Law Society of Alberta v Beaver, 2021 ABQB 134

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Law Society of Alberta v Beaver, 2021 ABQB 134 Date: 20210222 Docket: 1603 01216 Registry: Edmonton Between: Law Society of Alberta Applicant - and - Shawn Beaver and Shawn Beaver Professional Corporation Respondents _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Shawn Beaver [Mr. Beaver] was a criminal defence lawyer who practised law in Alberta. On May 28, 2015, the Law Society of Alberta [LSA] suspended Mr.

Beaver’s membership on an interim basis after Mr. Beaver disclosed he had misused trust funds. On February 4, 2016, I issued an Order that prohibited Mr. Beaver from engaging in the practice of law: Law Society of Alberta v Beaver ,

2016 ABQB 250 [ Beaver Practice #1 ]. Mr. Beaver was subsequently disbarred: Law Society of Alberta v Beaver , 2017 ABLS 2 [ Beaver Discipline #1 ]; Law Society of Alberta v Beaver , 2017 ABLS 3 [ Beaver Discipline #2 ]. [ 2 ] Mr. Beaver did not appeal being disbarred. Instead, Mr. Beaver clandestinely continued his legal practice. In Law Society of Alberta v Beaver , 2020 ABQB 321 [ Beaver Practice #5 ], I concluded that Mr. Beaver had knowing, deliberately, and without excuse breached the Beaver Practice #1 Order and was in contempt of court on that basis. Specifically, Mr.

Beaver had contacted a junior lawyer and recruited her to act as a false front to Mr. Beaver’s continued unlicenced legal practice. [ 3 ] What remained was the punishment step of the contempt proceeding, and to determine what steps should be taken in response to Mr. Beaver’s illegal conduct. I heard viva voce testimony on September 21, 2020, and received written submissions from the LSA and Counsel for Mr. Beaver on June 16, 2020, June 25, 2020, September 29, 2020, October 6, 2020, and October 8, 2020. These written reasons now explain why I have concluded that Mr.

Beaver’s contempt of court means he should be incarcerated for one year. II. Timeline of Relevant Events [ 4 ] A better appreciation of Mr. Beaver’s conduct is obtained by a chronology of his activities, and steps that have resulted from Mr. Beaver’s actions: 2014-May 2015 : Mr. Beaver misappropriated and spent trust funds held by his firm, and money held in trust for a mentally disabled, alcoholic and drug addicted street person, so as to maintain Mr. Beaver’s lifestyle spending: Beaver Discipline #1 ; Beaver Discipline #2 . May 24, 2015 : The paralegal who collaborated with Mr.

Beaver in the 2014-2015 financial misconduct disclosed those activities to other lawyers in Mr. Beaver’s firm: Beaver Discipline #1 ; Beaver Discipline #2 . The law firm associates contacted Mr. Beaver, who confirmed that trust funds had been misappropriated. Mr. Beaver proposed to continue to operate the firm as before. The associates said they would, and did, report Mr. Beaver’s activities to the LSA, and, facing that prospect, Mr. Beaver disclosed his misconduct to the LSA: Beaver Discipline #1 ; Beaver Discipline #2 . May 26, 2015 : The LSA appointed a Custodian over Mr.

Beaver’s practice: Beaver Discipline #1 . May 27, 2015 : The LSA suspended Mr. Beaver’s membership and his licence to practice law on an interim basis. May 2015 to December 2015 : Mr. Beaver “commenced self-employment as a ‘legal agent’ and ‘legal consultant’ with Beaver Legal Consulting”: Beaver Practice #1 at para 58 . Mr. Beaver operated a website, “Beaver Legal Consulting”, that factually advertised Mr. Beaver provided legal services: Beaver Practice #1 at paras 63-69 . December 23, 2015 : After discussions with the LSA, Mr.

Beaver undertook to not: 1. conduct any of the legal work associated with any client files or accept any new legal work for existing clients; 2. make contact with clients for the purpose of providing legal services; 3. create new lawyer-client relationships; 4. in any other manner whatsoever, render any legal services or take any action that assists or results in the continued operation and management of [his] suspended legal practice; 5. be retained or employed in any capacity having to do with the practice of law or the provisions of legal services; or 6. occupy space or partner or associate with any other active member of the Law Society of Alberta. [ Beaver Practice #1 at para 58 .] January 6, 2016 : Mr.

Beaver appeared as an agent for an existing client in the Provincial Court of Alberta in breach of the December 23, 2015 undertakings: Beaver Practice #1 at paras 59, 61, 75 . January 13, 2016 : Mr. Beaver provided legal advice in an impaired driving case in breach of the December 23, 2015 undertakings: Beaver Practice #1 at paras 60-61, 75 . January 25, 2016 : The LSA applied to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench for 1) a declaration that Mr. Beaver was continuing to practice law despite his suspension, and 2) an injunction to stop Mr. Beaver’s continued practice of law.

February 4, 2016 : I heard and granted the LSA’s January 25, 2016 application, with written reasons subsequently entered as Beaver Practice #1 , and: 1. concluded Mr. Beaver’s “Beaver Legal Consulting” website was offering or providing legal services, and Mr. Beaver was in breach of the May 26, 2015 Custodianship order issued by Yamauchi J of this Court; 2. concluded Mr. Beaver had breached his December 23, 2015 undertaking; and 3. imposed an injunction that ordered:

a) Shawn Beaver shall not:

i) be hired, retained, employed, or involved in any manner or in any capacity having to do with the practice of law or the provision of

legal services; ii) conduct any legal work associated with any client files or accept any new legal work for clients of the practice of law of Beaver; iii) contact anyone for the purpose of providing legal services for or on behalf of that person; iv) create new lawyer-client relationships or new agent-client relationships for the provision of legal services;

v) in any other manner whatsoever, render any legal services or take any action that assists or results in the operation and management of Beaver’s legal practice or legal consulting business; vi) occupy space or partner or associate with any other active member of the Law Society of Alberta

b) Without restricting the generality of the foregoing Beaver shall not:

i) appear as a representative of any other person in any court or tribunal in Alberta; ii) provide legal advice to any person in Alberta; iii) for, or on behalf of any other person negotiate or draft contracts or other documents intended to have legal consequences; iv) for, or on behalf of any other person, draft, advise or assist in the drafting of any documents to be filed in any court or tribunal in Alberta;

v) provide any of the services advertised in the website for Beaver Legal Consulting ... vi) provide any of the services normally or customarily supplied by barristers and solicitors to third parties in Alberta, whether or not such services are also permitted to be provided by agents pursuant to various provincial statutes;

c) Beaver shall forthwith discontinue use of the email address sbeaver@beaverlaw.ca; the phone number 780-428-3100 and shall take down or cause to be taken down the website operated by Beaver Legal Consulting ... February 24, 2016 : Mr. Beaver unsuccessfully sought a stay of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction from the Alberta Court of Appeal so that he could represent a former client before the City of Edmonton Subdivision Appeal Board: Beaver v Law Society of Alberta , 2016 ABCA 59 [ Beaver Practice #2 ]. February 24, 2016 : Berger JA concluded that the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 does not prohibit Mr.

Beaver, as a suspended member of the LSA, from acting as an agent: Beaver v Law Society of Alberta , 2016 ABCA 67 [ Beaver Practice #3 ]. Berger JA issued a “limited conditional stay” of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. July 27, 2016 : The LSA applied to our Court to find that Mr. Beaver was in contempt of the Beaver Practice #1 Order because Mr. Beaver failed to remove his website and had provided legal services to two persons. August 17, 2016 : I found that Mr. Beaver was in contempt of the Beaver Practice #1 Order and ordered solicitor client costs against Mr. Beaver.

September 28, 2016 : Before the Alberta Court of Appeal, Mr. Beaver admitted he had breached the terms of the December 23, 2015 undertaking, and conducted prohibited practice of law: Law Society of Alberta v Beaver , 2016 ABCA 290 at para 12 [ Beaver Practice #4 ]. Reversing Beaver Practice #3 , the Court ruled that Mr. Beaver was not legally authorized to act as an agent while he was a suspended lawyer: Beaver Practice #4 at para 23 . January 27, 2017 : The LSA Hearing Committee found Mr. Beaver guilty on seven of twelve citations, including that Mr.

Beaver had misappropriated trust funds and funds held for a disabled mentally ill person: Beaver Discipline #1 . February 15, 2017 : Mr. Beaver was disbarred: Beaver Discipline #2 . Mr. Beaver was disbarred since this was “the most serious of cases” (para 36(g)), his misconduct targeted vulnerable persons (para 36(a)), Mr. Beaver actively covered up his misconduct (para 36(b)), and lawyer misconduct of this type required denunciation (para 36(f)). The LSA referred Mr. Beaver’s misconduct to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for possible criminal prosecution since the Hearing Committee concluded Mr.

