A lawyer who tried to withdraw from an agreed statement of facts (ASF) in a professional misconduct case has been ordered to pay $140,000 in costs after bringing four unsuccessful motions to the Law Society Tribunal.
The tribunal ordered R.Y.M. to pay $120,000 to the Law Society of Ontario and $20,000 to a third party who became involved in the proceedings due to allegations made against them by the lawyer.
Background of the case
The lawyer had been facing allegations of sexually harassing two female employees between 2017 and 2019. In January 2023, he negotiated and signed an agreed statement of facts that included an agreement on penalty and costs.
However, by April 2023, the lawyer filed a motion to withdraw from the ASF, claiming he lacked the voluntariness to sign it due to past abuse allegedly perpetrated by his father and another individual identified only as “Person C.” He also alleged he was misled by Law Society counsel before signing the ASF and that the document itself was misleading.
This motion triggered several additional procedural motions, multiple case management conferences, and examinations of non-parties, significantly delaying the proceedings and increasing costs for all involved.
Failed motions
The tribunal noted the lawyer was unsuccessful in all four motions he brought:
- A motion to set aside the agreed statement of facts
- A motion for production of texts he previously exchanged with the complainants
- A motion to disqualify Law Society counsel
- A motion related to lawyer-client communications (referred to as the “Trudell motion”)
Additionally, “Person C” filed a motion seeking a Rule 13 (not public) order to protect their privacy, which was granted on consent and unopposed by the lawyer.
Costs reasoning
In awarding costs, the tribunal emphasized that costs awards against licensees “are not intended to be punitive; rather, it is an attempt to avoid all licensees bearing the expense through payment of annual legal fees.”
The tribunal considered several factors in determining the amount:
Complexity
The tribunal noted that what began as a straightforward matter with an agreed statement of facts “morphed from one motion to five motions” and “ballooned from two parties reaching agreement into a complicated and contentious matter involving non-parties, an intervenor and additional counsel.”
Reasonable expectation of costs
The lawyer had been warned multiple times about escalating costs by Law Society counsel, beginning in April 2023 and again in January 2024 when costs were “approaching $100,000.” Despite these warnings and several unsuccessful motions, the lawyer persisted with the ASF motion.
“The Licensee could have withdrawn the ASF motion at any point,” the tribunal stated. “He could have done so when advised by counsel about the anticipated costs. He could have done so when he was not successful on any motion leading up to the ASF motion in an attempt to minimize risk.”
The tribunal rejected the lawyer’s proposal to pay only $12,500 – the same amount he had initially agreed to in early 2023 – noting he “cannot now reasonably expect to pay that amount years later where significant costs have been incurred.”
Third-party costs
In the unusual step of awarding costs to a third party, the tribunal determined that “Person C” deserved compensation because they were “drawn into the proceeding by the actions of the Licensee and incurred costs to protect his privacy interests.”
The tribunal found that Person C “had a direct interest in the subject matter of the proceeding” because the lawyer’s allegations against them could have caused “reputational harm.”
While Person C had sought $71,340.38 in costs, the tribunal reduced this to $20,000, noting that after the initial Rule 13 order was granted, “the file largely became a watching brief for Person C’s counsel where the primary purpose was to redact materials to protect Person C’s identity.”
Financial hardship claim rejected
The tribunal rejected the lawyer’s claim that the costs would cause financial hardship, noting: “When a licensee asserts that he is unable to pay a costs award then he must provide evidence of his financial situation. No evidence was provided to substantiate his claim that he cannot pay costs sought.”
Payment schedule
The tribunal ordered the lawyer to pay the $120,000 to the Law Society in four equal installments of $30,000, with payments due by June 1, 2025, December 1, 2025, June 1, 2026, and December 1, 2026.
The $20,000 payment to Person C must be made by July 21, 2025.
Both orders specify that interest will accrue at a rate of 5% per year on any overdue amounts.
For more information, see Law Society of Ontario v Moubarak, 2025 ONLSTH 55 (CanLII).
