|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In December 2005, after
Sharon had graduated from Law School and had written the bar
admission exams, she worked at a law firm to complete the mandatory
10 months of articles (apprenticeship). Once she completed articling, she would be
called to the bar and admitted to the Law Society as a
lawyer.
While Sharon
was in the midst of articling, the two lawyers who had represented Lisa's nurses,
Marlys Edwardh
and Elizabeth McIntyre, made a complaint about Sharon to the Law Society of Upper Canada (the
governing body of lawyers in Ontario). They told the Law
Society that Sharon was unfit to practice and
was of bad character, and that she should be denied admission to the
bar.
The Law Society
adopted the complaint of these two prominent lawyers as its own, and
ordered Sharon to appear at an admission
hearing where it attempted to argue that she was not of good
character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On August 18,
2006, a Hearing Panel, composed of benchers (similar to directors)
of the Law Society, found
that Sharon was a person who throughout her entire adult life was
possessed of the "highest integrity, candour, empathy, and honesty", that she was of
good character, and that she should be admitted to the bar.
Sharon was admitted to the bar in
September 2006 and has since been practicing as a lawyer.
On June
28, 2007, the same Hearing Panel ordered the Law Society to pay
Sharon $91,500 (on a substantial indemnity basis) to compensate
her for most of the legal costs she had incurred. The Hearing Panel
found that the admission hearing had been
completely unwarranted right from the start, and that the Law Society had had evidence in hand that Sharon was of
good character back in March 2006 when she first responded to the
complaint that had been made against her.
The Law Society
appealed the decision of its own Hearing Panel on costs (it did not
appeal the decision that she was of good character). On
April 24, 2008, an Appeal Panel overturned the Hearing Panel's
decision on costs. The Appeal Panel - a panel made up of
five benchers of the Law Society, none of whom were on the original
Hearing Panel - decided that the Law
Society should not have to pay any costs, that the original Hearing
Panel was completely wrong when it decided that the hearing had been
unwarranted right from the start, and that the Law Society's actions
had been proper and justified in every respect.
Sharon has
appealed this decision, but the judicial review has not yet taken
place. This time, however, the appeal will be heard and decided by
three judges of the Superior Court of Justice rather than by members
of the Law Society itself.
|
|
Newspaper
articles/columns: |
|
|
June
24, 2006: Globe
& Mail - A CALL to the BAR |
|
|
Aug.
15, 2006: Toronto
Star - Mother regrets `terrible' mistake
|
|
|
Aug.
15, 2006: Globe
& Mail - A lawyer's 'good character' indeed |
|
|
Aug.
16, 2006: Globe
& Mail - Forever her daughter's keeper |
|
|
Aug.
17, 2006: Toronto
Star - Fast ruling likely on Shore's quest
|
|
|
Aug.
18, 2006: Globe
& Mail - A touch of kindness at end of a hard
road |
|
|
Aug. 19,
2006: Globe
& Mail - Student lawyer 'of good character,'
panel says |
|
|
Aug. 21,
2006: Toronto
Star - Would-be lawyer `of good character' |
|
|
May 17,
2008: Globe
& Mail - Being held to the sternest of tests is good
- if it's applied to all |
|
|
Law
Society decisions: |
|
|
Aug.
18, 2006: decision on
admission |
|
|
June
28, 2007: decision on
costs |
|
|
April
24, 2008: appeal decision on costs |
|
