December 2007 Upcoming Hearings

(as of November 20, 2007 )

WING LIN WONG

From: Town of Markham, Ontario

To be heard: December 3, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Elizabeth Parenteau
Licensee’s Counsel: not represented

Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated October 11,
2007:

1. You breached Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that you failed to
respond to communications from the Law Society including a telephone call on
January 30, 2007 and letters dated April 9, 2007, May 16, 2007 and June 7, 2007.

MARGARET CAIRINE BEST

From: City of Yellowknife, North West Territories

To hear submissions on penalty: December 3, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Suzanne Jarvie
Member’s Counsel: not represented

Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated November
1, 2006:

1. Between May 19, 2004 and September 9, 2004, you misappropriated the sum of
$7,503.00, in total, more or less, which you held in trust on behalf of your client B.B.;
and
2. From May 2002 to November 2005, inclusive, you failed to maintain the books and
records of your law practice as required by By-law 18, made under the Law Society Act;
and

3. You failed to serve your client, T.C., in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, by:

a) failing to forward documentation to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in

furtherance of T.C.’s case, despite being instructed and agreeing to do so;
b) failing to subsequently advise T.C. that you did not forward documentation to the
Ontario Human Rights Commission and that the documentation was lost;
c) failing to communicate with T.C., who resided in Peterborough, regarding your
inability to attend a pre-arranged meeting at your home in Toronto on February 9,
2004.
 2

ROBIN DOUGLAS SCOTT

From: Town of Whitby, Ontario

To be heard: December 4 and 5, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Scott Clarke
Licensee’s Counsel: Louis Strezos

Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated May 31,
2007:

1. You failed to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of your client, AB, to the
standard of a competent lawyer, contrary to Rule 2.01 (2) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, by failing to secure title insurance in respect of a property upon its purchase by
AB.

2. You failed to be honest and candid when advising AB, your client, contrary to Rule 2.02
(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by misleading AB to believe that you had
secured title insurance in respect of a property when you had not.

3. You failed to reply to communication from the Law Society, contrary to Rule 6.02 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to respond to communication from a Law
Society investigator.

4. You failed to fulfill an undertaking given to the Law Society, contrary to Rule 6.03 (8) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, namely, an undertaking, dated 13 December 2006, to
fully comply with the requirements of Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

5. You failed to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of your client, MB, to the
standard of a competent lawyer, contrary to Rule 2.01 (2) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, by failing to provide to MB copies of an original will and power of attorney as
requested by her and by failing to respond to communications from MB in a timely
manner.

6. You failed to perform legal services undertaken on behalf of your purchaser client, KS, to
the standard of a competent lawyer, contrary to Rule 2.01 (2) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, by failing to have removed from title of a property a right of first refusal upon
the closing of a real estate transaction, by failing to provide to KS a reporting letter and
closing documents following a real estate transaction, and by failing to respond to
communications from KS in a timely manner.

7. You failed to fulfill an undertaking given to Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor,
contrary to Rule 6.03 (8) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to obtain and
register a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property in accordance with your
undertaking to do so given to Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor.

8. You failed to answer communications from Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor,
another lawyer, which communications required an answer, contrary to Rule 6.03 (6) of
 3

the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to respond to communications from

Douglas Walker, Barrister & Solicitor, regarding your failure to obtain and register a
discharge of mortgage in respect of a property in accordance with your undertaking to do
so.

9. You failed to meet financial obligations in relation to your practice, contrary to Rule 6.01
(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to reimburse Douglas Walker,
Barrister & Solicitor, for expenses incurred by him in obtaining and registering a
discharge of mortgage in respect of a property following your failure to do so in
accordance with your undertaking.

10. You failed to conduct yourself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the
profession, contrary to Rule 6.01 (1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to
provide to RD, who was not your client, but who was a party to a real estate transaction
in respect of which you acted, a Transfer/Deed of Land in accordance with your
assurance to RD that you would do so and by failing to respond to communications from
RD regarding your failure to provide to RD a Transfer/Deed of Land.

11. You failed to fulfill an undertaking given to Peter C. Heath, Barrister & Solicitor,
contrary to Rule 6.03 (8) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to obtain and
register a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property in accordance with your
undertaking to do so given to Peter C. Heath, Barrister & Solicitor.