Beaver’s actions were reasonable and probable grounds that Mr. Beaver had committee a criminal offence. Mr. Beaver was ordered to pay $120,000 in costs. May 2017 : Clipo Florence Jura [Ms. Jura], a junior lawyer, contacted Mr. Beaver for legal tutoring: Beaver Practice #5 at para 21 . August 9, 2017 : Mr. Beaver proposed to Ms. Jura that they collaborate to provide legal services. Beaver would get clients, take the lead on files, direct legal strategy, prepare submissions and communications, while Ms. Jura would act as the “front” for Mr.

Beaver’s unlicenced legal services in court: Beaver Practice #5 at paras 21, 27 . Ms. Jura agreed to this scheme. August 2017 to February 26, 2018 : Ms. Jura and Mr. Beaver collaborate: Beaver Practice #5 at paras 21-22 . One example of this collaboration was Mr. Bhullar’s matter, where Mr. Beaver provided legal advice and representation, and Ms. Jura then was the “front woman” who appeared in Court: Beaver Practice #5 at para 44 . Mr. Beaver’s activities breached the Beaver Practice #1 injunction: Beaver Practice #5 at paras 24-25 . January 2018 : Ms. Jura became aware the LSA was investigating her. Mr.

Beaver instructed Ms. Jura to delete electronic records that implicated Mr. Beaver and to conceal and minimize his apparent involvement in their joint activities. Ms. Jura does so: Beaver Practice #5 at paras 23, 33, 35, 40, 52 . Mr. Beaver sends Ms. Jura self-serving emails that contradict his true instructions, as these cover-up

emails instruct that Ms. Jura should tell the LSA everything, to create a false and self-serving record that depicts Mr. Beaver as conducting himself in a lawful and ethical manner: Beaver Practice #5 at para 40 . January 26, 2018 : Ms. Jura is suspended by the LSA. March 22, 2018 : Ms. Jura retained her own lawyer and began to fully disclose Mr. Beaver’s true role in directing her apparent legal practice to LSA investigators: Beaver Practice #5 at para 35 . May 10, 2018 : The LSA applies to have Mr. Beaver found in contempt of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. May 15, 2018 : Mr.

Beaver applied to strike out the May 10, 2018 application, saying the Beaver Practice #1 injunction only applied to Mr. Beaver while he was a suspended lawyer. Mr. Beaver argued that now that he is disbarred, and is no long a suspended lawyer, the Beaver Practice #1 injunction has no legal effect. September 11, 2018 : I dismissed Mr. Beaver’s May 15, 2018 application and ruled that the Beaver Practice #1 injunction had continued to operate, uninterrupted, aside from a limited conditional stay following Beaver Practice #3 and that was terminated by Beaver Practice #4 .

October 29-30, 2019 : The hearing of the May 18, 2018 contempt application was conducted, with further written submissions on December 19, 2019, January 10, 2020, and January 24, 2020. May 14, 2020 : I concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, in written reasons that Mr. Beaver was in contempt of court for breach of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction: Beaver Practice #5 at para 65 . June 16 and 25, 2020 : Written submissions were received from the parties in relation to punishment.

September 21, 2020 : The Court received evidence in relation to punishment, and cross-examination was conducted on viva voce and affidavit evidence. September 29, October 6, and October 8, 2020 : Further written submissions were received from the parties. III. Trial Findings of Fact [ 5 ] Analogous to criminal proceedings, findings of fact that were made in Beaver Practice #5 form the foundation to evaluate what response is appropriate for Mr. Beaver’s illegal conduct. Relevant findings that I made at trial include: 1. Mr.

Beaver was aware of the Beaver Practice #1 order, he deliberately breached that order, and Mr. Beaver had no excuse for his illegal conduct: para 6. 2. Mr. Beaver recruited Ms. Jura to act as his front person, who would interact with the Courts while Mr. Beaver developed strategies, prepared arguments, and drafted documents: paras 21, 50-51, 55-64. Mr. Beaver “was leading everything”: para 56. 3. The Beaver/Jura arrangement was an unlicenced business of law that was intended to, and did, generate income in exchange for legal services: para 24. 4.

The Beaver/Jura arrangement involved at least seven cases (para 18) and extended for over six months (paras 21, 44). 5. When Ms. Jura was investigated by the LSA, Mr. Beaver instructed Ms. Jura to destroy email and money e-transfer evidence that implicated Mr. Beaver: para 22. She did so: paras 22, 33, 52. 6. Mr. Beaver then concocted a set of self-serving emails to Ms. Jura that attempted to reframe their interactions as nothing more than tutoring, and to misleadingly present Mr. Beaver as giving ethical and lawful recommendations to Ms. Jura during the LSA investigation: para 40. 7. Mr.

Beaver’s instructions to Ms. Jura to destroy evidence and make false statements were an attempt to obstruct the LSA’s investigation: para 40. 8. Ms. Jura’s legal career was negatively affected by her being recruited by Mr. Beaver, and Ms. Jura’s resignation as an LSA member was effectively voluntary disbarment: paras 34, 41, 43. IV. Punishment Stage Evidence [ 6 ] Mr. Beaver, Kayleigh Anne Beaver, and Erin Rae Beaver submitted affidavit evidence in relation to the punishment stage. Mr. Beaver was cross-examined on his Affidavit at the September 21, 2020 hearing. Mr. Beaver also submitted nine letters of support.

A. Shawn Beaver Affidavit and Cross-Examination 1. The August 17, 2020 Beaver Affidavit [ 7 ] Mr. Beaver’s Affidavit was sworn August 17, 2020. Mr. Beaver states he is 52, and describes his family members: five children and his current wife. Mr. Beaver says he is the sole breadwinner for the household, and that he works for a college. Mr. Beaver

says the family finances operate on a paycheque-to-paycheque basis. Mr. Beaver has a father in an extended care home. The Affidavit also describes Mr. Beaver’s household activities and his roles with his children, which he says are close. Mr. Beaver says he deserves leniency because of the hardship that will result to his family if he is incarcerated. [ 8 ] Mr. Beaver calls his lifestyle “prosocial”, and notes he has no record of criminal offenses, criminal charges, or disciplinary allegations or steps, other than him being disbarred in 2015.

He describes his education, and how he was a University of Alberta sessional instructor until 2015. [ 9 ] Mr. Beaver minimizes his misconduct. He says he honestly believed that he was no longer subject to the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. As for his post-disbarment activities, Mr. Beaver deposes he told everyone that he was a “former lawyer”, and, in any case, 99% of people who he meets are already aware of his status because of the media reporting on him being disbarred. [ 10 ] Mr.

Beaver is highly critical of how his disbarment and contempt proceedings have been reported: “The stories are derisive and intended to embarrass.” Mr. Beaver reports that these reports have had negative consequences on his job prospects, lead to hate-mail, and upset his family. Mr. Beaver concludes: “In short, I am punished every day due to the manner in which the press chooses to portray me.” [ 11 ] Mr. Beaver also minimizes his misconduct by blaming the LSA.

He says that the LSA should collaborate with him via “an open dialogue” so he can “find pockets of acceptable work to continue to feed my family.” He reports that: “... in late 2019, a prominent member of the Criminal Bar, a Q.C., and a lawyer with an impeccable reputation, contacted me to write a Factum.” In cross-examination, this individual was identified as Brian Beresh, Q.C. Mr. Beaver deposes the LSA refused to permit or consent to that, which denied “... money that could have fed my family.” Mr.

Beaver says this is a general pattern that the LSA frustrates his efforts to work, despite “[t]here’s lots of good paying work out there.” The LSA is “invited to have a conversation” so that Mr. Beaver can do law-related things. Mr. Beaver also deposes that he is going to apply to vary the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. At no time did he formally apply for re- instatement to membership in the LSA. [ 12 ] Finally, Mr. Beaver apologizes for his actions: I have the greatest respect for the Court and our legal system, which I have studied, practiced in and have taught to several thousand students.

In my behaviour under examination I am in no way trying to thumb my nose at the Court. I take the Court’s directions very seriously. ... I unreservedly and wholeheartedly apologize for my behaviour currently under scrutiny by the Court and upon which sanction will be meted out. ... 2. September 21, 2020 Beaver Statement [ 13 ] During the September 21, 2020 hearing, Mr. Beaver made a statement to the Court and then was cross-examined on his Affidavit. In his statement, Mr. Beaver said he was “taken aback” by the tone and language used in the Beaver Practice #5 decision. Mr.

Beaver rejected how he was described in Beaver Practice #5 : The person that you describe in those reasons is not me ... I hope to convince you of ... the type of person you are actually dealing with. A person far different from the person you described in your decision. [ 14 ] Mr. Beaver reiterated his “... passion for the law, a great understanding for the law, and a deep respect for the law ...”, “wholeheartedly apologize[d]”, and promised “... to chart a new course of full compliance for the future.” 3. Beaver Cross-Examination [ 15 ] Counsel for the LSA cross-examined Mr.

