Showing posts with label davies Bagambiire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label davies Bagambiire. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Johnson Aziga Dangerous Offender Hearing and Designation

By Selwyn A. Pieters
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public

Today at the John Sopinka Courthouse, Mr. Justice Lofchik has rendered his decision in R. v. Aziga, 2011 ONSC 4592 and found that Mr. Johnson Aziga should be designated a dangerous offender, thus likely guaranteeing that he would spend the rest of his life in the custody of the state.  Justice Lofchik ruled that in considering any assurances given by Mr. Aziga "I must consider that the offender has a multi-year history of deception." That conduct the Judge ruled “represents a substantial risk to the community.”

On April 04, 2009, Mr. Aziga was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder in the deaths of two women who died from AIDS-related illnesses. He was also found guilty on 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault. This case is believed to be the first case in the world where someone has been convicted of murder by HIV.

Mr. Aziga's  dangerous offender hearing commenced May 10, 2011 to determine whether or not he is to be classified as a dangerous offender. Such status results in an indeterminate sentence. Expert evidence was heard from Forensic Psychiatrist Dr. Philip Klassen. He said Mr. Aziga expressed little remorse and blamed his failure to disclose on an "undescended testicle" amongst other things.

A public Health Nurse also gave evidence. Further, some of the victims testified as well as the family of those women who have already passed from AIDS related illness.

Mr. Aziga took the stand at his dangerous offender hearing.

Selwyn Pieters was co-counsel in Aziga's matter from January 24, 2008 to August 05, 2008. My work on the file resuled in three important and significant judicial decisions: See, R. v. Aziga [2008] O.J. No. 2431, 78 W.C.B. (2d) 87 (challenge for cause - HIV Phobia); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (allowing him to be unshackled in court) and R. v. Aziga [2008] O.J. No. 3052, 78 W.C.B. (2d) 410 (cruel and unusual treatment and punishment charter challenge).

Outside of Mr. Aziga's own context, the finding of guilt on the murders and his designation as a dangerous offender charts new terrain and certainly should be of interest to HIV harm reduction workers and hiv positive persons - as it is now a precedent that could be used to when the full brunt of the law is unleashed on a person who is HIV positive and failed to inform their partner of his/her status or otherwise failed to take preventative measures - that resulted in the infection of another person.
Aziga Caselaw
  • R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 53841 (ON S.C.) — 2008-10-20
    Ontario — Superior Court of Justice
    aggravated sexual assault — compellable — charged — spouse — common law exception
  • R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 53125 (ON S.C.) — 2008-10-14
    Ontario — Superior Court of Justice
    adjournments — co-counsel — choice — date — retain
  • R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39612 (ON S.C.) — 2008-08-08
    Ontario — Superior Court of Justice
    hours — funding — preparation — forensic evidence — time
  • R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.) - inmates — medical — protective custody — detention — unit
  • R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.)
  • R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.) — 2008-06-18 Ontario — Superior Court of Justice prospective jurors — partiality — recent cases involving criminal transmission — bias — black citizen who was born
  • R. v. Aziga, 2006 CanLII 42798 (ON S.C.) — 2006-12-29 Ontario — Superior Court of Justice principle against self-incrimination — infected — unprotected — sexual activity — penetrative
  • R. v. Aziga, 2007 CanLII 249 (ON S.C.) — 2007-01-10 Ontario — Superior Court of Justice expert — scientific — evidence — adjournment — defence
  • R. v. Aziga, 2007 CanLII 56095 (ON S.C.) — 2007-12-18 Ontario — Superior Court of Justice infected — subtype — sexual — complainants — unprotected
  • R. v. Aziga, 2007 CanLII 38 (ON S.C.) — 2007-01-03 Ontario — Superior Court of Justice delay — days — remand — time — defence
  • R. v. Aziga, 2006 CanLII 38236 (ON S.C.) — 2006-11-14 Ontario — Superior Court of Justice reliability — dying declaration — hearsay — interview — nodding
Leading Cases In Canada
  • R. v. Thornton, (1991), 1 O.R. (3d) 480, [1991] O.J. No. 25 (Ont. C.A.) (QL); affirmed at 1993 CanLII 95 (S.C.C.), (1993), 82 C.C.C. (3d) 530, [1993] S.C.J. No. 62 (S.C.C.) (QL)
  • R. v. Cuerrier 1998 CanLII 796 (S.C.C.), (1998), 127 C.C.C. (3d) 1, [1998] S.C.J. No. 64 (S.C.C.) (QL)
  • R. v. Williams 2003 SCC 41 (CanLII), 2003 SCC 41, 2003 SCC 41 (CanLII), (2003), 176 C.C.C. (3d) 449, S.C.J. No. 41 (S.C.C.) (QL).
  • (1) R. v. Mercer, (1993), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 41, [1993] N.J. No. 198 (C.A.) (QL)
  • R. v. Miron 2000 CanLII 4432 (MB P.C.), (2000), 174 Man.R. (2d) 52, [2000] M.J. No. 500 (Man. P.C.) (QL);
  • R. v. Smith, 2008 SKCA 61 (CanLII), 2008 SKCA 61, 2008 S.J. No. 283 (QL);
  • R. v. Williams, 2006 ONCJ 484 (CanLII), 2006 ONCJ 484, [2006] O.J. No. 5037 (QL);
  • R. v. Nduwayo, 2006 BCSC 1972 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1972, [2006] B.C.J. No. 3418 (QL);
  • R. v. Lamirande, 2006 MBCA 71 (CanLII), 2006 MBCA 71, [2006] M.J. No. 223 (QL);
  • R. v. Walkem (2007), 73 W.C.B. (2d) 145, [2007] O.J. No. 186 (Ont. S.C.) (QL).
  • R. v. Edwards, 2001 NSSC 80 (CanLII), 2001 NSSC 80, [2001] N.S.J. No. 221 (QL)