12. You failed to answer with reasonable promptness communications from Peter C. Heath,
Barrister & Solicitor, another lawyer, which communications required an answer,
contrary to Rule 6.03 (6) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to respond to
communications from Peter C. Heath, Barrister & Solicitor, regarding your failure to
obtain and register a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property in accordance with
your undertaking to do so.

13. You failed to meet financial obligations in relation to your practice, contrary to Rule 6.01
(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to reimburse Peter C. Heath, Barrister
& Solicitor, within a reasonable period of time for expenses incurred by him in obtaining
and registering a discharge of mortgage in respect of a property following your failure to
do so in accordance with your undertaking.
 4

THOMAS CHARLES O’MALLEY

From: City of Oshawa, Ontario

To be heard: December 4 and 5, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Lisa Freeman
Licensee’s Counsel: Louis Strezos

Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated May 8, 2007:

1. You breached Rules 3.04 and 3.05 when you distributed or caused to be distributed the
following letters and advertisement:

i. your letter dated April 22, 2005 entitled “Announcing A Real Estate Lawyer Who
Actually Guarantees Excellent Service For Your Clients”;

ii. the advertisement you placed in Issue 13, Vol. 3 of the magazine “Ten Eight” in
April/May 2005;

iii. your letter to existing clients, dated July 8, 2005, promising them a digital camera in
exchange for their business.

KENNETH WOLFGANG MOVAT

From: City of Toronto, Ontario

To be heard: December 4 and 5, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Susan Heakes
Licensee’s Counsel: Joseph Castaldo

Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated May 15,
2007:

1. You executed an undertaking dated March 2, 2005 in which you acknowledged that your
client had delivered to you the sum of $120,000.00 to be held in trust for another party
when in fact you had not received that money;

2. You executed an undertaking dated March 2, 2005 in which you acknowledged that your
client had delivered to you the sum of $364,765.35 to be held in trust for another party
when in fact you had not received that money; and,
3. You misled another counsel by advising him that security for specific bonds (in the
amounts of $120,000.00 and $364,765.35) were being held in trust when in fact it was
not.
 5

BILL WONG

From: City of Toronto, Ontario

To continue to be heard: December 6, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Naomi Overend
Member’s Counsel: Jerry Herszkopf

Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated July 18,
2006:

1. In or about November 1999 you, through your corporation, 1208143 Ontario Ltd.,
borrowed money from your client, B.S., in breach of Rule 7 of the then Rules of
Professional Conduct;

2. In the alternative to particular 1, in or about November 1999, 1208143 Ontario Ltd., a

corporation in which you had a substantial interest, borrowed money from you client,
B.S., without the client’s interests being protected, and despite the fact the client was not
independently represented in this transaction;

3. In the alternative to particulars 1 and 2, in or about November 1999, you represented B.S.
with respect to an investment in 1208143 Ontario Ltd., a corporation in which you had an
interest, without ensuring that the client’s interests were protected by the client receiving
independent legal advice and without obtaining a written certificate of independent legal
advice;

4. On or about September 26, 2000, you advised your client, B.S., to make a further
investment in or loan to 1208143 Ontario Ltd., a corporation in which you had an
interest, without ensuring that your client’s interests were protected by the client
receiving independent legal representation or advice;

5. In or about December 2001, you forged B.S.’s signature on a trading authorization with
Brant Security;

6. In or about May 2002, you amended the November 4, 1999 Agreement between you,
1208143 Ontario Ltd. and B.S, to transfer $100,000 of the $200,000 shareholder loan
from B.S. to yourself, without the knowledge or authorization of B.S.;

7. In or about November 1999 and September 2000, you took money for your fees and
disbursements from trust without first rendering an account;

8. On or about September 26, 2000, November 6, 2001 and February 7, 2002, you
misappropriated $43,926.21 by removing the money from your trust account that was in
respect of (a) disbursements which had been previously paid, (b) a fictitious disbursement
and (c) advances which were improperly characterized as disbursements;

9. You rendered an account, dated November 6, 2001, in which you charged amounts for
disbursements that were not fair and reasonable;
 6