Beaver on his Affidavit evidence and in-court Statement. Mr. Beaver was asked for what he was apologizing. Mr. Beaver said he was apologizing for conduct that the Court had identified as improper and in contempt of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. The cross-examination tracked through items in Beaver Practice #5 , and Mr. Beaver acknowledged and said he apologized for the identified misconduct. [ 16 ] However, again Mr. Beaver minimized his misconduct. When the cross-examination turned to how Mr. Beaver interacted with Ms. Jura, Mr. Beaver stressed that his instructions to Ms.

Jura in relation to the LSA’s investigation were “cooperation, compliance, truthfulness”, when, in fact, the Court in Beaver Conduct #5 had concluded these messages were a part of Mr. Beaver’s cover-up of his arrangement to clandestinely practice law using Ms. Jura as a front. [ 17 ] When Mr. Beaver was asked whether his arrangement with Ms. Jura not only breached the Beaver Practice #1 injunction, but also was illegal because Mr. Beaver, as a disbarred lawyer, was not authorized to engage in the practice of law, Mr.

Beaver responded that “... we have to separate the actions from the understanding or the intent.” He said: So there’s a general perception out there - at least by those that I talked to or received information from - that there are jobs for disbarred lawyers. They have a legal knowledge and they - they are needed out there. And so I approached this in this fashion. and concluded “... my mind frame at the time was I could do certain things, I guess.” I classify this answer as non-responsive and evasive. [ 18 ] Mr. Beaver was asked at what point he realized his arrangement with Ms. Jura was illegal. Mr.

Beaver responded he could not remember, or “... give you a specific date.”, and then declined to discuss that question:

... I could sit here for days and tell you about what I remember with Ms. Jura and what happened, what was said, but we’re past that now. This answer, too, was non-responsive and evasive. [ 19 ] When pressed on this question, Mr. Beaver explained that he other concerns, he was busy with his family, his teaching activities, and living circumstances: ... I mean, when you’re trying to survive, I’m not sure how much time - although you should constantly reflect, it’s not - it can often be a luxury. [ 20 ] Eventually, Mr.

Beaver adopted the date of the September 11, 2018 date when I confirmed the Beaver Practice #1 injunction was still operational. Mr. Beaver was then asked to explain the content of a text message he had sent to Ms. Jura that said “I don’t agree with the LSA assessment of what I can do and how you can use me.” Mr. Beaver’s answer was initially evasive as to whether he thought he had done anything wrong. Mr. Beaver then responded that text message was in reply to Ms. Jura’s being told of the LSA’s position concerning Mr.

Beaver: So I’m saying if [the LSA investigator] or his other associate is telling her, Beaver can’t mentor you, or what have you, I’m saying I don’t agree with the LSA assessment of what I can do and how you can use me. I am happy to teach you how to run a trial anywhere, any time. Which is - which is true. I have taught at the law school -- I taught at the law school, for many years, criminal trial procedure. I have taught hundreds, if not more, lawyers how to run a trial. And that’s what I was offering to do for her. Again, Mr. Beaver has minimized his misconduct. He calls his arrangement with Ms.

Jura teaching, when in fact, at least additionally, Mr. Beaver was engaged in the unlicenced practice of law, preparing strategies, arguments, and documents for Ms. Jura to then use in court: Beaver Practice #5 . Mr. Beaver’s answer is, in that sense, non-responsive; Mr. Beaver evaded all that he had done, especially the more clearly prohibitive conduct. I further note that Beaver Practice #5 at para 55 also concluded that the purportedly more limited interactions between Mr. Beaver and Ms. Jura that Mr.

Beaver admitted to in cross-examination were also in contempt of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. [ 21 ] Counsel for the LSA pointed out to Mr. Beaver that his post- Beaver Practice #5 kijiji advertisement [Exhibit 5] advertised Mr. Beaver would help drafting wills, defending claims, drafting pleadings and affidavits and “other court-related documents”, and asked whether Mr. Beaver “... would acknowledge that those are practicing law?” Mr.

Beaver denied that was the case, that he had been teaching law for decades, and in his kijiji advertisement he was he was only offering to teach how to prepare legal materials. He compared his kijiji ad to holding a seminar that introduced laypersons to legal forms and small claims procedures. Further, Mr. Beaver observed, when the LSA contacted him about this advertisement he removed it. [ 22 ] The LSA introduced evidence that Mr. Beaver had, post-September 2018, been involved with several court and tribunal proceedings. Mr.

Beaver acknowledged his involvement in these matters, but said he was acting as a friend, and did not operate as a representative, provide legal advice, or prepare legal documents. For example, Mr. Beaver acknowledged he sent emails to a Crown Prosecutor on behalf of a friend, who was an accused, but who was prohibited from using the Internet. [ 23 ] Mr. Beaver was asked about an arrangement he had with a lawyer, referred to in R v Glade , 2020 ABQB 410 as “Mr. Doe”. Between 2015 and late 2019 Mr. Beaver worked off a debt he owed Mr. Doe by Mr. Beaver conducting research and writing briefs for Mr. Doe. Mr.

Beaver acknowledged that arrangement existed, and he had drafted documents, including a Charter notice, for Mr. Doe. Mr. Beaver said he could not remember how much work he did for Mr. Doe or to what litigation those items related. I classify Mr. Beaver’s responses to the arrangement with Mr. Doe as evasive. [ 24 ] Mr. Beaver acknowledged he has never paid the costs awards against him or the fine for the funds he misappropriated. Mr. Beaver said he could not do so. Any income he obtained went only to his family. [ 25 ] In response to Counsel for the LSA seeking clarification as to whether Mr.

Beaver’s apology was for his misconduct or him offending the Court, Mr. Beaver responded: And in contempt, there are two things that are I think relevant, and one is to make an apology. And part of the apology is saying I'm sorry, but there's many ways to apologize. And the other important

part is to tell him what I'm going to do in the future. And you've taken me through a number of things over the last few months and what have you, and I don't think anybody listened to my earlier explanation. It hasn't been for the last few years that the Law Society has been saying that they're going to put me in jail. And I am telling you that I had an epiphany, if you want to call it that, as a father and somebody who's responsible for a number of children and his wife. And I have stood in front of my children as they are sleeping and I have said I am not doing right by them.

That is what's going to guide me from here on in. That is the promise I'm making and not getting into different disputes about what happened six days, six months, or six years ago. [ 26 ] However, Mr. Beaver then followed that promise by saying: “...it’s high time ... to seek clarity on jobs that I could do ...”, and identify “... examples of employment that utilize my knowledge and experience ...”. It appears to me, that in the absence of a successful application for re-instatement, Mr. Beaver is not getting the message that any practice of law is over. 4. Mr. Beaver’s Credibility [ 27 ] I do not find Mr.

Beaver to be a credible witness. I have identified several ways in which Mr. Beaver minimized his misconduct. I have also indicated several examples of Mr. Beaver’s failure to answer questions and how Mr. Beaver was evasive during cross-examination. These were not isolated examples.

[ 28 ] Some of Mr. Beaver’s evidence was, to be generous, skewed. For example, Mr. Beaver characterized himself as “pro-social”, and reinforced his devotion to law and his deep respect for the Courts. “I take the Court’s directions very seriously.” And, “what happened in 2014-2015 was an anomaly”. That is factually false. Instead, after Mr. Beaver’s licence to practice law was suspended, and Mr. Beaver was then disbarred, Mr. Beaver repeatedly ignored the law . He repeatedly breached his 2015 undertaking, as he admitted before the Alberta Court of Appeal in Beaver Practice #4 . I found Mr.

Beaver in contempt of the Beaver Practice #1 order on August 7, 2016. [ 29 ] Then there was Mr. Beaver engaging in two separate arrangements, with Mr. Doe and Ms. Jura, where Mr. Beaver practiced law in a way that Mr. Beaver was concealed and “behind the scenes”. I stress, at this point, I am using the evidence in relation to Mr. Doe and Mr. Beaver not as an aggravating factor, but to test Mr. Beaver’s credibility. I conclude Mr. Beaver’s narrative of one bad year is false, and that Mr. Beaver knows that. In his Affidavit, Mr. Beaver misrepresented his pattern of bad conduct. It did not end in 2015.

By his own admission, he was illegally and clandestinely engaged in the practice of law until late 2019. It is evident that the only reason why Mr. Beaver does not have post-disbarment professional disciplinary complaints is because he is no longer a lawyer. [ 30 ] I do not accept Mr. Beaver’s evidence that he thought his relationship with Ms. Jura was legitimate because he believed he was no longer subject to the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. Mr. Beaver deposed in his Affidavit at paragraph 13: ...

This belief was honest and firmly held and was based on my legal knowledge and legal advice, and it continued throughout my association with Jura and covers the entire period at issue. [ 31 ] Subsequently, during cross-examination, Mr. Beaver was vague and evasive as to when he recognized he had acted illegally. He blamed that on being busy, his family activities, and that “... constantly reflecting ... can often be a luxury.” [ 32 ] In Beaver Practice #5 , I accepted Ms. Jura’s evidence that, when Mr. Beaver’s arrangement with Ms. Jura came to light, Mr.

