Ontario Criminal

Contempt of Court

Respondent’s conduct was of contumacious and egregious nature

Application by applicant for order finding respondent in contempt, and for order for imprisonment. Respondent had been disbarred from practicing law by applicant licensing organization. Applicant was ordered to discontinue representing himself or practicing as barrister or solicitor or by providing legal services in Ontario. Numerous previous proceedings for contempt orders resulted in findings of contempt and orders that respondent pay fines and costs. In letter drafted by respondent on behalf of his “clients”, respondent referred to himself as paralegal. Application granted. It was ordered that respondent serve term of imprisonment of 14 days. Respondent wilfully and deliberately disobeyed order. Respondent clearly represented and held himself out to be paralegal, provided legal services by negotiating legal interests, rights or responsibilities of person, and represented person in proceeding, all contrary to s. 26.1 of Law Society Act (Ont.) and contrary to order. Respondent’s conduct was of contumacious and egregious nature. While respondent had partially purged his contempt, he had not completely done. Period of incarceration was required. Financial penalty appeared to be ineffective as applicant did not pay fines.

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Fingold

(May 18, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., DiTomaso J., File No. CV-10-0100008-00) 215 A.C.W.S. (3d) 625 (11 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?