Legal Profession Regulation: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
No edit summary
Tag: wikieditor
Tag: wikieditor
Line 3: Line 3:
==Offences==
==Offences==


==Procedure==
===Adjournments===
There are factors to consider for an adjournment:<Ref>
{{CanLIIRC|De Lange (Re)|js7fk|2022 LSBC 35 (CanLII)}}{{atL|js7fk|14}} ("In both Welder and in Law Society of BC v. Hart, 2019 LSBC 39 the panel cited the following non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered for adjournment motions as set out in Macaulay & Sprague, Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals, (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2004):...")
</ref>
# the purpose of the adjournment (relevance to the proceedings, necessary for a fair hearing);
# has the participant seeking the adjournment acted in good faith and reasonably in attempting to avoid the necessity of adjourning;
# the position of other participants and the reasonableness of their actions;
# the seriousness of the harm resulting if the adjournment is not granted;
# the seriousness of the harm resulting if the adjournment is granted (to the other participants, etc., including the length of adjournment required);
# is there any way to compensate for any harm identified;
# how many adjournments has the party requesting the adjournment been granted in the past; and
# was the hearing to be peremptory, and if so, were the parties consulted in selecting the date and were they advised of its peremptory nature.
{{reflist|2}}


==Principles and Factors==
==Principles and Factors==

Revision as of 12:26, 11 January 2024

General Principles

Offences

Procedure

Adjournments

There are factors to consider for an adjournment:[1]

  1. the purpose of the adjournment (relevance to the proceedings, necessary for a fair hearing);
  2. has the participant seeking the adjournment acted in good faith and reasonably in attempting to avoid the necessity of adjourning;
  3. the position of other participants and the reasonableness of their actions;
  4. the seriousness of the harm resulting if the adjournment is not granted;
  5. the seriousness of the harm resulting if the adjournment is granted (to the other participants, etc., including the length of adjournment required);
  6. is there any way to compensate for any harm identified;
  7. how many adjournments has the party requesting the adjournment been granted in the past; and
  8. was the hearing to be peremptory, and if so, were the parties consulted in selecting the date and were they advised of its peremptory nature.
  1. De Lange (Re), 2022 LSBC 35 (CanLII), at para 14 ("In both Welder and in Law Society of BC v. Hart, 2019 LSBC 39 the panel cited the following non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered for adjournment motions as set out in Macaulay & Sprague, Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals, (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2004):...")

Principles and Factors

Penalties

Ontario
  • Law Society of Ontario v King, 2022 ONLSTH 6 (CanLII)
  • LSO v Dakin, 2022 ONLSTH 23 (CanLII)
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Ljiljanic, 2021 ONLSTH 5
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Dinning, 2021 ONLSTH 85
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Zaitzeff, 2021 ONLSTH 108
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Campbell, 2021 ONLSTH 112
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Decock, 2021 ONLSTH 121
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Ferguson, 2021 ONLSTH 124
  • Law Society of Upper Canada v. Farant, 2014 ONLSTH 201
  • Law Society of Upper Canada v. Sinukoff, 2012 ONLSHP 12
  • Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein, 2008 CanLII 48142 (ON SCDC)
  • Law Society of Upper Canada v. Kiernan, 2006 ONLSHP 98
Saskatchewan
  • Law Society of Upper Canada v. Farant, 2014 ONLSTH 201
Nova Scotia

See Also