Complaints, Lawyer Discipline and Public Hearings

Summary of Decision of the Benchers on Review

Ronald Wayne Perrick

North Vancouver, BC

Called to the bar: May 17, 1971

Review date: August 11, 2015 and April 12, 2017

Benchers: Nancy Merrill, QC, chair; Pinder Cheema, QC; Sharon Matthews, QC; Elizabeth Rowbotham; Tony Wilson, QC

Decision issued: February 15, 2018 (2018 LSBC 07)

Counsel: Alison Kirby for the Law Society; Ronald Wayne Perrick on his own behalf

BACKGROUND

In the course of this hearing, the Law Society applied to the hearing panel for an order prohibiting Ronald Wayne Perrick from re-litigating matters that had already been litigated before Madam Justice Allan, based on the legal doctrine of abuse of process.

On October 21, 2013, the hearing panel granted the Law Society’s application and the findings made by Madam Justice Allan were accepted into evidence. On January 23, 2014 the hearing panel found that Perrick had committed professional misconduct (2014 LSBC 03), and on April 25, 2014, ordered that he pay a fine in the amount of $25,000 and costs of $24,210 (2014 LSBC 25).

Perrick’s application for review sought a dismissal of the order that he be prohibited from re-litigating the matters before Madam Justice Allan, a dismissal of the panel’s findings of facts and determination and disciplinary action, and a dismissal of the citation or in the alternative, a new hearing admitting new evidence.

DECISION OF THE BENCHERS ON REVIEW

The Benchers on review found that the hearing panel had jurisdiction to apply the abuse of process doctrine and made no error in its decision on that application.

Perrick sought to introduce new evidence on the review. The Benchers found that the proposed evidence did not meet the test for admission of evidence on a review, which requires that the evidence was unavailable at the time of the original hearing, relevant to the allegations in question, credible and capable of affecting the result of the review.

In the review hearing, Perrick raised issues that were not included in his notice of review. The Benchers were of the view that the review should be decided based on the issues raised in the notice of review and declined to entertain submissions on issues not raised in the notice of review.

Because the notice of review alleged no errors, beyond the abuse of process issue, pertaining to the decision on facts and determination or the decision on disciplinary action, the Benchers confirmed those decisions.

2018 LSBC 07 Decision of the Benchers on Review