Case Brief:
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Gavris, 2015 ONLSTH 144.
Purpose:
The Law Society of Upper Canada brought an action against Mr. Yuir Garvis to the Law Society Tribunal. The Tribunal had to determine if professional misconduct occurred and if Mr. Garvis had reasonable grounds for an adjournment.
Facts: Law Society investigators sent 6 letters to Mr. Garvis and contacted him by telephone regarding two misconduct issues. The first accusation consisted of Mr. Garvis fraudulently obtaining a power of attorney, transferring title property to himself, and interfering with the sale of a property. The second accusation consisted of Mr. Garvis mishandling trust funds and acting outside the paralegal scope of practice. Mr. Garvis, received …show more content…
Aguirre, 2007 ONLSHP 46 (CanLII), the case was reviewed to determine the factors in a failure to co-operate case. The following matters were submitted as relevant: (i) the prior discipline history; (ii) while Mr. Gavris failure to engage with the application until the day before the hearing and his approach to the hearing suggest a failure to respect the regulatory process; (iii) Mr. Gavris has not yet co-operated as required; (iv) two investigations are impeded; and (v) the failure to co-operate with the first investigation commenced some 10 months ago, and the failure to co-operate with the second investigation commenced some five months …show more content…
McClinton, 2012 ONLSHP 43 (CanLII), Law Society of Upper Canada v. Noel, 2013 ONLSHP 75 (CanLII), and Law Society of Upper Canada v. Raytek, 2015 ONLSTH 30 (CanLII), were reviewed in order to decide the appropriate penalty.
[3] Adjournment was refused due to Mr. Garvis failing to comply with the rules of the Law Society and because he did not provide any evidence to support his defence.
Ratio Decidendi:
[1] All Law Society Members have an obligation to comply with the Law Society. The test to determine whether a member failed to comply; (i) Did the Law Society communicate with the licensee, requesting a response?; (ii) Did licensee fail to act in good faith to respond promptly and completely, given all the circumstances?
[2] The Tribunal concluded that a fixed one-month suspension followed by an indefinite suspension was appropriate in this case.
Disposition:
Adjournment denied. Paralegal license
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Gavris, 2015 ONLSTH 144.
Purpose:
The Law Society of Upper Canada brought an action against Mr. Yuir Garvis to the Law Society Tribunal. The Tribunal had to determine if professional misconduct occurred and if Mr. Garvis had reasonable grounds for an adjournment.
Facts: Law Society investigators sent 6 letters to Mr. Garvis and contacted him by telephone regarding two misconduct issues. The first accusation consisted of Mr. Garvis fraudulently obtaining a power of attorney, transferring title property to himself, and interfering with the sale of a property. The second accusation consisted of Mr. Garvis mishandling trust funds and acting outside the paralegal scope of practice. Mr. Garvis, received …show more content…
Aguirre, 2007 ONLSHP 46 (CanLII), the case was reviewed to determine the factors in a failure to co-operate case. The following matters were submitted as relevant: (i) the prior discipline history; (ii) while Mr. Gavris failure to engage with the application until the day before the hearing and his approach to the hearing suggest a failure to respect the regulatory process; (iii) Mr. Gavris has not yet co-operated as required; (iv) two investigations are impeded; and (v) the failure to co-operate with the first investigation commenced some 10 months ago, and the failure to co-operate with the second investigation commenced some five months …show more content…
McClinton, 2012 ONLSHP 43 (CanLII), Law Society of Upper Canada v. Noel, 2013 ONLSHP 75 (CanLII), and Law Society of Upper Canada v. Raytek, 2015 ONLSTH 30 (CanLII), were reviewed in order to decide the appropriate penalty.
[3] Adjournment was refused due to Mr. Garvis failing to comply with the rules of the Law Society and because he did not provide any evidence to support his defence.
Ratio Decidendi:
[1] All Law Society Members have an obligation to comply with the Law Society. The test to determine whether a member failed to comply; (i) Did the Law Society communicate with the licensee, requesting a response?; (ii) Did licensee fail to act in good faith to respond promptly and completely, given all the circumstances?
[2] The Tribunal concluded that a fixed one-month suspension followed by an indefinite suspension was appropriate in this case.
Disposition:
Adjournment denied. Paralegal license