Disciplinary proceeding arose after suspended lawyer threw water cup at former partner
The Supreme Court of Canada has refused leave to appeal an appellate judgment dismissing a stay motion brought by a temporarily suspended lawyer who received a conditional discharge after pleading guilty to assault, mischief, and resisting arrest.
In this case, the appellant faced civil proceedings involving his former legal partners, who moved to appoint a case management judge. On Feb. 1, 2024, the appellant appeared at the Nova Scotia Provincial Court’s Pictou Courthouse to respond to the motion.
After the judge left the courtroom, the appellant threw a cup of water at one of his ex-partners, wetting him and his colleague. The appellant was uncooperative when the deputy sheriff told him he was under arrest for assault.
At an ex parte hearing, the Complaints Investigation Committee of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society chose to suspend the appellant from legal practice. On Feb. 8, 2024, at an inter partes hearing, the committee confirmed its prior decision to impose an interim suspension. The appellant obtained an interlocutory stay of his suspension, which he challenged on appeal.
In November 2024, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, lifting the interlocutory stay. The appeal court criticized the committee’s ex parte hearing. However, the appeal court said the inter partes hearing allowed the appellant to participate and cured any defects in the ex parte process.
On Dec. 5, 2024, the appeal court heard the appellant’s motion seeking a stay of its judgment, pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. During the hearing, the bar society’s evidence addressed the Feb. 1, 2024 events.
An agreed statement of facts referred to a July 31, 2024 incident. That day, the appellant was in the parking lot and about to leave the Pictou Courthouse. He spotted the prosecutor’s empty vehicle and threw coffee on the windshield. The statement also mentioned an Aug. 7, 2024 incident when the appellant was confrontational and uncooperative as police arrested him for mischief.
The appellant alleged that a stay would prevent a miscarriage of justice and irreparable harm. He added that the bar society was procedurally unfair and had no business disciplining him in relation to a private and personal dispute with his former legal partners.
The bar society claimed that the committee appropriately took interim disciplinary steps, given that some of the appellant’s conduct throughout the litigation was unprofessional on its face and unbecoming of a barrister, regardless of the underlying dispute.
On Dec. 13, 2024, in Fraser v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, 2024 NSCA 102, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay of its decision. The appeal court said exercising its discretion to refuse a stay would not cause a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal court discussed the three criteria in the test in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311.
First, on the question of whether there was a serious issue, the appeal court ruled that the following factors would make the low threshold more challenging to meet and diminish the possibility that the Supreme Court of Canada would grant leave:
Second, on the question of whether there was irreparable harm, the appeal court acknowledged that denying a stay would harm the appellant. However, the appeal court deemed the resulting harm likely reparable. The appeal court noted that disciplinary sanctions would plainly result in financial and other prejudice for professionals in various vocations.
Third, the appeal court held that the balance of convenience weighed against granting a stay and favoured letting the bar society regulate its members.
The appeal court measured public confidence in the regulatory process against the factual circumstances. The appeal court noted that:
Earlier this month, in Fraser v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, including or as represented by the Complaints Investigation Committee of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, et al, 2025 CanLII 51609 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his application for leave to appeal the appeal court’s November 2024 judgment with costs.
