Admitted Discipline Violations

Summary of Decision on Facts and Determination

Amarjit Singh Dhindsa

Abbotsford, BC

Called to the bar: June 8, 2001

Discipline hearing: November 14, 15 and 16, 2018; January 22, 2019

Panel: Michelle D. Stanford, QC (chair); Brendan Matthews; Herman Van Ommen, QC

Decision issued: March 25, 2019 (2019 LSBC 11)

Counsel: Alison Kirby for the Law Society; Duncan Magnus for Amarjit Singh Dhindsa


Two of Amarjit Singh Dhindsa’s former assistants testified that, shortly after being hired, they were given Dhindsa’s Juricert password and the password to his computer, that Dhindsa permitted them to to affix his electronic signature to documents filed with the Land Title Office, and that they did so routinely. Both claimed that Dhindsa did not sign documents via remote log-in, and did not have GP, the other lawyer in the office, affix his Juricert signature to documents on Dhindsa’s behalf.

Dhindsa testified that he had never given his Juricert password to anyone and that he was not aware that any of his staff had ever used his Juricert password to sign documents digitally. He said that, if his signature was required when he was not in the office, he either logged in remotely to affix his Juricert signature to the documents himself, or he had GP sign on his behalf. 

GP testified that he had no arrangement with Dhindsa to digitally sign documents on Dhindsa’s behalf, that he did not recall ever doing so and that, if he did, it was on rare occasions.

An individual who provided technology services to the firm said that Dhindsa rarely logged in remotely and, when he did, it was mostly to check his calendar.

Dhindsa’s current assistant testified that she regularly logs in to affix his Juricert signature from remote locations, that she was not aware of anyone other than Dhindsa having his Juricert password and that she had heard the two former assistants ask GP to sign documents on Dhindsa’s behalf.

The panel found that GP, the technology service provider and Dhindsa’s two former assistants were credible. It found that Dhindsa’s current assistant gave her evidence in an emotional and highly partisan manner.


The panel determined that the Law Society proved the allegation on a balance of probabilities, and that Dhindsa committed professional misconduct.

2019 LSBC 11 Decision on Facts and Determination