Beaver directed a cover-up of what they had been doing, destroyed evidence, and created a false self-serving trail of communications to create the misleading impression that Mr. Beaver was a fair-dealing, ethical ex-lawyer. If Mr. Beaver had, in fact, believed he was not doing something improper in his arrangement with Ms. Jura, then Mr. Beaver would have no reason to direct the cover-up. His actions in January 2019 show that he knew what he was doing was illegal, and he tried to hide that, even going so far as to “throw his co- conspirator under the bus”. [ 33 ] I also do not accept Mr.

Beaver’s claims in his Affidavit and September 21, 2020 Statement that he respects the Court and the Canadian legal system. His actions speak of defiance, louder than his words. I have already discussed how Mr. Beaver’s misconduct extended from 2015 to the near present. [ 34 ] Further, Mr. Beaver, as a former defence lawyer, knows very well the implications of organizing the destruction of incriminating evidence. Mr. Beaver cannot genuinely claim to respect Canadian law when he directed the coverup of his own illegal activity. Similarly, this decision is not the first instance where Mr.

Beaver has breached his undertakings and the Beaver Practice #1 injunction, see

Part II. A person who genuinely had “the greatest respect” for Canada’s laws, courts, and the traditions of the legal profession, would not do what Mr. Beaver has done. [ 35 ] As for Mr. Beaver’s claim of “... my willingness to comply ...” (Affidavit, para 13), Mr. Beaver’s actions instead show that he has either operated at the threshold of what was prohibited by Court injunction, undertakings, and/or him not being an authorized licenced and practicing lawyer, or repeatedly entirely stepped over that threshold into prohibited conduct that Mr. Beaver then concealed. [ 36 ] There is some evidence of Mr.

Beaver that I do accept. I do accept he perceives himself to be unfairly persecuted by the LSA. I also accept that Mr. Beaver believes he is misrepresented in how the media has reported on him and his circumstances. I do accept that he believes he has the talents and experience to be capable of again becoming a practicing lawyer, and that may be true, with one fatal exception - I find that he has not met the necessary test of trustworthiness in following the rules and laws that apply to him relevant to his past and any such future role. [ 37 ] Finally, I do not accept Mr. Beaver’s apology as genuine.

He does not regret having post-2015 continued his clandestine and illegal practice of law. He merely regrets getting caught. Mr. Beaver knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyway. Now he has said and will say whatever he thinks may minimize the consequences to himself, and that is precisely what his “apology” was - disingenuous. I will further elaborate on this conclusion when I evaluate what weight to put on Mr. Beaver’s apology as a mitigating factor. B. Erin Rae Beaver Affidavit [ 38 ] Erin Rae Beaver [Erin] is Mr. Beaver’s oldest daughter. Her August 17, 2020 Affidavit relates to Mr.

Beaver’s family history and Erin’s perspective of him. Erin rejects the manner in which her father has been portrayed by court decisions and the media. She instead highlights Mr. Beaver’s favourable interactions with her and her other family members, including several young children of Mr. Beaver’s current wife. [ 39 ] While Erin acknowledges Mr. Beaver’s 2014-2015 misconduct, she states that Mr. Beaver has suffered unnecessary and excessive negative consequences. Media reporting has “brutalized and mis-portrayed” him. Erin, in particular, criticizes the LSA for its “relentless pursuit” of Mr.

Beaver, and complains about trespassing and disrespect. Erin rejects the allegations made about Mr. Beaver, as they “do not ring true”. [ 40 ] Erin deposes that “rationality” requires that Mr. Beaver have “the space and opportunity” to work and pay his debts. She indicates “there are much worse people out there” that require the LSA attention, and “[i]t is truly time for everyone to move on.” Erin argues her father should receive a suspended sentence.

[ 41 ] I place little weight on Erin’s Affidavit. I do not doubt Erin has a positive relationship with her father and her personal opinion of him. However, her beliefs about Mr. Beaver’s activities and their implications run directly contrary to the findings of this Court, the LSA disciplinary proceeding reasons, as well as Mr. Beaver’s own admissions. C. Kayleigh Anne Beaver Affidavit [ 42 ] Kayleigh Anne Beaver [Kayleigh] is Mr. Beaver’s second older daughter. The content of her Affidavit, sworn on August 17, 2020, parallels that of her older sibling.

She too emphasizes her family’s positive relationship with Mr. Beaver. She attributes his problematic actions to alcoholism, which she says is a thing of the past. [ 43 ] Like Erin, Kayleigh blames the LSA for Mr. Beaver’s current situation. She calls the LSA a bully, and its treatment of Mr. Beaver as inhumane. She rejects the LSA’s claims as being “false information”. Kayleigh alleges the LSA improperly blocks Mr. Beaver from making money to repay his debts. Kayleigh says she and her siblings need the care and support Mr. Beaver provides, and that, if Mr. Beaver went to jail, it would “ruin their childhood”.

Kayleigh also submits Mr. Beaver should receive a suspended sentence. [ 44 ] I put little weight on Kayleigh’s Affidavit for the same reason that I rejected her sister’s evidence. D. Support Letters [ 45 ] Mr. Beaver filed nine letters of support: Exhibit 11. Eight were written by students attending CDI College and who had been taught my Mr. Beaver. All are dated in August of 2020. These letters report that Mr. Beaver was a good teacher and that his students learned much about law from him.

He is described as helpful and passionate about the law. [ 46 ] The final letter of support is from a former receptionist and assistant who worked in Mr. Beaver’s law firm, and is currently a roommate and friend of one of his daughters. She reports Mr. Beaver is a good parent, passionate about law, and that Mr. Beaver led her to her current work in criminal defence. [ 47 ] Again, I put little weight on these letters outside how their authors had positive interactions with Mr. Beaver. V. Submissions A. LSA [ 48 ] The LSA submits Mr.

Beaver should be incarcerated in response to his breach of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. Counsel for the LSA identify three key principles in relation to punishment: 1. the principle purpose of punishment in contempt proceedings is deterrence [1] , 2. the rule of law depends on the court’s ability and willingness to enforce its orders, and 3. the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the contempt. [ 49 ] Blatant and willful contempt is an aggravating factor. Here, Mr. Beaver was not only in breach of the Beaver Conduct #1 injunction, but his activities were also inherently illegal because Mr.

Beaver was no longer a lawyer, and was practicing law in breach of the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . Mr. Beaver, as a former lawyer, was aware of the harm that results when court orders are ignored. Mr. Beaver’s breach of the Beaver Conduct #1 injunction was a planned and deliberate scheme that was conducted for an extended period. Mr. Beaver cannot purge his contempt because it is in relation to past conduct that cannot be undone. Further, this is the second time that Mr. Beaver has breached the Beaver Conduct #1 injunction. [ 50 ] The LSA argues that Mr.

Beaver’s purportedly mitigating factors should be rejected. Mr. Beaver claims he honestly believed he was not subject to the Beaver Conduct #1 injunction after he was disbarred. The LSA notes Mr. Beaver had consented to that injunction being made permanent, and, that if Mr. Beaver did believe that, his belief was not reasonable, and/or his actions were willfully reckless. The LSA submits Mr. Beaver’s apology was “parsed and qualified”, his promises to engage in proper conduct are too late, and that any apology should be disbelieved. [ 51 ] The LSA also argues that Mr. Beaver’s punishment should factor in that Mr.

Beaver continued to breach the Beaver Conduct #1 injunction. Mr. Beaver after his Beaver Contempt #4 conviction still posted a kijiji advertisement and website that Mr. Beaver admitted on cross-examination advertised Mr. Beaver offered services that constitute the practice of law. The LSA also points that Mr. Beaver admitted that he was involved in a number of other court and tribunal proceedings since engaging with Ms. Jura, and argues that the Court should reject Mr. Beaver’s evidence that his involvement was minimal and did not involve legal practice activities.

The LSA observes that close examination of the correspondence with Mr. Doe implies Mr. Beaver was very involved in Mr. Doe’s litigation, and Mr. Beaver was even using the email address, “sbeaver@beaverlaw.ca” that was prohibited by the Beaver Conduct #1 injunction. [ 52 ] The Applicant argues that Mr. Beaver’s purported respect for the law, legal profession, and the courts is false. His apology should not be believed and is not a mitigating factor. Instead, Mr. Beaver minimizes his blame and deflects responsibility to the LSA. [ 53 ] A financial penalty will not deter Mr. Beaver.

He has not paid court and LSA costs, nor paid the amounts Mr. Beaver has misappropriated. Instead, incarceration is necessary. The LSA identified comparator case law that deliberate breaches of court orders warranted imprisonment for 3 to 15 months, citing Echostar Communications Corporation v Rodgers , 2010 ONSC 2164 , Norfolk v 1313567 Ontario Inc , 2011 ONSC 4156 , and Mella v 336239 Alberta Ltd (Dave’s Diesel Repair) , 2016 ABCA 226 .

B. Mr. Beaver [54] Mr. Beaver in his submissions says the “tone” and “words” of Beaver Practice #5 does not accurately reflect Mr. Beaver, whois a person who has never been charged or convicted of a criminal offence. Instead, Mr. Beaver claims that he is a family man, whorespects the rule of law, and teaches the rule of law: “There is nothing anti-social about him or his lifestyle.” [55] His written argument complains that the LSA has been uncooperative, and has frustrated Mr. Beaver’s need to work, and is“oblivious to ... the public interest in enabling him to be a productive member of society ...”. Mr.

Beaver tried to practice law under thesupervision of another lawyer, but the LSA refused that, and instead: ... consistently pursued him since that time in an attempt to shut down every attempt at his making any sort of income ... they take theirown role in ensuring income generation is completely divorced from all aspects of the law which is his entire education and background.... [56] Mr. Beaver says any negative career outcomes for Ms. Jura were essentially her own fault and related to “... her own conductand character.” She had already failed to conduct her legal career properly, and Mr.

Beaver had given her appropriate advice, just as“[h]e has taught countless students how to do things the right way.” [57] The fact that Mr. Beaver has not paid outstanding costs, or money he has stolen, is claimed to be irrelevant to what penalty onsentencing should be because “... there is no debtor’s prison in Alberta. ...”. [58] Mr. Beaver in his arguments identifies five mitigating factors: 1. He does not need to be punished since he gave a complete, straightforward apology, and has promised to comply with the Court’sorder moving forward.

His past conduct is irrelevant because he has chosen to take a new path because the LSA is demanding he beincarcerated, and Mr. Beaver is concerned for his family. 2. Mr. Beaver says he is a person of good character. He has an “otherwise unblemished career in the law”. His behaviour in the pasthas largely been good, and that continues to “... most importantly, the present. ...”. Mr. Beaver submits his daughters’ affidavits and thesupport letters establish that. 3. Mr. Beaver says his current employment is a mitigating “pro-social behaviour” factor. Loss of employment would harm hisfamily. 4. Mr.

Beaver honestly believed that he was no longer subject to the Beaver Practice #1 injunction after he was disbarred, and that,pursuant to R v Suter, 2018 SCC 34, that makes any misconduct on his

part less morally blameworthy. 5. The “brutal press coverage” and “financial devastation” that Mr. Beaver has received is a mitigating factor. [59] As for the post-September 2018 events that were brought up by the LSA during cross-examination, Mr. Beaver says there isno reason that his explanations for those should not be accepted. He claims that he is merely helping his friends. He argues that the Courtcannot rely on exhibits for identification. As for the relationship with Mr. Doe, Mr.

Beaver admits he had an arrangement to do researchfor his friend, but that ended in late 2019, and so is no longer relevant. [60] Mr.

Beaver identifies four comparator cases where a lawyer or paralegal practiced law in contempt of an injunction to thateffect, and in those matters the court either ordered a four month conditional sentence (Society of Upper Canada v Boldt, (Ont SC)), community service (The Law Society of Upper Canada v Hatzitrifonos, 2018 ONSC 3719 [Hatzitrifonos]), 30 daysincarceration (Law Society of BC v Dempsey, 2007 BCSC 442 [Dempsey]), and one month incarceration and community service (LawSociety of British Columbia v Hanson, 2004 BCSC 825).

I note that the Dempsey case involves John Ruiz Dempsey, who actually wasnot a lawyer, but instead Dempsey was an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument guru who said he was a Filipino lawyer (hewas not), and who taught an assortment of debt elimination and money for nothing schemes: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras109-120. Dempsey is therefore an extremely weak comparator to Mr. Beaver’s misconduct scenario. [61] Mr.

Beaver submits the Court should order he is allowed to purge his contempt[2], suspend any sanction pending a reasonableperiod of good behaviour, and he should be penalized with a reasonable fine with a default period. VI. Analysis A. Preliminary Issue - Cross-Examination Evidence and Exhibits [62] Prior to evaluating factors that affect the appropriate punishment for Mr. Beaver, I will, as a preliminary issue, examine whatweight ought to be placed on information that emerged during Mr. Beaver’s cross-examination. That cross-examination had a broadpotential scope because Mr.

Beaver has put forward his positive character. Mr. Beaver claimed he was not the kind of person who wouldbreach court orders or engage in illegal actions, because of his “... passion for the law, a great understanding for the law, and a deeprespect for the law ...”. [63] The LSA introduced evidence and examined Mr. Beaver on activities and incidents that occurred after September 18, 2018.During this process Mr. Beaver rejected that he had acted as a legal representative or engaged in the practice of law. Mr. Beaver, forexample, said that when an individual indicated in an email that Mr.

Beaver would be his representative at an Alberta TransportationSafety Board hearing, Mr. Beaver explained that communication was incorrect. Mr. Beaver’s actual role was to sit in the audience andspeak if necessary.

[ 64 ] While I have concluded that Mr. Beaver is not a credible witness, these incidents were not supported with sufficient evidence to provide me a basis to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Beaver had knowing engaged in additional illegal contemptuous misconduct. [ 65 ] There are, however, two exceptions, both where Mr. Beaver did admit the alleged activity. Mr. Beaver acknowledged that in May 23, 2020, he had posted a kijiji ad (Exhibit 5), titled “LEGAL INSTRUCTION FROM THE BEST”, and that read: TIME FOR A WILL? NEED TO MAKE OR DEFEND A CLAIM? LOST YOUR JOB? LANDLORD TENANT DISPUTE? NEED HELP?

I help the self-isolated, and the self-represented, as well as lawyers and law students alike. I help them to understand the law, and how to draft: demand letters, pleadings, other court related documents. You learn from me and apply my knowledge to your case! I am an ex-lawyer with 23 years experience. I have degrees with Honours from McGill University and the University of Alberta. I have taught in the legal realm for 20 years plus. Contact me for reduced rates and areas of instruction. Skype, Facetime, Zoom and Teamviewer available. Or we will just email or have a phonecall.

Read about me at shawnbeaverconsulting.com or message me here. [ 66 ] The related “shawnbeaverconsulting.com” website as entered as Exhibit 6. One paragraph of the website reads: Shawn also provides instruction in the law. Are you a lawyer from out of the jurisdiction seeking admission of the Alberta bar? Do you need instruction in local statute? Or are you a lawyer from a common law jurisdiction who needs expert instruction in trial strategy? Contact Shawn. [ 67 ] Mr. Beaver acknowledged in cross-examination that he was responsible for both the kijiji ad and “shawnbeaverconsulting.com” website. Mr.

Beaver also testified that his Counsel was contacted by the LSA about both the ad and website, indicating those advertised the practice of law. Mr. Beaver then removed the kijiji ad and the website paragraph quoted above. [ 68 ] During cross-examination, Mr. Beaver was evasive when asked whether the kijiji ad and his website had offered legal services. His vague claim to have intended a kind of classroom hypothetical instruction is rejected. The plain language quoted above is obviously not that. I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr.

Beaver had intended to and did advertise offering legal services via the kijiji ad and the “shawnbeaverconsulting.com” website. [ 69 ] Mr. Beaver also admitted he had an arrangement with Mr. Doe, between 2015 and late 2019, where Mr. Beaver conducted research, “converted legal research into argument”, and prepared court materials for Mr. Doe which Mr. Doe then used in court proceedings. Mr. Beaver’s arrangement with Mr. Doe was a way to pay off loans owned to Mr. Doe. [ 70 ] In the analysis that follows, I will not consider the kijiji ad, “shawnbeaverconsulting.com” website, and arrangement with Mr.

Doe as aggravating factors. Rather that this evidence is potentially relevant to evaluate mitigating factors advanced by Mr. Beaver and to test his evidence in relation to that. B. Aggravating Factors [ 71 ] I largely agree with the LSA on the aggravating factors that result from Mr. Beaver’s being in contempt of court. Most of these flow from the findings of fact summarized in

Part III, above. [ 72 ] Mr. Beaver’s contempt and illegal practice of law was deliberate. Mr. Beaver was the ringleader and directing mind. He recruited Ms. Jura into his scheme. The Jura/Beaver collaboration where Mr. Beaver “was leading everything” exploited Ms. Jura to conceal Mr. Beaver’s illegal activities. Mr. Beaver’s concealed unlicenced practice was a business venture, he did it for money. Mr. Beaver planned and executed a clandestine illegal enterprise. [ 73 ] The Jura/Beaver arrangement was not “a one off”, but went on for six months and involved at least seven matters.

However, the true and full scale of Mr. Beaver’s misconduct cannot be determined because Mr. Beaver directed that Ms. Jura destroy the incriminating evidence that could be used against him. That direction is a highly aggravating factor, since it means that the LSA and the Court cannot evaluate the full extent of Mr. Beaver’s illegal conduct. [ 74 ] Mr. Beaver not only planned and operated a clandestine illegal enterprise, but when an LSA investigation threatened to uncover his illegal practice of law, Mr. Beaver took steps to conceal and coverup what he had done, and to lay a trail of false evidence.