10. You rendered an account, dated February 2, 2002, in which you charged amounts for fees
and disbursements that were not fair and reasonable;

11. You rendered an account, dated February 2, 2002, in which you failed to adequately and
clearly detail the amounts charged for fees and disbursements;

12. You failed to provide a copy of your account, dated February 2, 2002, to your client,
B.S., until December 2003;

13. In or about December 2001, you failed to deposit $94,000 provided by your client, B.S.,
to trust;

14. On or about July 23, 2002, you commissioned a document that was not signed in your
presence;

15. On or about July 24, 2002, you failed to act with integrity by encouraging your client,
B.S., to forge his daughter’s signature on documents in connection with a real estate
transaction;

16. On or about July 24, 2002, you submitted documents for registration with respect to the
L.L. purchase that contained these forged signatures;

17. On or about July 24, 2002, you transferred an amount from trust to general for your fees
and disbursements in the L.L. purchase transaction, without first issuing a fee billing;

18. In or about November 2002, you misled the Law Society by advising it that you did not
close the L.L. purchase transaction; and

19. You failed to produce the L.L. client file/documents to the Law Society.
 7

ALIAMISSE OMAR MUNDULAI

From: City of Toronto, Ontario

To be heard: December 6, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Deborah McPhadden
Licensee’s Counsel: not represented

Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated September
21, 2007:

1. In or about the period October 2006 to September 2007, you failed to cooperate with an
investigation being conducted into your conduct by the Law Society, by failing to provide
information requested, including:
a. the names of clients for whom you are acting in criminal matters,
b. the names and phone numbers of agents appearing in court on your behalf in criminal
matters, and
c. the dates and locations of the courthouses where agents have appeared on your behalf
in criminal matters since September 28, 2006.

MARVIN BARRY SHIFMAN

From: Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario

To be heard: December 6, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Danielle Smith
Licensee’s Counsel: not represented

Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated October 19,
2007:

1. You breached Rule 6.02 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as sections
49.2 and 49.3 of the Law Society Act, in that you failed to respond substantively to
communications from the Law Society and you failed to cooperate with the Law
Society’s attempts to schedule a date for a Spot Audit of your practice starting on
March 21, 2006, despite communications from the Law Society between March
2006 up to and including June 1, 2007.
 8

MICHAEL JAMES TAYLOR

From: City of Toronto, Ontario

To be heard: December 6, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Amanda Worley
Licensee’s Counsel: not represented

Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated September
19, 2007:

1. You failed to co-operate with the Law Society regarding a complaint made by J.W.L. in that
you failed to produce the requested information and documents despite communications to
you from the Law Society’s investigator on November 24, December 11 and December 27,
2006 and, January 22, January 25 and March 22, 2007.

2. You failed to co-operate with the Law Society regarding a complaint made by B.F. in that
you failed to produce the requested information and documents despite communications to
you from the Law Society’s investigator on February 13, March 7, March 22 and April 13,
2007.

3. You failed to reply to the Law Society regarding an inquiry into your failure to report a
matter LawPRO, despite communications to you by the Law Society’s investigator on
December 14, 2006 and March 19, April 23 and May 8, 2007.

Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated October 29,
2007:

1. You failed to co-operate with the Law Society regarding complaints made by R.C., J.Q. and
W.P., in that you failed to produce the requested information and documents despite
communications to you from the Law Society’s investigator on May 3 and May 8, June 1,
June 12, June 27, July 12, July 26 and August 9, 2007.
 9

PRETAM KAUR PUREWAL

From: City of Brampton, Ontario

To hear submissions on penalty: December 10, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Sean Dewart
Member’s Counsel: not represented

Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated February 2,
2006:

