Complaints, Lawyer Discipline and Public Hearings

Summary of Decision on Application for Stay

Catherine Ann Sas

Vancouver, BC
Called to the bar: May 19, 1989
Decision issued: May 2, 2016 (2016 LSBC 15)
President’ s designate: Lee Ongman
Counsel: J. Kenneth McEwan, QC for the Law Society; Peter J. Wilson, QC for Catherine Ann Sas

BACKGROUND

A citation was issued on August 1, 2013. The hearing panel decision on facts and determination was issued on April 20, 2015 (2015 LSBC 19), and on January 25 2016 the hearing panel imposed a four-month suspension, to take effect March 1, 2016 (2016 LSBC 03). A notice of review dated February 9, 2016 was delivered to the Law Society applicable to both panel decisions. A stay of the suspension was entered on February 24, 2016, with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

Although the Law Society was not opposed to the application for a stay pending the review, with conditions, a three-part test as set out in RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311, still had to be satisfied, namely:

  • the review must not be frivolous or vexatious;
  • the applicant must show that she will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and
  • the granting of the stay must not put the public at risk.

Being satisfied that the three conditions have been met, the President’ s designate ordered that the stay is granted, and will terminate:

  • upon the applicant’ s review being discontinued or abandoned by the applicant;
  • upon the applicant’ s review being dismissed by the review board;
  • upon further order of the review board; or
  • on September 15, 2016,

whichever event occurs first.

The order for costs is automatically stayed pursuant to the Law Society Rules.

2016 LSBC 15 Decision on Application for Stay