I have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Beaver: 1. gave instructions to Ms. Jura to destroy much evidence that implicated Mr. Beaver, which she did, 2. instructed Ms. Jura to minimize and otherwise conceal how Mr. Beaver had used Ms. Jura as a front for his illegal law practice, which she initially did, 3. created a misleading trail of email evidence that attempted to characterize his activities with Ms. Jura as teaching, rather than what the Jura/Beaver arrangement truly was: an illegal and unlicenced practice of law, and 4. created a misleading trail of email evidence to falsely depict Mr.

Beaver as a good character ex-lawyer, instructing Ms. Jura to cooperate with the LSA. The attempted and largely successful coverup is another highly aggravating factor. [ 75 ] A further aggravating factor is that Mr. Beaver’s arrangement with Ms. Jura was part of an even larger pattern where Mr. Beaver ignored legal prohibitions on Mr. Beaver’s attempts to practice law, as illustrated by the

Part II timeline. [ 76 ] The LSA argues that the Mr. Beaver’s contempt is more aggravating because his contemptuous actions were “inherently illegal” since Mr. Beaver was prohibited by legislation from practicing law after he was suspended in 2015. The Beaver Practice #1

injunction was obtained to prohibit Mr. Beaver from engaging in illegal activities, not to block an otherwise legitimate activity. I agree that factor further aggravates Mr. Beaver’s misconduct. [ 77 ] The LSA also argues, and I agree that: Beaver, by virtue of his background and training, is more aware than most of the destructive impact that breaching court orders has on the rule of law ... [ 78 ] Mr. Beaver’s former career and related education means Mr. Beaver knew he was committing crimes, and the implications of that. That is an aggravating factor.

However, in weighing the impact of that knowledge, I am evaluating Mr. Beaver as a highly informed ex-lawyer and now layperson. If Mr. Beaver was still a member of the LSA, then the seriousness of this aggravating factor would be greater, since membership in that profession comes with a higher legal and ethical standard of conduct in relation to courts and court activities. I therefore conclude this aggravating factor does exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, but its weight is less than if Mr. Beaver were still a practicing lawyer. [ 79 ] A further aggravating factor is that Mr.

Beaver’s illegal actions effectively terminated another lawyer’s career. Mr. Beaver says this factor should have little or no weight because Ms. Jura had a pre-existing problematic legal practice, and because Ms. Jura engaged in bad conduct, such as forging affidavit signatures. While there certainly was evidence that Ms. Jura was having difficulty with her legal practice, I consider that a secondary factor to two more critical elements of this aggravating factor. First, Mr. Beaver recruited Ms. Jura into what Mr. Beaver knew was an illegal unlicenced practice of law. Mr.

Beaver is the wrongdoer who drove this arrangement. Second, Mr. Beaver was obviously the more experienced and knowledgeable member of this arrangement. Mr. Beaver was in a position to direct and control Ms. Jura, and I have found, as fact, that was the case. Considering these factors, Mr. Beaver’s damage to Ms. Jura’s potential legal career is a significant aggravating factor. She may not have been the best junior lawyer in Alberta, but it was Mr. Beaver who hammered home the nails in the coffin for Ms. Jura’s legal professional career. [ 80 ] The aggregate effect of these factors is that Mr.

Beaver’s misconduct is not of a kind that can be ignored by the Court. Tangible and effective response is required to address Mr. Beaver’s illegal conduct. The aggravating factors in Mr. Beaver’s contempt of court shift his misconduct to the very serious end of the spectrum. C. Mitigating Factors [ 81 ] Mr. Beaver has advanced five mitigating factors, some of which overlap. The onus is on Mr. Beaver to establish those mitigating factors on a balance of probabilities. Some of what Mr. Beaver argues is based on his own testimony. I have already made negative findings concerning Mr. Beaver’s credibility in

Part IV(A)(4). 1. Honest Mistake [ 82 ] Mr. Beaver acknowledges that the Court has found in fact and law that his arrangement with Ms. Jura was a breach of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction. However, Mr. Beaver says he only discovered that the Beaver Practice #1 injunction remained in effect when I, on September 11, 2018, dismissed Mr. Beaver’s application to strike out the current contempt proceeding and ruled that the Beaver Practice #1 injunction had remained in force. Mr. Beaver points to the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R v Suter and says, like Mr. Suter, that Mr.

Beaver’s misconduct is less morally blameworthy because Mr. Beaver honestly believed that he acting within the law. I reject this mitigating factor for three separate and independent reasons. [ 83 ] First, the LSA argues that if Mr. Beaver did have that honest belief, then that belief was not reasonable and his conduct was “brazenly reckless at a minimum”. I agree, however I do not believe Mr. Beaver’s claim is factually honest and accurate. He is not a credible witness. With his knowledge and experience as a former legal professional, I conclude, on balance of probabilities, that Mr.

Beaver never thought the Beaver Practice #1 injunction was no longer in effect after he was disbarred. His current honest mistake explanation, and the May 15, 2018 application, are nothing more than a legal tactic, and an ingenuine excuse. [ 84 ] Second, as I have previously observed, Mr. Beaver attempted to cover-up his illegal unlicenced practice of law activities, instructed his collaborator that evidence be destroyed, and created a misleading communications record to conceal and misdirect as to what Mr. Beaver had done. Mr.

Beaver’s actions are inconsistent with his claim that he honestly believed he was doing nothing wrong. A person who has as honest belief that his or her actions are lawful does not attempt to conceal those actions. [ 85 ] Third, Mr. Beaver’s claim that he honestly thought he was doing nothing wrong and he made a mistake is, in a critical sense, a red herring. Mr. Beaver’s arrangement with Ms. Jura did not simply breach the Beaver Practice #1 injunction, but Mr. Beaver’s actions were also in an illegal unlicenced practice of law, that contravened the Legal Profession Act . As a non-lawyer, Mr.

Beaver broke the law in two ways at the same time. Mr. Beaver saying this was an honest mistake is like a burglar claiming the burglar had no idea he was doing anything illegal when breaking into someone else’s house, because there was no pre-existing court order prohibiting that specific act. [ 86 ] While Mr. Beaver attempted to minimize and mischaracterize what he did with Ms. Jura during cross-examination, the Court has already found as fact that Ms. Jura’s testimony was honest, credible, and reliable. Ms. Jura testified Mr. Beaver “was leading everything”, and I accepted that. Instead, Mr.

Beaver failed to respond to that allegation, merely passing it off with this testimony: ... I could sit here for days and tell you about what I remember with Ms. Jura and what happened, what was said, but we’re past that now. [ 87 ] I conclude from that non-response, and Mr. Beaver claiming that he did not think his arrangement with Ms. Jura was wrong, means that Mr. Beaver is also denying that his activities with Ms. Jura were also illegal because they breached the Legal Profession Act . I reject that. Mr.

Beaver, as an experienced ex-lawyer, as a person who teaches law, and who says he is good at that, cannot point at his actions and say, honestly, those were innocent.

[ 88 ] I therefore, on multiple bases, place no weight on Mr. Beaver’s claim that his arrangement with Ms. Jura was an honest mistake that warrants mitigation of his punishment. 2. Good Character and Respect for the Law [ 89 ] The next proposed mitigating factor is that Mr. Beaver says he is a person of good character, who respects the law. The argument advanced is since Mr. Beaver respects the law, and abides by the law, there is therefore little need for Mr. Beaver to be sanctioned.

He claims that he is not the kind of person who illegally practices law, and, aside from the events of 2014-2015, he has an “otherwise unblemished career in the law”, and a “... passion for the law, a great understanding for the law, and a deep respect for the law ...”. In his responding Submissions, Mr. Beaver says his post-2015 conduct is good conduct, and different from 2014-2015, “... the very time Mr Beaver acknowledges he was not following his usual ways or practicing what he preached.” [ 90 ] As I have previously indicated, I do not accept Mr. Beaver’s self-portrait.

Instead, the chronology of his activities identified in this decision illustrate the opposite. Post-2015, Mr. Beaver has repeatedly reneged on his undertakings, repeatedly breached the Beaver Practice #1 injunction, and participated in two identified arrangements where he clandestinely engaged in an unlicenced legal practice using collaborating lawyers. I note here, again, that I am using the admissions by Mr. Beaver in relation to Mr. Doe as relevant to Mr. Beaver’s credibility, and not as an aggravating factor. Mr. Beaver does not “practice what he preaches”. [ 91 ] When Mr. Beaver realized his scheme with Ms.

Jura was potentially going to be exposed Mr. Beaver instructed his collaborator to destroy the evidence of his illegal activity. Mr. Beaver also prepared what I have concluded, was, in fact, a false email trail narrative of his interactions with Ms. Jura. Is this a person who has “a deep respect for the law”, or a wrongdoer who knew what he is doing is illegal and then attempted to avoid the consequences? Obviously - the latter. [ 92 ] When Mr. Beaver was found in contempt of court, on May 14, 2020 in Beaver Practice #5 , he still continued to breach the Beaver Practice #1 injunction.