1. In the period from May 2002 to April 2003,

a. you failed to serve your clients Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank
of Nova Scotia, MCAP Mortgage Corporation, TD Canada Trust and CIBC
Mortgages Inc. (the “Clients”) in a conscientious and diligent fashion and to
perform legal services to the standard of a competent lawyer when acting and
reporting on the mortgage financing of the properties listed in Schedule A
annexed hereto (the “Transactions”);
b. you were not honest and candid in advising your Clients in and while acting on
the Transactions;
c. you knowingly assisted in or encouraged dishonesty, fraud, crime and/or illegal
conduct in and when acting on the Transactions;
d. you failed to handle property, in the form of mortgage loan advances entrusted to
you by your Clients, as a careful and prudent owner would when dealing with
property of like description;
e. you failed to observe all relevant rules and law about the preservation of the
Clients property, entrusted to you;
f. you appropriated trust funds for the payment of fees and disbursements otherwise
than as permitted by by-laws under the Law Society Act; and
g. you failed to conduct yourself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the
profession in and while acting on the Transactions;

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

SCHEDULE “A’

1. Property: 113 Tisdale – Hamilton

Date: April 2002
Borrower: Miller
Lender: Bank of Montreal
 10

2. Property: 567 Dufferin Street – Toronto

Date: May 2002
Borrower: Green/Wiggan
Lender: Bank of Nova Scotia

3. Property: 14 Alameda Ave. – Toronto

Date: May 2002
Borrower: Fazil
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada

4. Property: 80 Sherman Avenue – Toronto

Date: June 2002
Borrower: Tennant
Lender: Bank of Montreal

5. Property: 362 Harvie Avenue – Toronto

Date: July 2002
Borrower: Watson
Lender: MCAP Mortgage Corporation

6. Property: 246 Wellington Street – Brantford

Date: July 2002
Borrower: Miller
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada

7. Property: 39 Ross Street – St. Thomas

Date: August 2002
Borrower: Thomson
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada

8. Property: 11 Blakley Avenue – Toronto

Date: October 2002
Borrower: Corion
Lender: MCAP Mortgage Corporation

9. Property: 137 Taylor Avenue – Kirkland Lake

Date: November 2002
Borrower: Gagne
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada
 11

10. Property: 27 Francis Street – Hamilton

Date: November 2002
Borrower: Evans/Rouse
Lender: TD Canada Trust

11. Property: 156 Mill Street – Kitchener

Date: December 2002
Borrower: Rennick/Hassanali
Lender: CIBC Mortgages Inc.

12. Property: 236 Sterling Road – Toronto

Date: December 2002
Borrower: Nunes/Liu
Lender: Bank of Nova Scotia

13. Property: 204 Wellington Street – Chatham

Date: December 2002
Borrower: Clermont/Frenzel
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada

14. Property: 2040 Concession 2 – Alfred Lefaivre

Date: December 2002
Borrower: Edwards
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada

15. Property: 630 Elm Street – Port Colborne

Date: January 2003
Borrower: Brown
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada

16. Property: 89 Clyde Street – Hamilton

Date: February 2003
Borrower: Baidwan/Wickramasinghe
Lender: CIBC Mortgages Inc.

17. Property: 86 Ashley Street – Hamilton

Date: February 2003
Borrower: Chin
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada
 12

18. Property: 113 Tisdale, Hamilton

Date: February, 2003
Borrower: Liu/Nunes
Lender: CIBC Mortgages Inc.

19. Property: 22 Louis Street – Port Colborne

Date: May 2003
Borrower: Khan
Lender: Royal Bank of Canada

CONSTANTINO GIOVANNI D’AGOSTINO

From: City of North Bay, Ontario

To be heard the week of: December 10 to 14, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Tanus Rutherford
Licensee’s Counsel: Charles M. Loopstra, Q.C.

Particulars of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated May 23,
2007:

1. You breached Rule 2.02(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”), in that:
(a) you participated in or knowingly assisted in dishonest or fraudulent conduct to
obtain mortgage funds under false pretences in connection with the purchase and
mortgage transactions (the “Transactions”) involving the properties (the
“Properties”) identified in Schedule A hereto; or
(b) alternatively, you failed to be on guard against being duped when advising your
clients in connection with the Transactions.

