) ) JORAM GOLD Applicant – v. –, 2013 ONSC 1229

CITATION : Gold v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2013 ONSC 1229 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 228/12 DATE: 20130225 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, HERMAN AND FRANK JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) JORAM GOLD Applicant – and – THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA Respondent )) )) )) )) )) Self Represented Susan J. Heakes and Joshua D.

Elcombe , for the Respondent ) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: February 25, 2013 SWINTON J. (orally) [ 1 ] The applicant Joram Gold seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada dated May 3, 2012, dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Hearing Panel dated May 18, 2011 that dismissed his application for a paralegal licence because he had not met the good character requirement in s. 27(2) of the Law Society Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.

L. 8. [ 2 ] The applicant argues that he was denied procedural fairness by the Hearing Panel because he was not given sufficient assistance in the hearing; he was not given an opportunity to be heard on several rulings; and he was not given adequate disclosure of the issues, in particular, the issue of the timing of his payments. [ 3 ] The Appeal Panel correctly found there was no denial of procedural fairness. The Appeal Panel examined the applicant’s arguments in detail and concluded at paras. 35 and 36 of its Reasons: 35.

Overall, it is apparent to us that throughout the three day hearing, the hearing panel took account of relative capabilities of the two sides, and was at pains to do what it properly could to allow the appellant to provide his version of events and his position. The panel struck a proper and flexible balance between intervention and detachment in order to allow the parties – not the panel – to present the case, while keeping the hearing on track in terms of time and subject-matter where necessary. 36.

At the commencement of the hearing there are instances where the Chair wishes to move matters along and shows a reluctance to act as the appellant’s instructor. Nevertheless, the overriding sense we receive from the transcript is one of a Chair assisting and accommodating the appellant in the calling of his numerous witnesses and the presentation of his own evidence.

She sets out the panel’s concerns and explains things to the appellant, including where he goes wrong from time to time as an advocate. [ 4 ] With respect to disclosure of the issue concerning the timing of payment, the Appeal Panel reasonably rejected this argument for the reasons found at paras. 40 to 42 of its Reasons. [ 5 ] The applicant also challenges the finding of the Appeal Panel that he gave an untruthful answer to Question 11 on his L1

application. There is no merit to this argument, as the applicant made a “patently false statement” on that application, as the Appeal Panel found. [ 6 ] The applicant also takes issue with the Appeal Panel’s failure to overturn findings of credibility made by the Hearing Panel, the Hearing Panel’s treatment of certain medical reports, and its finding of inadequate disclosure to six referees. Essentially, the applicant is seeking to reargue his case on the merits and to have this Court reweigh the evidence.

That is not our role on judicial review. [ 7 ] The standard of review respecting the decision of the Appeal Panel on the merits is reasonableness. The Appeal Panel gave clear and logical reasons why it rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Hearing Panel. While the Appeal Panel found that the Hearing Panel erred in relying on Dr. McDonald’s report, the Appeal Panel nevertheless found the Hearing Panel’s credibility finding to be reasonable, as set out in para. 68 of its Reasons.

We agree with the Appeal Panel’s conclusion. [ 8 ] The decision of the Appeal Panel to uphold the Hearing Panel was reasonable. The good character hearing was fair, and the Hearing Panel’s findings were amply supported by the evidence. The costs order against the applicant was reasonable and took into account the applicant’s submissions by reducing the amount awarded to the Law Society. [ 9 ] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 10 ] I have endorsed the Application Record, “This application is dismissed for oral reasons delivered in Court.

Costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.” SWINTON J. HERMAN J. FRANK J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 25, 2013 Date of Release: March 1, 2013 CITATION : Gold v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2013 ONSC 1229 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 228/12 DATE: 20130225 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, HERMAN AND FRANK JJ. BETWEEN:

JORAM GOLD Applicant – and – THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA Respondent ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SWINTON J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 25, 2013 Date of Release: March 1, 2013