Yet, only one week later, on May 23, 2020, he posted his kijiji ad for the “shawnbeaverconsulting.com” website. Mr. Beaver, in his August 17, 2020 Affidavit, states: “I am in no way trying to thumb my nose at the Court. I take the Court’s directions very seriously.” His June 16, 2020 argument states: “Whatever one can say about Mr. Beaver, he has never “mocked” the system which he served diligently as an officer of the court for so many years.” [ 93 ] I find these statements incredible, given what Mr. Beaver did. I find that conduct to be both “thumbing one’s nose” and mocking. While Mr.

Beaver did respond to LSA demands to remove the kijiji ad and modify his website, that means little in these circumstances. Again, I note that I am using the kijiji ad and “shawnbeaverconsulting.com” website evidence to refute Mr. Beaver’s claims of good conduct and good character, not as an aggravating factor. [ 94 ] Mr. Beaver stresses that he teaches and instructs others to respect the law and the courts. That is irrelevant to his good character. I do not doubt Mr. Beaver taught his university and college students to follow and respect the law.

He would not likely be employed for long as a teacher (at least teaching law) if he did otherwise. However, what Mr. Beaver told others to do is irrelevant to his own good character. What instead matters are his actions. Those demonstrate that Mr. Beaver says one thing, but acts otherwise. [ 95 ] I reject that Mr. Beaver has established that he is the kind of person who will abide by and respect the licensing and professional requirements set by the Legal Profession Act and the Orders of this Court, when those Orders interfere with his yet further attempts to continue his unlicensed legal practices. 3.

Employment [ 96 ] Mr. Beaver argues that his current employment is a mitigating factor and shows he lives a “pro-social” lifestyle. This purportedly mitigating factor has little weight, given Mr. Beaver’s record of illegally practicing law after his suspension and then subsequent to him being disbarred. [ 97 ] The second aspect of this argument is that Mr. Beaver says his family will endure hardship if Mr. Beaver is incarcerated and unable to work. I put no weight on this factor. Mr. Beaver has provided no documentary evidence to substantiate his finances. As I have previously indicated, I do not find Mr.

Beaver to be a credible witness, so I put no weight on his claims. Mr. Beaver could have readily documented his income and household expenses, his savings, his spouse’s income, and so on, but he did not. Instead, in his June 16, 2020 argument, Mr. Beaver says he has been teaching the “Legal Assistant Program at the College level” for over 2.5 years, which apparently is Mr. Beaver’s employment at CDI College. That would suggest steady and substantial income, rather than “financial devastation”, as claimed in Mr. Beaver’s October 6, 2020 Submissions. [ 98 ] But, beyond that, if Mr.

Beaver is unable to work because he is incarcerated, then that is entirely his own fault. Mr. Beaver was disbarred in 2017. Four years have passed. In the meantime, Mr. Beaver has attempted to practice law without a licence, either at the boundaries of what might be legitimate, or operating illegally, in breach of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction, his undertakings, and the Legal Profession Act . Mr. Beaver is not a person without skills or intelligence. Mr. Beaver is not a person who cannot work. He could re-educate, chose to pursue a livelihood outside of law. If he had done so, Mr.

Beaver would neither be facing the prospects of being incarcerated, or that his support for his family might be interrupted. He would not be clandestinely scheming and destroying evidence. [ 99 ] Instead, Mr. Beaver apparently refuses to take any other path than to continue to practice law, despite him being disbarred. It is plain why that is the case. Mr. Beaver sees himself as having unique skills and knowledge. He possesses “... a great understanding of the law ...”. He has taught “countless students”. In his Affidavit Mr.

Beaver deposed he is an expert at writing factums: This is a skill of mine, writing Factums that require strong and innovative writing, particularly in criminal law. What I find is that he does not possess a great ability to follow the law in the context of the evidence in this proceeding. [ 100 ] In his cross-examination, Mr. Beaver said experienced lawyers seek out his services because “... I am acknowledged as an

expert in certain areas ...”. He is an expert law instructor: “[Mr. Beaver] has taught countless students how to do things the right way.” [101] Mr. Beaver openly says he wants to do law-related work, and will attempt to vary the Beaver Practice #1 injunction on thatbasis. Why? “There are things that I can do. I need to work. I have knowledge and skill that is marketable.” It is telling how Mr. Beaverpresents the LSA denying him from preparing an appeal factum for lawyer, Brian Beresh Q.C.: “That was money that could have fed myfamily.” Mr.

Beaver does not believe that he is no longer a lawyer and that he is prohibited from the practice of law because of hismisconduct. Mr. Beaver believes that he should be the exception. [102] I conclude on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Beaver simply refuses to accept that he cannot practice his former tradebecause he is too good and too gifted not to be a lawyer. That is what has now led to his current situation. Mr. Beaver does have alegitimate way to return to the practice of law. As noted above, he could apply to be re-instated, pursuant to Rules of the Law Society ofAlberta, Rules 107.2-114.

Beaver Discipline #2 at para 36 identifies this alternative. There is no evidence to indicate Mr. Beaver haspursued that option. Instead, there is much evidence that, for the past almost six years, Mr. Beaver chose to cheat and work aroundobstacles to what he wants to do - to continue to be a lawyer. [103] That raises Mr. Beaver’s many complaints about the LSA. He pushes the blame for his current situation on the LSA. Duringcross-examination, Mr. Beaver said: “I have the greatest respect for the Law Society. I wish that they would have taken better respect ofme.” Instead, Mr.

Beaver says the LSA persecutes and victimizes him: ... consistently pursued him since that time in an attempt to shut down every attempt at his making any sort of income ... they take theirown role in ensuring income generation is completely divorced from all aspects of the law which is his entire education and background.... [104] These statements say much about Mr. Beaver’s perspective. What the LSA is doing is not persecution - the LSA’s response toMr. Beaver is the LSA doing its job. The LSA’s primary function is to ensure only qualified, authorized, and insured, persons providelegal services in Alberta. Mr.

Beaver is not a lawyer. He is not insured. Mr. Beaver is not permitted to engage in the practice of law, andyet Mr. Beaver continued to do exactly that. [105] The reason that Mr. Beaver has been repeatedly brought before this Court by the LSA is because Mr. Beaver repeatedlyillegally practices law without a licence, and, furthermore, goes to great lengths to conceal that activity. [106] I put no weight on Mr. Beaver’s argument that interruptions to his current employment and associated financial impact on hisfamily is a mitigating factor. Mr. Beaver constructed the present scenario. He had alternatives.

In that sense I find this argument anexercise in chutzpah, the property that Southin J in Doman v British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) (1996), (BC CA), 85 BCAC 210, 31 BCLR (3d) 357 (BCCA) explained as “... a man who has been convicted of murdering his parents seekingmercy on the ground that he is an orphan.” 4. Media Coverage [107] Mr. Beaver argues that there has been extensive negative, “brutal”, and unfair media reporting in relation to his being disbarredand the current contempt proceedings, citing R v Ewanchuk, 2002 ABCA 95 at paras 64-68, and R v Suter at paras 45-59.

The lateractually relates to vigilante activities by third parties, and so has no application. Mr. Beaver in his August 17, 2020 Affidavit deposes “Iam punished every day due to the manner in which the press chooses to portray me.” [108] I note that, in R v Ewanchuk, the Court at para 68 cautions: “... without specific evidence of publicity and its effect on aparticular offender, the weight to be placed on publicity as a mitigating factor may be limited.” I am not permitted to take judicial noticeof media reporting concerning Mr.

Beaver: Alberta v Lac La Biche (Town), 1993 ABCA 105 at para 18. [109] The only media reporting that was entered into evidence was by the LSA: Exhibit 4, a printout of a CBC News

article titled“Disgraced Edmonton lawyer now selling tutoring services online”, dated March 29, 2017. The

article states that Mr. Beaver wasadvertising to tutor law students, says Mr. Beaver was disbarred when he “wrongfully took at least $300,000 from clients and lawyers inhis firm”, quotes Mr. Beaver stating that him being disbarred has not “affected my knowledge of the law or my ability to teach”, andincludes a supportive statement from lawyer Brian Beresh, Q.C.: “it would be a real waste not to employ his talents”, and “people canrehabilitate, and this is part of it.” The

article continues to briefly quote two students, one of whom is somewhat critical. The LSA andUniversity of Alberta Law Faculty declined to comment. [110] I do not see how news reporting, such as Exhibit 4, the CBC News article, creates the kind of negative, notorious consequencesthat might affect what is a proportionate punishment for Mr. Beaver. The only evidence I have is actually quite supportive of Mr. Beaver,and him engaged in legally teaching law. I see no evidence that Mr. Beaver was “punished” by how “... the press chooses to portray me.” [111] Otherwise, I do accept that Mr.