2. You breached Rule 2.02(1) of the Rules, by failing to be honest and candid when
advising your lender clients in connection with the Transactions. In particular, you failed
to disclose material facts to your lender clients, including the following:
(a) each Property was transferred twice on the same day with a significant price
increase;
(b) the purchaser received a credit on closing for a further deposit not specified in the
Agreement of Purchase and Sale;
(c) the purchaser’s closing costs, legal fees and other expenses were deducted from
the balance due on closing to the interim vendor; and
(d) the purchaser did not contribute any funds on closing towards a down payment,
closing costs or legal fees.
 13

3. You breached Rule 2.01(2) of the Rules, by failing to serve your lender clients in a
conscientious and diligent manner, or to the standard of a competent lawyer in connection
with all of the Transactions. In particular:
(a) you failed to disclose material facts to your lender clients, as set out in particular 2
above;
(b) you failed to follow the express written instructions of your lender client; and
(c) you failed to make reasonable inquiries into the re-sales, further deposits, and
closing cost deductions.

SCHEDULE “A”

964 Galt Street, North Bay

631 Dane Avenue, North Bay

1238 Derland Road, Corbeil

208 Highland Road, North Bay

850 Lakeshore Drive, Unit 21, North Bay

19 Mercer Drive, North Bay

41 Van Horne Crescent, North Bay

PETER GUY MARTIN

From: City of Toronto, Ontario

To be heard the week of: December 10 to 14, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Scott Clarke
Member’s Counsel: not represented

Particular of alleged professional misconduct from the Notice of Application dated April 17,
2007:

1. You held yourself out as or represented yourself to be a barrister or solicitor while your
rights and privileges were suspended, contrary to s. 50(1)(a) of the Law Society Act, in
accounts that you rendered to Legal Aid Ontario as a solicitor for work performed while you
were suspended.
 14

IDORENYIN EDET AMANA

From: City of Cornwall, Ontario

To be heard: December 14, 2007
LSUC Counsel: Louise Hurteau
Member’s Counsel: not represented

Particulars of alleged conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor from the Amended Notice of
Application dated May 28, 2007:

1. On or about February 15, 2006, you were found guilty of the offence of illegally practicing
the profession of advocate in the Province of Québec contrary to sections 132, 133, 136(a)
and 136(e)4 of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, R.S.Q. chapter B-1, the specific of
the offence reading as follows:

À Montréal, district de Montréal, aux mois de septembre et d’octobre 2005, Idorenyin Edet Amana,
n’étant point inscrit au Tableau de l’Ordre des avocats du Québec, a pris le titre d’avocat et s’est
annoncé comme avocat dans le journal LES NOUVELLES CHINOISES, dans les éditions publiées
les 28 octobre et 4 novembre 2005, le tout contrairement aux articles 132, 133, 136(a) et 136 (e)(4) de
la LOI SUR LE BARREAU (L.R.Q. c.B.1)

2. On or about February 15, 2006, you were found guilty of the offence of illegally practicing
the profession of advocate in the Province of Québec contrary to sections 132, 133(c), 136
(a) et 136(c)2 of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, R.S.Q. chapter B-1,specific of
the offence reading as follows:

À Montréal, district de Montréal, au mois de septembre 2005, Idorenyin Edet Amana, n’étant point
inscrit au Tableau de l’Ordre des avocats du Québec, a pris le titre d’avocat auprès de Jiefang Huang
dans une lettre envoyée à celui-ci, datée du 30 septembre 2005, ayant ainsi exercé illégalement la
profession d’avocat, le tout contrairement aux articles 132, 133c), 136 a) et 136c)2 de la LOI SUR
LE BARREAU (L.R.Q. c.B.1)

3. On or about October 31, 2006, you were found guilty of illegally practicing the profession of
an advocate in the Province of Québec contrary to sections 132, 133(b), 133(c) and 136(a) of
the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec and section 188 of the Professional Code R.S.Q.
chapter c-26, the specific of the offence reading as follows:

À Montréal, district de Montréal, le ou vers le 17 mars 2006, M. Idorenyin Edet Amana, n’étant point
inscrit au Tableau de l’Ordre des avocats du Québec , a pris le titre d’avocat et s’est annoncé comme
tel dans le journal LES NOUVELLES CHINOISES dans l’édition du 17 mars 2006, le tout
contrairement aux articles 132, 133b), 133c) et 136a) de la LOI SUR LE BARREAU (L.R.Q. c. B.1)
contrairement également à l’article 188 du CODE DES PROFESSIONS (L.R.Q. c. C-26)