Law Times

Law Times • may 29, 2017 Page 5 www.lawtimesnews.com NEWS Conduct found to be 'improper at times' Lawyer ordered to pay joint costs BY ALEX ROBINSON Law Times I n a rare decision, an Ontario Superior Court master has ordered costs personally against a lawyer. In Beatty v. Wei, Master Lou Ann Pope ordered costs jointly against lawyer John Lo Faso, and his client, Jonathan Beatty, over the lawyer's "improper" conduct during a cross-examination in a dispute. Pope found that Lo Faso had failed to comply with the rules lawyers must follow during examinations and "caused costs to be incurred" because of his conduct. "As such, I find that by his conduct, Mr. Lo Faso unneces- sarily and unreasonably length- ened the time to complete the cross-examination of Beatty, which has affected the quality of the examination record and will make it difficult for Wei's counsel to have it read into evi- dence at trial," Pope said in the decision. The dispute concerned an agreement with the other party, Zhong Wei, to buy a property from Beatty. Before closing, Wei had learned that the property had been used to grow marijuana and, therefore, refused to follow through on the purchase. Both parties filed applications claim- ing damages. Wei then sought costs against both Beatty and Lo Faso, citing rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which said the court can order a lawyer to pay costs when they create costs through unreasonable waste delay or other negligence. Pope found that Lo Faso's conduct during Wei's cross- examination of Beatty was "im- proper at times" and in breach of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The master found that Lo Faso had interfered with the cross-examination by objecting to proper questions, improperly answered questions on behalf of Beatty and had told Wei's lawyer what questions he should ask. ". . . Mr. Lo Faso interrupted the examination unnecessar- ily by failing to instruct Beatty not to answer the question and thereafter state brief ly the rea- son for his objection," Pope said in reference to a specific instance in the cross-examination. "Essentially Mr. Lo Faso en- gaged in a discussion and debate about the propriety of the ques- tion." Wei sought more than $11,079 in costs, as he claims a total of 53 hours have been spent on the motion. Pope deferred the amount they would pay in costs until all offers to settle the dispute were filed. Lawyers say there has always been a tension between lawyers advocating zealously on behalf of their clients and the courts' interest in the fairness of litiga- tion. Lawyers say this decision shows what can happen when an advocate goes too far and when courts are unimpressed with a counsel's conduct during the discovery process. "They want litigation to be efficient and fair and they want to decide cases on the merits and not engage in procedural games- manship," says Paul Michell, a lawyer with Lax O'Sullivan Li- sus Gottlieb LLP, who was not involved in the case. Michell says it is important for lawyers to bear in mind what the rules say about counsel's conduct during discovery. "Something that lawyers need to keep in mind is that your conduct in an examination is al- ways open to scrutiny," he says. Lo Faso did not respond to requests for comment. William Friedman, who rep- resented Wei, was unable to pro- vide comment by deadline. Harvin Pitch, a partner with Teplitsky Colson LLP, who was not involved in the case, says the case represents a seismic change in the way lawyers practise liti- gation today. "It's very dangerous not to take this case into account when you practise, because its ramifi- cations are very significant," he says. "The case illustrates that the old style of hard-ball aggres- sive and improper questioning, which was to some extent ac- cepted 20 years ago, is no longer acceptable for a variety of rea- sons." He says that courts are no longer willing to accept an ag- gressive approach if it stif les the evidence and bogs down litiga- tion in a proceeding. "It's dangerous, and even if you get away with it and are not penalized by a master, if you go to the motion or go to trial, the other side will read back your interference to show the judg- es that you have something to hide, or you wouldn't have been wood-shedding the witness to prevent him from answering," he says. Pitch says it is now more com- mon to see that kind of "bare- knuckle tactic" in the United States but that the Canadian bar and bench have been trying to move away from it. