For uncivil conduct to rise to the level that would properly engage the disciplinary process, it must be conduct that, in addition to being uncivil, will also bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or would have the tendency to do so.»
He points out that he was not chastised by the trial judge
for uncivil conduct, let alone sanctioned.
Not exact matches
Today's appeal concerns the case of an Ontario lawyer, Joseph Groia, who was disciplined by Ontario's law society
for having engaged in
uncivil conduct.
On appeal, the appeal panel confirmed in order
for uncivil courtroom
conduct to fall to the level of professional misconduct, it must be considered in context.
At one point during the trial, the OSC sought the removal of the trial judge, Peter Hryn, «
for, among other things, an alleged failure to control the
uncivil conduct of (Groia),» according to the factum.
Those principles are: whether the
conduct was
uncivil (rude, abrasive or sarcastic), whether there is a lack of a good - faith basis
for the attack; whether the
conduct has taken place on several occasions, and, most importantly, whether the
conduct has undermined or has a «realistic prospect of undermining» the proper administration of justice.
In light of the defendant's failure and unwillingness to comply with the order made by Stinson J., its late disclosure of important documents, counsel's
uncivil conduct leading up to and at the trial, and the repeated failures of the defendant's counsel to comply with the directions and orders of the court, it is appropriate
for the court to exercise its discretion to deny the successful defendant its costs.
Instead, Mr. Groia's allegedly
uncivil conduct during the trial came to light when the OSC made an application to judicially review the first phase of trial proceedings on the basis of the judge having lost jurisdiction
for failing to control the proceedings (para. 10).
Once the trial was complete, the Law Society issued a Notice of Application
for disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Groia on the basis of his
conduct having been
uncivil during that trial (para. 16).