The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Michael James Webster

Osgoode Hall Courtroom

The case against Michael Webster was heard by Christopher D. Bredt. Webster was charged with failure to cooperate with the Law Society. This particular case that I looked at only dealt with Webster's request for an adjournment. Webster was looked to get the case adjourned to two months later because he claimed that he did not have the financial means to retain a lawyer. The Law Society opposed the request.

Mr. Webster set out in an email four reasons in for an adjournment aside from having his practice suspended:

1. I have not been working for re-numeration for over a year, and only recently obtained a job grossing $30 [sic] starting a month ago
2. Our family had to sell our house in Avenue Road and Lawrence area and move to Scarborough, move which ended two weeks ago. We could no longer afford the house at Avenue Road and Lawrence.
3. My mother-in-law has been diagnosed with lung cancer. She is 89 years old and will require our family's constant attention.
4. As [a] of the suspension of my law practice, my wife and I have had serious difficulties with the marriage. We have only recently reconciled, as I have moved to an apartment here in Scarborough. (I had looked at apartments one block North of Danzig Avenue).  

His request for an adjournment was denied. To come to this decision, Bredt looked at a number of factors that were set out in the Rules of Practice and Procedure guideline.

The following factors in Rule 14.03 were analyzed in coming to his decision:
 

A.      Prejudice to a person

·       There was a slight prejudice to Mr. Webster in not being able to retain counsel however duty counsel was made available to him.

B.      Timing of the Request

·       Mr. Webster brought the motion only 4 days before the actual case was supposed to be heard. It is required that an adjournment request be brought to the Proceedings Management Conference 10 days prior to a scheduled hearing.

C.      The Number of Prior Requests and Motions for an Adjournment

·       Mr. Webster did not make any prior requests.

D.    The Number of Adjournments  Already Granted and Prior Directions or Orders with Respect to the Scheduling of Future Hearings

·       There were no previous adjournments.

E.       The Public Interest

·       Since the issue against Mr. Webster is an issue of compliance, it is better to proceed quickly in the case.

F.       The Costs of an Adjournment

·       Witnesses were ready to testify and if there were to be an adjournment, Mr. Webster would have to pay the costs to the Law Society, which he already expressed that he had financial issues already.

G.     The Availability of Witnesses

·       As mentioned above, witnesses were available for that particular trial date so moving the trial would be inconvenient.

H.      Efforts made to Avoid the Adjournment

·       The adjournment request was brought on late so he had not tried to avoid the adjournment.

I.        Requirement for a Fair Hearing

·       Mr. Webster could have chosen to defend himself because the allegations against him were straight forward.

J.      Any Other Relevant Factors

·       Mr. Webster did not provide specific reasons as to why his reasons for an adjournment would affect the trial from proceeding.

 I have a bit of sympathy for Mr. Webster. Hard times have fallen on him and now he is going to be unprepared in going to trial. Of course, if he had co-operated with the Law Society of Upper Canada, he would not have been in the predicament he got himself into. I believe that he could have represented himself  if he wanted to but he decided not to because of the issues he was facing. He had already been suspended from his practice so making the argument that Public Interests would be affected has little to no merit in my opinion.

Do you think that Christopher Bredt's decision was fair? Although this was just a motion for an adjournment, do you think that this is karma coming back to him?

Information obtained from Law Society of Upper Canada v. Michael James Webster, 2012 ONLSHP 0144 Case