The Law Society Tribunal has ruled that additional documents submitted by both the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) and the licensee will not be admitted as evidence in an ongoing professional misconduct case.
The tribunal found that allowing new materials after an agreed statement of facts (ASF) and joint submission had been reached would fall outside the scope of the agreement between the parties.
The case involves allegations of sexual harassment against the licensee, R.Y.M., brought forward by two former employees—one a lawyer and the other a law clerk. Following an investigation, the LSO issued a notice of application alleging that R.Y.M. had committed professional misconduct under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The licensee later entered negotiations with the LSO, culminating in an ASF in which he admitted to certain allegations while contesting others. The parties jointly submitted the ASF and a recommended penalty of a four-month suspension and costs of $12,500.
A tribunal panel previously ruled that the licensee could not withdraw from this agreement. As a result, a hearing was scheduled to consider the ASF and joint submission.
Motion to admit new documents
Ahead of the hearing, the LSO sought to introduce a second victim impact statement (VIS) from one of the complainants, Person A, while the licensee attempted to submit a series of psychological reports regarding his mental health. Both documents were served after the ASF had been finalized and submitted.
The tribunal determined that neither set of documents was admissible. In its ruling, the panel stated that introducing new evidence would undermine the original agreement between the parties and the principles of procedural fairness.
“We are of the view that added information, especially added information related to events subsequent to the original record upon which the joint submission will be made, is outside the scope of the agreement and LSO’s undertaking to the licensee and the Tribunal,” the decision read.
Victim impact statement
The LSO argued that Person A had a right under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, 1995 to provide a VIS for consideration. However, the tribunal noted that Person A had already submitted a VIS as part of the agreed-upon record.
“The LSO has provided no authority supporting the proposition that the right of a complainant to provide a VIS is temporally unlimited and indefinite,” the ruling stated. “The interests of enabling the complainant to share the impact of the licensee’s wrongdoing on her have been addressed already.”
The tribunal further emphasized that the joint submission, which included the original VIS, had been compiled with the understanding that it formed the complete evidentiary record. As a result, the second VIS was ruled inadmissible.
Psychological reports
The tribunal also rejected the licensee’s attempt to introduce psychological reports, finding that these documents had not been included in the original agreement between the parties and were not part of the record supporting the joint submission.
The ruling referenced the public interest test, which sets a high threshold for departing from a joint submission. The tribunal noted that while adjudicators have the discretion to reject a joint submission that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, such a determination must be made based on the original record, not newly submitted materials.
“That means that like a trial judge in the criminal context, an adjudicator in the context of a professional regulatory panel like this one should not depart from a joint submission on sentence or penalty unless the proposed sentence or penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest,” the panel stated.
Tribunal’s approach
The tribunal emphasized that it must assess the joint submission “as-is,” considering only the materials available at the time the agreement was reached. If the panel had concerns about the adequacy of the penalty or other elements of the joint submission, it would invite further submissions from the parties before deciding whether to depart from the agreement.
“On this basis, the psychological opinion evidence proffered by the licensee is premature,” the ruling stated, reinforcing that the psychological reports could not be introduced at this stage.
Final order
The tribunal’s ruling confirmed that neither the second VIS nor the psychological reports would be admitted as evidence. The hearing will proceed based solely on the ASF and the previously agreed-upon submissions. The panel reiterated the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the terms of the negotiated agreement.
The hearing on the ASF and joint submission remains scheduled, where the tribunal will determine whether to accept the proposed penalty in accordance with the public interest test.
For more information, see Law Society of Ontario v Moubarak, 2025 ONLSTH 14 (CanLII).
