Child abuser can practise law
Law Society seeks judicial review after losing appeal of July panel ruling
Over the strenuous objections of Ontario’s legal regulator, an appeal panel has confirmed that a man who sexually abused children can practise as a lawyer as long as he isn’t alone with minors — but his name remains a secret.
The Law Society of Ontario was appealing the case of AA, a man who admitted to abusing children over a three-month period in 2009 and whose identity is covered by a publication ban.
AA was found to be of “good character” to practise law by a hearing panel of the independent Law Society Tribunal last July, a case that gained public attention and outrage after first being reported by the Star. That panel said he could practise as long as he wasn’t alone with children.
While the regulator argued on appeal it made no sense to attach such a condition on the licence of someone found to be of good character — and that it suggested AA was an “ongoing risk to children” — a unanimous five-member appeal panel of the tribunal disagreed in a decision released last week.
“The tribunal order is intended to provide, and will have the effect of providing, extra protection to children, a vulnerable and disadvantaged group,” wrote lawyer Raj Anand for the panel, made up of four lawyers and one layperson.
The Law Society was successful last September in having AA temporarily blocked from being called to the bar, pending the outcome of this appeal, after it argued that the good-character ruling had “clearly jeopardized” the public’s confidence in the legal profession given the massive blowback.
The regulator said Thursday that it will seek a judicial review from the Divisional Court and request a stay of the appeal panel’s decision, which would continue to prevent AA from being called to the bar until the court has dealt with the review. His lawyer told the Star on Thursday he did not have instructions to comment.
If the court declines to grant a stay, AA will be entitled to be called to the bar. Should that happen, the condition that he not be alone with children will be included with his name on the Law Society’s public registry of lawyers, thereby identifying him.
“This will obviously create difficulty for the respondent on both a personal and professional level, but in this appeal, he has explicitly recognized and is prepared to deal with this,” Anand said. “He accepts, and we do as well, that the publication of the tribunal order will further protect the public interest.”
Anand wrote that licensing restrictions have been imposed on plenty of other lawyers and paralegals, including conditions to seek therapy or have their practice monitored. “These conditions did not improperly bootstrap tribunal orders that would otherwise have been deficient.”
On the Law Society’s overall argument that the hearing panel failed to properly weigh conflicting evidence in the case, the appeal panel concluded that in some instances, there was no contradiction, while in others, if there was an inconsistency, it was minor.
“There is no palpable and overriding error that requires correction by the appeal panel,” Anand wrote.
The abuse took place in an unidentified country where AA was studying to become a spiritual leader, and involved touching the children and being touched by them while clothed. He was never criminally charged. He later abandoned his studies and returned to Canada, where a child protection agency became aware of the abuse and recommended that he not be alone with children.
He first applied for a law licence in 2012, but did not disclose the abuse; the Law Society became aware of it through a tip, and AA abandoned his first application five years later.
In its good-character decision in July after AA reapplied for a licence, the hearing panel concluded that he is now open about acknowledging his past conduct and has actively sought treatment.