Case information

Law of professions — Barristers and solicitors — Misappropriation of trust funds — Defence of mental disorder — Errors of fact — Whether mental disorder is to be seen as contributing to offending behaviour, impact or “causation” — Standard upon which Court of Appeal is to assess appeal of regulated member in disciplinary proceeding — Whether Court of Appeal assessed effect of error in result below on “no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice” standard — If so, whether doing so permissible — Whether Court of Appeal is limited to confirming, quashing or varying order below — If so, whether Court of Appeal can overturn decision below if there is legal and palpable factual error.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2015, Mr. Beaver disclosed a $180,000 deficiency in the pooled trust account of his law firm to the Law Society of Alberta. Mr. Beaver was the responsible lawyer under the Law Society’s trust accounting rules and the only signing authority for the firm’s bank accounts. He explained that he had caused funds to be transferred from the firm’s trust account to the operating account without complying with the Law Society’s accounting rules on several occasions in 2014. He was suspended under s. 63 of the Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-8, and the Law Society issued 12 citations against Mr. Beaver in relation to conduct that occurred between January 2014 and May 2015. The citations alleged misappropriation and conversion of funds; delivery of the proceeds of the sale of the home he owned with his former common law partner to himself (ignoring the amounts owed to the co-owner and in respect of a bank caveat) and failure to deliver clear title to the new homeowner; and advance billing (two of which were not pursued).

A hearing committee struck by the Law Society concluded that Mr. Beaver had misappropriated over $300,000 from clients from the firm’s trust accounts and elsewhere, contravened the Law Society’s accounting rules, failed to act with integrity, failed to attend to the home sale in the manner expected of a careful and prudent solicitor, and failed to meet the financial obligations of his business. It decided that disbarment was appropriate because the misappropriations were substantial, lasted an extended period, and involved clients and vulnerable persons; Mr. Beaver had actively concealed the misappropriations; the stressors identified could be faced by any senior practitioner; Mr. Beaver’s medical evidence did not show that there was no further danger to the public or the reputation of the profession; the Law Society’s medical evidence suggested a risk of recidivism; the protection of the public and the reputation of the profession required denunciation with the highest possible sanction; and this was an example of “the most serious case”, so disbarment with possible reinstatement was appropriate.

Mr. Beaver’s appealed to an appeal panel of the Law Society. The appeal panel confirmed the findings of guilt and upheld the decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Beaver’s appeal.