Friday, May 17, 2024

A "Relentless Barrage Of Incivility"

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has revoked the license of an already suspended attorney

The respondent is currently suspended from practice on the basis of three distinct provisions. First, an indefinite suspension was imposed on him as of June 28, 2022 owing to his failure to comply with a Law Society investigation. Second, upon bringing himself into compliance with the investigative requests of the Law Society, he would then be subject to a one-month definite suspension imposed as a penalty for failing to provide the documents requested by the time of the merits hearing held on June 16, 2022: Barreau de l’Ontario v. Hamza2023 ONLSTH 15

The third and final basis for his suspension is that the respondent has not paid the costs awarded to the Law Society at the conclusion of that application, and accordingly he is also serving an administrative suspension until such time as he makes payment in the amount of $14,000.

Findings here

 In essence, despite numerous admonitions from a wide range of adjudicative and judicial officers, the respondent has consistently demonstrated his inability to understand or accept that he is required to take direction from those invested with the authority to regulate his behaviour in the course of legal practice. Despite having been found to lack integrity for failing to obey a court order, the respondent continues to demonstrate his belief that the judge who issued that order is instead accountable to him: the email mentioned in para. 12 which was sent to the Tribunal Chair (and the Attorney General of Canada) less than a week prior to the penalty hearing characterized that judge as a “Trumpist”, a “Zionist”, and an “alt-right pretendian.”

Furthermore, there could be no better demonstration of ungovernability than the respondent’s relentless barrage of incivility, which did not cease even after we handed down our findings on the merits of this application. As was the case in Law Society of Ontario v. Jackman2024 ONLSTH 23, the respondent has demonstrated in the course of the hearing that he “utterly fails to comprehend the seriousness of his misconduct” (at para. 51). As he also “continued to broadcast offensive materials and disparage the Law Society staff, complainants and witnesses, and showed no inclination to follow the rules, act with integrity or respect the professional regulatory process”, the respondent’s conduct demonstrates that the first step of the ungovernability test has been met: Law Society of Ontario v. Fathi, 2021 ONLSTH 180.

Exemption sought

After his application was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, the respondent filed an application that sought the remedy of being relieved of any accountability to the Law Society, and for the respondent to be exempted in perpetuity from the requirement to refer to judicial officers as Your Honour and Your Worship. This second application was dismissed on the grounds it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The London Free Press reported

Hamza started practising law in Ontario in 2019 and operated a solo-practitioner office, Hamza Law, in London, according to the tribunal ruling.

Beginning in August 2020, the Law Society received several complaints about the lawyer’s messages on social media.

In response to an article by a prospective law student born in Nigeria, Hamza posted photographs of the student and his family with “thought bubbles” that suggested the lawyer was a criminal, drug dealer and slave lover.

About women he posted on social media, “women didn’t write their histories because they didn’t care to do so” and “women just don’t care about history or philosophy” because “women don’t generally consider being a philosopher or historian ‘sexy.'”

The tribunal ruled that though many of the comments may be offensive, they didn’t breach the Law Society’s code of conduct and quoted a previous ruling that it’s not the Law Society’s responsibility to police speech in these circumstances.

But Hamza’s responses to the Law Society investigations into the matter did amount to professional misconduct, the tribunal ruled.

He refused to participate in interviews with the investigator, began litigation against the Law Society and complainants, failed to obey a court order and started litigation against the judge who gave an order.

His court filings in the matter are ridden with “searing and inappropriate criticism” the tribunal found.

“The fact all the judges at the London courthouse are European colonizers who lived through the colonial era means they are ipso facto white supremacists and Islamophobes; otherwise, they would be back in Europe, and not in Canada to start,” Hamza wrote in one document.

“I have reason to believe that (a complainant’s lawyer) is a racist for talking to me the way he did, and that (the judge) is also a racist for letting (the lawyer) talk to me like that,” Hamza wrote.

Two complainants in the case “get free passes” at law schools “for being criminals,” he wrote in another document.

“Both of them reduce the law profession to a joke. They are so privileged that they even have big firm lawyers defend them. This is either because they can afford big lawyers to run their big privileged mouths, or because these lawyers are willing to work for them for free. Either way, their excess of privilege is apparent,” he wrote.

Hamza also attacked the Law Society of Ontario, the regulatory body for lawyers provincewide.

Under the auspices of the LSO, “the practice of law in Ontario is controlled by mobs. Gangs control big firms, law school admissions and the LSO,” he wrote.

The tribunal found the court filings breach rules to “to carry on the practice of law honourably and with integrity.”

Hamza could not be reached for comment. His company’s website can no longer be accessed without sign-in credentials.

A hearing to determine punishment and costs will be scheduled, the tribunal said.

The attorney has noted an appeal of the action

The complainants were thus confirmed to be Ish and his friends; viz., white nationalists Vincent Rocheleau, Mallory Greene and Jessica Soubas and Russian Zionist Yevgeniya Shlakhter. They falsely accused Hamza of being a pseudo- intellectual white supremacist based on LinkedIn posts, even though LinkedIn closed the hacked account; denied it belongs to Hamza; and denied access to Hamza Law...

The complainants (Ish & co.) are all connected to each other and have no connection to Hamza on social media (which he does not use) or in real life. They are all strangers to Hamza who live in Toronto and have no information about him except that he is a lawyer and academic with a Muslim name. All of them refused to identify themselves, testify or be cross-examined. None of Hamza’s many connections attested the truth of their claims; rather, they all attested that they are fabricated.


The Law Society hired Katherine Hensel as its lawyer, paying her upwards of $60,000 to accuse Hamza of “hate speech” and “discrimination based on facial features” for allegedly stating that white settlers are not “red Indians”, as they still call them (e.g., the Indian Act). Hensel–of Ipperwash Commission fame–pretends to be a leading indigenous lawyer in the country, even though she is of Ukrainian ancestry, barely ever lived in BC, could not introduce herself in Shuswap to Steve Paikin, and “none of [her] antecedents” ever held Indian Status. Jean Teillet–the Law Society’s blonde expert on indigenous law–called pretendians “the ultimate step in colonialism” (i.e., white supremacy). Hensel is an adjunct “professor” at the University of Toronto with a BA in English.

While Hamza’s accusers are all complete strangers to him who rely on the complaints of criminal friends of theirs who refused to identify themselves or testify, more than a thousand people–including a group of judges affiliated with the UN– filed complaints against the Law Society or submitted testimonies against it. However, like Heeney, Desgranges refused to receive any evidence from Hamza Law; not even the testimony of the orphans against the lawyers who falsely accused them and Hamza. Desgranges wrote the orphans entirely out of his “final decision”, even though their affidavits were process served to the Law Society on the same day that it served the Further Supplemental Affidavit of Cheryl Smith past its legal deadline.

Desgranges–the chair of the Law Society tribunal in charge of the “final decision” or judgment of Hamza–is a notorious neo-Nazi who ran for the far-right People’s Party of Canada. Desgranges denies this is a politicized trial that violates all the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. He also denies the legitimacy of the UN in his tweets. His co-panelist Ryan Alford led the anti-human rights StopSOP slate. Both are far right judicial activists who regularly tweet racist, Islamophobic, Sinophobic, xenophobic, Arabophobic, pro-colonial, anti-indigenous, anti-science, conspiratorial, Zionist and genocidal propaganda, filling hundreds of pages. The international community of scientists and indigenous people regard them as colonial crackpots. Desgranges’s decision basically gives him license to be a genocidal racist, so long as it is off the record.

(Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink