In the annals of crazy but true, an Ontario court has upheld a shocking decision that allows a self-confessed child sex abuser to practise law.
Recommended Videos
And, of course, we’re still not allowed know his name.
His identity is under a court-ordered publication ban designed to protect his children – at least one is an adult – from the psychological harm of knowing what their daddy once did. Never mind the public. So, he can only be identified as A.A.
Despite their third loss at blocking this man from becoming a licensed lawyer, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) has vowed to appeal to Ontario’s highest court and will be seeking a stay that would prevent A.A. from hanging out his shingle in the meantime.
In the latest victory in his long fight to be licensed in Ontario, the Divisional Court ruled it was “reasonable” for a tribunal to find A.A. was of “good character” to practise law. The panel refused to interfere with the anonymization of his name and also ordered the Law Society – which has fought him every step of the way – to pay $10,000 in his legal costs.
Well, at least the Divisional Court acknowledged A.A.’s misconduct was “serious.”
According to court documents, A.A. was a once-aspiring spiritual leader in another country when he began experiencing symptoms of “sexual dysfunction.” During a two-month period in 2009, he engaged in three acts of sexual abuse of minor children that involved touching them and being touched by them while clothed.
Never criminally charged, he was outed after being confronted by the father of one of his victims. He disclosed what he did to his then-wife and the local child welfare agency, and abandoned his plan to be a religious leader.
Instead, he came back to Canada and enrolled in law school.
In 2012, A.A. applied to be licensed but didn’t disclose his sordid past. He was about to be called to the bar in 2014 when an anonymous letter to the Law Society spurred an investigation where he withheld medical records and other information about his serious sexual misconduct.
He ultimately abandoned his application in 2017.
When A.A. reapplied two years later, he now admitted the child sex abuse and his dishonesty in the first licensing application.
Following a six-day hearing in 2023, where a psychiatrist diagnosed him with “pedophilic disorder in remission” and witnesses testified to his “rehabilitation, remorse and commitment to treatment,” the independent Law Society Tribunal found he was now of “good character” and accepted his undertaking to never meet unsupervised with minor children.
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
The public outrage was swift and vocal. The Law Society appealed and lost. In August, they took their argument before a panel of the Divisional Court.
And now they’ve lost again.
The Law Society and the intervener, Justice for Children and Youth, had argued that the Tribunal had an obligation to protect the public interest, including the rights of children.
How could they find A.A. was of “good character” yet still impose a condition that he can’t be alone with minors? And who was supposed to monitor his compliance? they asked. The Law Society has no mandate to do so, making the condition “ineffective and unenforceable.”
It all fell on deaf ears.
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
The tribunal had properly considered the sex abuse was serious but found it dated back 15 years, A.A. was in treatment and remorseful. The public also has an interest in rehabilitation, the panel said.
And as for not being able to monitor whether he was alone with children, the Divisional Court pointed out that lawyers are not like doctors, where the risk of sexual violation is much higher, and A.A. has voluntarily complied for years.
“Given that A.A. proactively offered the undertaking as a good faith effort to provide further reassurance, it may have caused a loss of public confidence to decide not to add the condition to his licence.”
No, the loss of a confidence is accepting an admitted child sex abuser with a diagnosed “pedophilic disorder in remission.”
A.A.’s lawyer, James Melnick, said he didn’t have instructions to comment while the Law Society’s was to the point: “We are seeking a stay of the decision pending the appeal.”
No date has been set.