Beaver and his family members would prefer that Mr. Beaver’s being disbarred and him nowbeing found guilty of contempt of court did not attract media interest. However, Mr. Beaver has not provided evidence to establish, on abalance of probabilities, that, objectively, Mr. Beaver is “punished every day” by an unfair press. [112] Furthermore, I conclude that, if Mr. Beaver’s complaint that his illegal activity has narrowed his employment opportunities, itcannot be attributed to bad press. Rather, Mr.

Beaver only has himself to blame if his stealing money and illegal unlicenced practice oflaw has meant some potential employers and clients are hesitant to engage Mr. Beaver’s services. [113] I therefore conclude Mr. Beaver has not established this purported mitigating factor on a balance of probabilities. 5. Sincere Apology and Promise of Future Good Conduct [114] As I have previously indicated, I do not accept Mr. Beaver’s apology and his promise of future good conduct as sincere. Mr.

Beaver is not a credible deponent. He was an evasive and non-responsive witness, and minimized his misconduct. Mr. Beaver displacesblame to the LSA, and to the media. Though Mr. Beaver, on one hand, said in cross-examination that his path forward will now bestraight and narrow: “... my promise is to adhere to the letter and spirit of the injunction ...”, Mr. Beaver has also indicated he does notaccept the scope of that injunction, and intends to apply to have it varied. [115] Mr.

Beaver in his written arguments stresses that, unlike certain comparator cases, he has not been defiant before the Court.However, since I have concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Beaver’s current apology and promise are not genuine, thisfactor is irrelevant. Worse, his response to Beaver Practice #5 was to resume advertising illegal unlicenced legal services via his kijiji adand website. I can hardly see how that act could not be classified as “defiant”. [116] The LSA argues Mr. Beaver’s apology is too late. If I were to accept Mr.

Beaver’s apology that would be relevant factor inreducing the mitigating weight of that apology. As in any criminal proceeding, early acknowledgement of guilt and an intention toreform is a significant mitigating factor. Here, however, I put no weight on Mr. Beaver’s purported apology and his promises of goodconduct. [117] A further issue is that any promise that Mr. Beaver has changed his ways is compromised by his modus operandi. Mr. Beaverconceals his activities, using proxy false front actors. When Mr. Beaver says “I’ve stopped”, there is no way for outside observers, suchas the Court to know.

I would have to trust him, and simply put, I do not. Mr. Beaver’s record speaks for itself. [118] The LSA argues Mr. Beaver’s offer to apologize in relation to his arrangement with Ms. Jura “... are completely devoid ofremorse.” I agree. Mr. Beaver has displaced blame for that onto the LSA, the media, and Ms. Jura herself. As previously discussed, heonly apologized for “tutoring”, and that itself, too, was contempt of court. VII. Purge Contempt [119] Mr. Beaver in his Submissions seeks: “[a]llowing the Respondent to purge his contempt”.

As noted above, I do not see how Mr.Beaver can purge the contempt identified in Beaver Practice #5: the deeds are done and cannot be undone. [120] The only other manner in which I can possibly imagine that Mr. Beaver could potentially purge his contempt would be for Mr.Beaver to fully disclose his illegal unlicenced practice of law activities, since Mr. Beaver caused much of the record of that to bedestroyed. Mr. Beaver could fully disclose other possible illegal conduct on his part. If Mr.

Beaver had taken steps such as those prior tonow, then that might have been a significant mitigating factor. [121] However, Mr. Beaver has done no such thing, and therefore I conclude that the question of Mr. Beaver purging his contempt isirrelevant to this punishment step. VIII. Mr. Beaver’s Misconduct Warrants Incarceration for aSubstantial Period [122] Contempt of court is always a serious matter, as Mr. Beaver very well knows. The contempt of court process and penalty isrequired to enforce the operation and effectiveness of the court.

McLachlin J (as she then was) in United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta(Attorney General), (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 901 at 931, 89 DLR (4th) 609 said: ... The rule of law is at the heart of our society; without it there can be neither peace, nor order nor good government. The rule of law isdirectly dependent on the ability of the courts to enforce their process and maintain their dignity and respect. To maintain their processand respect, courts since the 12th century have exercised the power to punish for contempt of court. The contempt of court authority is what provides the court’s “teeth”.

If the court cannot and does not meaningfully deter persons fromignoring its orders, then the court is “toothless”. [123] Mr. Beaver cites Hatzitrifonos for the proposition that the “primary objective” for sentencing for civil contempt is individualdeterrence, to coerce the contemnor to comply with orders of the Court. Hatzitrifonos is a decision of the Ontario Superior Court. That isnot the law in Alberta.

Instead, in Alberta, punishment for civil contempt has two equal and complementary objectives: • Builders Energy Services Ltd v Paddock, 2009 ABCA 153 at para 13 [Paddock]: “The purpose of contempt proceedings istwofold: to ensure compliance with court orders and to punish the contemnor.” • Ouellet v BM, 2010 ABCA 240 at para 60: “The objectives of sanctions for civil contempt are twofold. The primary purpose is toachieve compliance with court orders and a second purpose is to punish the contemnor”.

I note that, in Ouellet v BM, the Alberta Court of Appeal did not classify punishment as a “secondary” purpose, but an additional,complementary, purpose. [124] Furthermore, the primacy of compliance rule is not also always the case in Ontario, either.

In Business Development Bank ofCanada v Cavalon Inc, 2017 ONCA 663, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37811, 37870 (2 August 2018) [Cavalon] the Court citedPaddock at para 81 in relation to the “dual purpose” of contempt sanctions, “to compel obedience and punish disobedience”. [125] Paddock at para 13 identifies the factors “... which the court should take into account ...” when determining punishment forcontempt:

1. the proportionality of the sentence to the wrongdoing, 2. the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors, 3. deterrence, and 4. reasonableness of a fine and appropriateness of incarceration The Ontario Court of Appeal has concluded that during the punishment phase of a contempt proceeding that specific and generaldeterrence are the “most important objectives”: Cavalon Inc at para 91; Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA574 at para 105 [Boily].

In Mella v 336239 Alberta Ltd (Dave’s Diesel Repair), 2016 ABCA 226 at para 35, Schutz JA adopted theapproach in Boily to evaluate the appropriate punishment for civil contempt. [126] I have found Mr. Beaver guilty of civil contempt. Civil contempt is different from criminal contempt because the prohibitedconduct in criminal contempt goes beyond the interests of the private litigants.

In BCGEU v British Columbia (Attorney General), (SCC), [1988] 2 SCR 214 at 237, Chief Justice Dickson described criminal contempt this way: Conduct designed to interfere with the proper administration of justice constitutes contempt of court which is said to be “criminal” in thatit transcends the limits of any dispute between particular litigants and constitutes an affront to the administration of justice as a whole ...[citation omitted.] Criminal contempt involves public defiance: United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta (Attorney General), (SCC), [1992] 1SCR 901 at 931-932, 89 DLR (4th) 609. [127] The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in Majormaki Holdings LLP v Wong, 2009 BCCA 349 at paras 20-25 [Majormaki],examined how “[t]he public interest in the administration of justice” may be implicated in a civil contempt proceeding, and warrant aharsher punishment.

In Majormaki, the contemnor blatantly and immediately breached a Mareva injunction: paras 4, 8. At trial thecontemnor apologized, but was incarcerated, because the contemnor’s conduct struck at “... the very ability of the court to enforce itsprocesses and thus at the rule of law itself.” Much like the Jura/Beaver arrangement, the contemnor in Majormaki (para 14) did notconduct his contempt in public: ... his breaches of court orders were covert; he wanted them to remain undetected.

While he made conscious efforts to subvert the role ofthe court, they were not intended to diminish public respect for the justice system. That meant this contempt was not a “criminal” contempt: para 20. [128] The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in Majormaki, concluded that the concealed misconduct that affected court functionmeant the contempt in question “transcended the interests of private litigants”, “threatens the proper administration of justice”, and thatwarranted a harsher penalty. [129] I conclude the kind of civil contempt in this case “transcends the interests” of Mr. Beaver and the LSA.

It is trite to say that theregulation of lawyers is critical to the operation of courts because of the special privileges vested in lawyers to represent others in legalproceedings, and the trust that flows from lawyers being officers of the Court. Further, appropriate legal representation is not merely alicencing question, but implicates the duties of the Court itself: ...

Each court has the responsibility to ensure that persons appearing before it are properly represented and (in the case of criminal law)defended, and to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the court generally. ... [R v Dick, 2002 BCCA 27 at para 7.] [130] I conclude that, as in Majormaki, an effective form of general and specific deterrence is required in response to Mr. Beaver’sillegal conduct. That favours incarceration. In Cavalon at para 85, the Ontario Court of Appeal identified that jail detention is appropriatewhere contempt was knowing, deliberate, and continued. Mr.

Beaver’s breach of the Beaver Practice #1 injunction meets all threecriteria. [131] The punishment imposed on Mr. Beaver must be proportionate to his misconduct. Mr. Beaver’s highly aggravatingconte

[…]