Other News Articles
Michael McKiernan "Taxing Aziga case sparks lawyers’ spat" Law Times, July 25, 2011; Defendant seeks another delay, Hamilton Spectator, Oct 1, 2008; Barbara Brown, 'There is simply no right to bite'; Expert says jailhouse isolation of HIV murder suspect isn't breach of charter, Hamilton Spectator, July 26, 2008; Tamsyn Burgmann, Lawyers for HIV-positive man want murder charge thrown out, Canadian Press, Jun 11, 2008. Also Ministry to pay for HIV defence, Hamilton Spectator, January 26, 2008; C. Blatchford, An HIV-positive bureaucrat, two women fatally infected and the 'duty to disclose', October 21, 2008.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Failure of Lawyer Davies Bagambiire to pay rent resulting in eviction is not professional misconduct Law Society Says

By Selwyn A. Pieters
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public


On June 01, 2010, a Notice of Application was issued by the Law Society of Upper Canada alleging seven counts of professional misconduct against Davies Bagambiire, a sole practitioner immigration and refugee lawyer who is practicising criminal law in the singular case of R. v. Aziga. A hearing was held from December 14 - 17, 2010. Mr. Davies Bagambiire's Law Society of Upper Canada hearing was completed with findings of professional misconduct relating to one of his clients T.F. for which he served a one month suspension.

The other counts relating to the conduct of his business at 372 Bay Street in Toronto was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over a lawyers' failure to pay his rent that resulted in the eviction of him and his sub-tenants. This is how I learn of the eviction from him:


From: daviesbagambiire@bell.blackberry.net [mailto:daviesbagambiire@bell.blackberry.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 01:36 PMTo: 'Selwyn Pieters'
Subject: Office Issue with LL 



I have a serious issue with the landlord as I told you a few weeks ago. Please send me an email or call me ASAP. I also wanted you to review the Application record for tommorrow before hand. Please call me on my cell (416) 577-3277. db Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device


My comments reflecting on the LSUC reasons are below:

1) As a complainant in LSUC matters I have no standing. I am a witnesses, that's it.


2) Here Mr. Bagambiire "accumulated approximately $18,000 of arrears in rent for his law office" para 25


3) The lawyer argued that "the Law Society should not be punishing lawyers for their poverty, that the rules were not designed to punish lawyers for being under financial strain and simply not having sufficient money to pay rent." para. 26


4) Zeynep Onen, Director of Professional Regulation at the Law Society, spoke with the Complainant to tell him “it was more a commercial or civil matter rather than an ethical matter.” para 27


5) The LSUC panel concluded that "being in arrears with the payment of office rent did not constitute professional misconduct. To hold otherwise would potentially be to subject a large swath of financially precarious practitioners to disciplinary suspension in economically distraught times." para 28


6) "The Law Society’s allegations set out in Particulars 4 and 5 were not proven. Specifically, the Society failed to prove that the Lawyer’s failure to make monthly rental payments for his office constituted a failure to honour the financial obligations of his practice, contrary to Rule 6.01(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Secondly, the Society failed to prove that the Lawyer acted dishonourably and without integrity contrary to Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, based on failing to notify his sub-tenant, lawyer Selwyn Pieters, that he had not made the monthly rental payments and that this could result in a lockout by the landlord, or by accepting but failing to remit Selwyn Pieters’ sublease payments to the landlord."
Reflections


7) We are all accountable for our actions and inactions as lawyers. Mr. Bagambiire because of my complaint was required to account for his conduct that led to the consequences which it did on August 05, 2008.


