et d’octobre 2005, Idorenyin Edet Amana, n’étant point inscrit au Tableau de l’Ordre des avocats du Québec, a pris le titre d’avocat et s’est annoncé comme avocat dans le journal LES NOUVELLES CHINOISES, dans les éditions publiées les 28 octobre et 4 novembre 2005, le tout contrairement aux articles 132, 133, 136(a) et 136 (e)(4) de la LOI SUR LE BARREAU (L.R.Q. c.B.1)

2. On or about February 15, 2006, you were found guilty of the offence of illegally practicing the profession of advocate in the Province of Québec contrary to sections 132, 133(c), 136 (a) et 136(c)2 of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, R.S.Q. chapter B-1,specific of the offence reading as follows:
À Montréal, district de Montréal, au mois de septembre 2005, Idorenyin Edet Amana, n’étant point inscrit au Tableau de l’Ordre des avocats du Québec, a pris le titre d’avocat auprès de Jiefang Huang dans une lettre envoyée à celui-ci, datée du 30 septembre 2005, ayant ainsi exercé illégalement la profession d’avocat, le tout contrairement aux articles 132, 133c), 136 a) et 136c)2 de la LOI SUR LE BARREAU (L.R.Q. c.B.1)

3. On or about October 31, 2006, you were found guilty of illegally practicing the profession of an advocate in the Province of Québec contrary to sections 132, 133(b), 133(c) and 136(a) of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec and section 188 of the Professional Code R.S.Q. chapter c-26, the specific of the offence reading as follows:
À Montréal, district de Montréal, le ou vers le 17 mars 2006, M. Idorenyin Edet Amana, n’étant point inscrit au Tableau de l’Ordre des avocats du Québec , a pris le titre d’avocat et s’est annoncé comme tel dans le journal LES NOUVELLES CHINOISES dans l’édition du 17 mars 2006, le tout contrairement aux articles 132, 133b), 133c) et 136a) de la LOI SUR LE BARREAU (L.R.Q. c. B.1) contrairement également à l’article 188 du CODE DES PROFESSIONS (L.R.Q. c. C-26)