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear another case, Best v. Ranking, in which a lawyer was ordered to personally pay costs under Rule 57.07. In that case, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld more than $84,000 in costs against the lawyer for proceedings it found were vexatious. The court also ordered him to pay a further $30,000 for the appeal. Lawyers have voiced concern over that decision, as they thought it might create a chilling effect on the extent law- yers will zealously advocate for their clients. LT An Ontario Superior Court master has ordered costs personally against a lawyer. JUDICIAL VACANCY ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE OTTAWA The Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee advises the Attorney General of Ontario on the appointment of Judges to the Ontario Court of Justice, and invites applications for a judicial position in Ottawa. This appointment involves presiding over criminal law matters and also involves travel within the regional boundaries as assigned by the Regional Senior Justice and/or the Chief Justice. The minimum requirement to apply to be a Judge in the Ontario Court of Justice is ten years completed membership as a barrister and solicitor at the Bar of one of the Provinces or Territories of Canada. All candidates must apply either by submitting 14 copies of the current (February 2016) completed Judicial Candidate Information Form in the first instance or by a short letter (14 copies) if the current form has been submitted within the previous 12 months. Should you wish to change any information in your application, you must send in 14 copies of a fully revised Judicial Candidate Information Form. If you wish to apply and need a current Judicial Candidate Information Form, or if you would like further information, please contact: Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee Tel: (416) 326-4060 Fax: (416) 212-7316 Website: www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/jaac/ All applications, either sent by courier, mail or hand delivery, must be sent to: Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee c/o Ministry of Government Services Mail Delivery 77 Wellesley Street West, Room M2B-88 Macdonald Block, Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1N3 Applications must be on the current prescribed form and must be TYPEWRITTEN or COMPUTER GENERATED and RECEIVED BY 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 16, 2017. CANDIDATES ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 14 COPIES OF THEIR APPLICATION FORM OR LETTER. A Fax copy will be accepted only if 14 copies of the application or letter are sent concurrently by overnight courier. Applications received after this date WILL NOT be considered. The Judiciary of the Ontario Court of Justice should reasonably reflect the diversity of the population it serves. Applications from members of equality- seeking groups are encouraged. POSTE À POURVOIR AU SEIN DE LA MAGISTRATURE COUR DE JUSTICE DE L'ONTARIO OTTAWA Le Comité consultatif sur les nominations à la magistrature conseille le Procureur général de l'Ontario sur les nominations de juges à la Cour de justice de l'Ontario et invite les personnes intéressées à présenter leur demande au poste de juge à Ottawa. Cette nomination consiste à présider des causes criminelles et nécessite également des déplacements à l'intérieur des limites régionales, selon les assignations du juge principal régional ou du juge en chef. Pour pouvoir poser sa candidature à un poste de juge à la Cour de justice de l'Ontario, il faut, comme condition minimale, avoir été inscrit comme avocat-plaidant et procureur au barreau de l'une des provinces ou de l'un des territoires du Canada pendant au moins dix ans. Tous les candidats et candidates doivent poser leur candidature soit, dans le premier cas, en présentant le Formulaire de renseignements sur le candidat/la candidate à la magistrature courant (février 2016), soit en envoyant une courte lettre (en 14 exemplaires) si le formulaire courant a été présenté au cours des 12 mois précédents. En cas de changements à apporter à un formulaire déjà envoyé, le candidat ou la candidate doit envoyer à nouveau 14 exemplaires du formulaire de renseignements corrigé. Si vous voulez poser votre candidature et que vous avez besoin d'un Formulaire de renseignements sur le candidat/la candidate à la magistrature courant, ou encore si vous souhaitez obtenir de plus amples renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec : Comité consultatif sur les nominations à la magistrature Téléphone : (416) 326-4060 Télécopieur : (416) 212-7316 Site Web : www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/fr/jaac/ Toutes les demandes envoyées par service de messagerie, par la poste ou en main propre doivent être soumises à l'adresse suivante : Comité consultatif sur les nominations à la magistrature a/s Ministère des Services gouvernementaux - Services de distribution du courrier 77, rue Wellesley Ouest, salle M2B-88 Édifice Macdonald, Queen's Park Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1N3 Les demandes de candidature doivent être déposées par l'entremise du formulaire prescrit courant et DACTYLOGRAPHIÉES ou CRÉÉES PAR ORDINATEUR et reçues au plus tard à 16 h 30 le vendredi 16 juin 2017. LES CANDIDATS ET CANDIDATES DOIVENT FOURNIR 14 EXEMPLAIRES DE LEUR FORMULAIRE OU DE LEUR LETTRE DE CANDIDATURE. Une télécopie ne sera acceptée que si 14 exemplaires du formulaire ou de la lettre de candidature sont également envoyés par service de messagerie de 24 heures. On n'accordera AUCUNE considération aux candidatures reçues après cette date. La magistrature provinciale doit refléter raisonnablement la diversité de la population qu'elle sert. Nous encourageons les membres de groupes de promotion de l'égalité à présenter une demande. Untitled-5 1 2017-05-18 2:59 PM

• Cover