Present Character Warrants Admission

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has found that an applicant for admission presently has the good character to admit

On his application for licensing, he disclosed that in 2013, he had been charged with various child pornography and luring offences and in 2017 he was convicted of seven of those offences. He also disclosed that his motion for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay was dismissed at first instance but allowed on appeal, such that his convictions were set aside, and a stay was entered. Consequently, he has no criminal record.

Applicant's background

The Applicant also describes a very devout, Catholic upbringing. This included attending mass every Sunday as well as a private, Catholic education which was academically rigorous and had a strong focus on self-discipline. Adherence to the Catholic faith was a core aspect of the Applicant’s education and upbringing.

The Applicant describes his involvement in youth basketball as an integral part of his adolescence. He described himself as a nerdy kid, participating in extracurricular activities like debating and chess club, but with a growing interest in sports. While in the sixth grade, the Applicant’s mother registered him to play with the Etobicoke Basketball Association (EBA), a community and volunteer-based recreational league outside of his school. His involvement in the EBA proved to be a very positive and transformative experience for the Applicant. He enjoyed playing basketball, but more importantly, he enjoyed the opportunity for social engagement that the EBA offered. His involvement enabled him to meet new people outside of his school – people who had backgrounds that differed substantially from his own.

The Applicant played in the EBA throughout high school, and when he was in grade 12, he began coaching. At the time of his involvement as a coach, he was among the youngest in his league to occupy this position. He received no formal training either prior to or while occupying this role. The Applicant continued his involvement with basketball after he completed his high school education. While an undergraduate student at the University of Toronto, he volunteered as a coach and later as a referee with the EBA and the Toronto Association of Basketball Referees. Following his undergraduate degree, the Applicant pursued a one-year master’s degree in criminology, also in Toronto. During this period, he continued coaching basketball at both recreational and competitive levels.

He then attended University of Ottawa law school.

 Despite the distance between the two cities, the Applicant was determined to maintain his intensive involvement in Toronto basketball while living in Ottawa. To that end, he maintained an exhausting schedule that involved commuting from Ottawa to Toronto every Friday night by train, spending Saturday and Sunday refereeing and coaching basketball, and returning to Ottawa by train late Sunday night, to start law school on Monday morning.

The Applicant maintained this commuting schedule for his entire first year of law school. He testified that during his first year of law school, the social connections that the Applicant maintained through his continued involvement in Toronto basketball became a sort of a “safe space” or refuge for him. Like many law students, he found his first year of law school to be academically challenging, mentally exhausting, and socially isolating. It is in this context that the Applicant committed the misconduct that gives rise to this hearing.

The misconduct took place during law school

At trial, the Applicant did not deny the actus reus of the offences. He admitted that he had conversations with three complainants in which he asked them to send him images of their penises. That was also the case for the ten similar fact witnesses, who recounted comparable exchanges with the accused during trial, but who were over the age of 18 years when the conversations took place. His defence at trial was that these conversations were not for a sexual purpose. Instead, he characterized them as “locker room” talk and activity. This defence was rejected. On March 3, 2017, Justice McWatt found the Applicant guilty of seven offenses in relation to two complainants (anonymized as AP and MM) and not guilty on five charges.

 In her reasons for judgment, Justice McWatt found that the Applicant texted with two males under the age of 18, asking them to send him photos and videos of their penises and/or of them masturbating. The Applicant paid AP for some of the videos he had sent. There was also a brief contact offence involving the complainant, AP, in relation to whom Justice McWatt determined the Applicant was in a position of trust or authority. Finally, Justice McWatt acquitted the Applicant in relation to a third complainant because there was no evidence that he was under 18 at the relevant time. The findings of guilt included child luring, sexual exploitation, and making, possessing, and accessing child pornography.

The opinion details Applicant's therapy and treatment.

The seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct is magnified by the number of victims impacted as well as by the duration of his misconduct. Misconduct over a period of time is more serious than isolated misconduct.[6] While the Applicant was criminally charged only in relation to three minors (but convicted only in relation to AP and MM), a total of 13 young basketball players were solicited by the Applicant for sexual photographs. These incidents cannot be characterized as momentary lapses or isolated incidents. His misconduct not only included multiple incidents with multiple young people over a period of a year, it was also characterized by escalating attempts to obtain photos over time. He persisted in approaching the victims repeatedly even if they initially refused and obtained dozens of nude photos from a significant number of youthful victims over which he was in a position of power, trust and authority.

Present attitude

The Applicant now admits, without reservation or excuse, that his misconduct, which gave rise to this hearing, was wrong and inexcusable. He describes his conduct as “absolutely wrong,” “reprehensible,” and “wildly inappropriate.” Both Dr. Lessard, Stephanie Swain as well as those who submitted letters of support on the Applicant’s behalf all confirm the consistency, sincerity and the depth of his remorse.

Admission

 Twelve years ago, the Applicant made a series of serious mistakes, but he is not the same person he was when he made those mistakes. The evidence before us shows an individual who takes accountability and responsibility for his actions, including the consequences of his actions, and has faced his past with great insight, deep remorse and effective rehabilitation.

We are asked to look at the character of the person before us today. The Armstrong factors beyond the seriousness of the misconduct all unequivocally favour a finding of good character. While initially concerned about the Applicant’s late access to targeted rehabilitation, he adequately explained the reason for this late timing, which involved him voluntarily submitting to a psychiatric assessment which led to him confronting, accept and ultimately act up on the truth that his behavior was sexually motivated. His insight may have developed incrementally, but the overwhelming evidence is that it is authentic.

 We accept the Applicant’s explanation and find that he is presently of good character. The application for a licence to practise is allowed.

(Mike Frisch)