8) Bagambiire in the 2011 decision in which this lockout was mentioned was suspended for one month and required to pay restitution of $5000.00 to a client Teresa Figura payable by June 30, 2011.


9) Bagambiire is a repeat offender: See, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Davies Bagambiire, 2008 ONLSHP 70 (The Lawyer is suspended for two months, commencing March 1, 2008. Upon return to practice, the Lawyer shall be supervised for a period of two years) and See also, Re Bagambiire Formal Hearing Panel Decision, N.S.B.S. 43, November 15, 1990.

10) As mentioned earlier, in LSUC disciplinary matters, a complainant is not a party. In this case I had nothing to gain or lose here. Anyways, the decision is instructive to other lawyers dealing with persons like the lawyer in this case to simply sue civilly or call in the police when such issues arise. The law society is not the forum.


11) The Law Society Lawyer Andrea Waltman did an excellent job under difficult circumstances, as the Tribunal was inclined from the get go to the views in para 27 of its decision.


12) I wish Mr. Bagambiire well and hope his financial and other affairs are in order. He has been practising law for 25 years. I know him since 1994. I was a client of his in 1995 - 1996. For Mr. Bagambiire to really get into the situation like that without even believing that he had to tell his sub-tenants, particularly me, is puzzling. However, life goes on and on it did with me.


13) I currently practices law in downtown Toronto at Pieters Law Office, Adelaide Place, DBRS Tower,  where about 25 independent lawyers share space and resources in a professional office setting not unlike that of a medium-sized law firm. So quite frankly, despite the stress, frustration and humiliation, that situation caused, and I have not really spoken to many people about it because I was ashamed that I became part of a lockout, like I did something bad, things worked out for the better for me.


14) I am quite happy where I am at and with the people with whom I now share space. That god for his kindness and great mercies.

See also, Michael McKiernan "Taxing Aziga case sparks lawyers’ spat" Law Times, July 25, 2011

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147488178

 

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

A Brief look at LSUC disciplinary matters involving Black and VM lawyers including Real Estate Fraud and Misappropriation

I saw this AD at the Train Station tonight and could not help but feel sad about the lawyers that actually makes such a claim illusory. See, for example: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Davies Bagambiire, 2011 ONLSHP 69 (CanLII);  Law Society of Upper Canada v. Ernest Guiste, 2011 ONLSHP 24 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Ernest Guiste, 2011 ONLSHP 74 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Selwyn Milan McSween, 2010 ONLSHP 111 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Charles Ato Amissah-Ocran, 2011 ONLSHP 9 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Karen Rosalee Caroline Cunningham (a.k.a Karen Rosalee Caroline Cunningham-McBean), 2011 ONLSHP 26 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Karen Rosalee Caroline Cunningham (a.k.a Karen Rosalee Caroline Cunningham-McBean), 2010 ONLSHP 97 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Meera Bharadwaj, 2011 ONLSHP 4 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Kadir Baksh, 2004 ONLSHP 25 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Kadir Baksh, 2004 ONLSHP 13 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Dunstan Dan Senjule, 2010 ONLSHP 18 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Winston Gauntlett Mattis, 2009 ONLSHP 5 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Davies Bagambiire, 2008 ONLSHP 70 (CanLII); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Pretam Kaur Purewal, 2008 ONLSHP 132 (CanLII)



Suspensions and Revocation – a cause for concern

All of the cases above involved lawyers who are Black or visible minority. The Ornstein Report prepared for the LSUC reports that the Black community only made up 1.9% of all lawyers in Ontario in 2006, representing an increase of only 0.01% from 2001. In Ontario "there is wide variation between visible minority groups. There is one Black lawyer for every 750 members of the Black community, one for every 627 South Asians and one for every 755 members of the Chinese community. Incontrast, there is just one Filipino lawyer for every 2,730 members of that community, one ...for every 1,649 Latin Americans and one for every 994 Southeast Asians."

I recently spoke on the disproportionate number of Black lawyers subject to regulatory proceedings, investigations and disciplinary proceedings at the Law Society of Upper Canada. I was asked whether or not Black lawyers are over policed by the society.[1] I tend to think not because of what I observe personally and read from the disciplinary reports. The Law Society, with the exception of spot audits, member annual report and certain obligations it places on lawyers, is reactive. It responds to complaints not necessarily initiates it.

Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act enables the Law Society to conduct an investigation into a Licensee's conduct or capacity if the Society receives information suggesting that the Licensee may have engaged in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

Too many Black and conscious lawyers from the diaspora and other racial minority communities are getting into trouble with the Law Society of Upper Canada for various illegal, wrong or unethical conduct including failing to respond to law society complaints,[2] failing to maintain books and records in compliance with By-law 18,[3] overbilling,[4] be duped by an unscrupulous client, suspended and/or disbarred for frauds[5] and/or misleading clients.[6]

Money for work to be done must be put in trust.  All kinds of contingencies can arise, including your client switching lawyers.  The money is not yours until the work has been done and the client billed.[7]

It is clear that a cloud of distrust exists when and where there are or allegations of misallocation of funds, misappropriation of funds, or inappropriately withdrawing monies from a client’s trust account.

If allegations of improprieties or unlawful or illegal conduct on the part of a lawyer, regardless of whether that lawyer is Black or not, come to the attention of the Law Society, it have a responsibility to look into the allegations and do all it can to safeguard or restore the integrity and credibility of the profession.

The Law Society has a duty to act and with expediency in those instances where clients and others are at risk of fraudulent behavior by lawyers.

* (c) 2010 - Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public - is a sole practitioner in the City of Toronto.
[1] One lawyer accused the LSUC of racially profiling him: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, 2008 ONLSHP 30. He was, however, recently found guilty before a panel composed of the only Black Bencher (at the material time), Joanne St. Lewis: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, 2010 ONLSHP 13 (CanLII) Paul Legall, Aziga's lawyer facing bar society discipline, Hamilton Spectator, January 23, 2009. The Spectator reported that “As part of its investigation, the law society appointed a forensic accountant to the case. Hamalengwa, a sole practitioner, refused to meet with him or open the books unless the accountant made a fuller disclosure about the nature of the investigation. He has since co-operated with investigators and the law society hasn't yet decided whether he'll be charged in relation to the women's complaints.”
[4] Law Society of Upper Canada v. Davies Bagambiire, 2008 ONLSHP 70 (2 months suspension for overbilling in addition to various licence restrictions). I was sharing space with him on a sublease, and the landlord took possession of the premises presumably because he was not paying the rent for the leased premises. I not only lost my office space but also came off a murder trial on which I was co-counsel with this lawyer: On June 01, 2010, another Notice of Application was issued against Bagambiire alleging seven count of professional misconduct. A hearing is scheduled to be held from December 13 - 17, 2010: see, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Davies Bagambiire. My getting off the case was the subject of judicial and news comments: See, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39612 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 53125 (ON S.C.) and newspaper articles: Defendant seeks another delay, Hamilton Spectator, Oct 1, 2008; Barbara Brown, Jail's not nice, judge agrees, Hamilton Spectator, August 7, 2008; 8th lawyer off HIV murder case, Toronto Sun, August 7, 2008. There certainly is a lesson to be learnt here and sometimes it is  not about race, it is about the integrity of the person.
[5]Law Society of Upper Canada v. Glen Hugh Peter Abrahams, 2008 ONLSHP 81 (CanLII) – Black Jamaica lawyer who was highly regarded and Malcolm v. Abrahams, 2010 ONSC 4091 (CanLII) Law Society of Upper Canada v. Kadir Baksh, 2004 ONLSHP 25 (CanLII), 2004 ONLSHP 0025, 2009 ONLSHP 16 (He was a pillar in the Guyanese and West Indian Communities in Toronto). Mr. Baksh appealed. The decision of the Appeal Panel in the matter of: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Kadir Baksh, 2006 ONLSAP 6 (CanLII), 2006 ONLSAP 6 provides as follows: “[132] A solicitor's participation in multiple mortgage frauds can only be regarded as serious.  That seriousness is compounded when the facts reveal that the solicitor was not merely an unknowing dupe.  Protection of the public compelled the Hearing Panel to consider disbarment as a potential disposition.  The appellant's attitude towards his own misconduct reinforced the view that protection of the public could only have been served by terminating his ability to practise law.” See also, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Winston Gauntlett Mattis, 2009 ONLSHP 5 (CanLII)
[6] Law Society of Upper Canada v. Jonathan Wade Strug, 2008 ONLSHP 88 (disbarred for phantom cases). I represented on of the victims in this case: Robert Todd, Law Times – Lawyer strung clients along with phantom cases. 25 Oct., 2007
[7] Gary Lloyd Gottlieb, Bencher's Diary: A day of discipline, Law Times, February 13, 2009.