Former Alberta justice minister Tyler Shandro has been found not guilty of professional misconduct by the Law Society of Alberta (LSA). LSA Hearing Committee members Bud Melnyk and Grant Vogeli had agreed with the entirety of the ruling, but member Edith Kloberdanz dissented for part of it. “While we conclude that the Citations were not made out, the Committee thought that Mr. Shandro’s conduct at the time of the events that give rise to the Citations was at times inappropriate,” said Melnyk and Vogeli in a Thursday ruling.“However, we find that the conduct did not rise to the level of conduct deserving of sanction."The three citations brought against Shandro were he went to a neighbour's home and behaved inappropriately by engaging in conduct bringing the profession into disrepute, used his position as health minister to obtain personal cellphone numbers and contacted people outside of regular working hours using them, and responded to an email to his wife by threatening to refer the sender to authorities if she did not address future correspondences to his office. While Shandro did confront his neighbour in his driveway, Melnyk and Vogeli said there “is nothing in the conduct of Mr. Shandro which impairs his ability to perform as a lawyer nor does the incident reflect negatively on the competence or ethics of Mr. Shandro.” They added it is clear he attended his neighbour’s home as a father, husband, and the Alberta health minister. They said there is no evidence his actions would reflect negatively on the characteristics of a competent, ethical lawyer. Given the circumstances of what was transpiring on social media, they said it was understandable he would be upset. He was not in any capacity acting as a lawyer and did not identify himself as one during the altercation. While his neighbour would have known he was a lawyer, the issue around the meme he posted arose from his concern for the safety of he and his family. The members went on to say his phone calls to two physicians was done as health minister and had no connection to practicing law. He had called as the health minister and did not identify himself as being a lawyer. There was no connection in the calls to practicing law. In response, they said there were no actions reflecting negatively on the characteristics required to be a competent, ethical lawyer. In hindsight, they acknowledged he should have been more diligent in confirming the consent of the doctors prior to obtaining their cellphone numbers or calling them. While this might be careless on his part, they said mere carelessness cannot be sanctioned. Melnyk and Vogeli found Shandro’s conduct in the email he sent does not reflect negatively on the characteristics required to be a competent, ethical lawyer. Although the email was unsanctionable, they said it lacked civility and professionalism. The tone of the email was not done in a professional manner. After considering the context of the ordeal, they said it does not rise to a sanctionable level. They noted the conduct was acceptable, especially because of the personal circumstances at the time. While the recipient’s trust in lawyers might have been diminished, the email would not impair client trust to average people. “Mr. Shandro is not guilty on all three Citations,” said Melnyk and Vogeli. Kloberdanz disagreed with Melnyk and Vogeli on the analysis, reasons, and decision on the first citation. “Instead, I would find Mr. Shandro guilty of conduct deserving of sanction on Citation 1 for the reasons set out below,” said Kloberdanz. “In writing the Dissent, I am guided by the principle that ‘the purpose of disciplining lawyers is to protect the public interest and maintain public confidence in the legal profession.’”She said there was a plethora of options available to him to resolve his concerns with his neighbour without going to his house. Since he failed to consider these options, she called it “unreasonable and inappropriate and is incompatible with the best interest of the public and negatively affects the public perception.” Shandro responded by saying these complaints were the culmination of years of personal attacks against he and his family. “These complaints were based on false allegations, and I have maintained the allegations were baseless and frivolous,” he said. “Today, I am pleased to have been exonerated.”.He said he and his family are grateful this process is over. Moreover, he argued the abuse of the LSA for political purposes is wrong. Shandro’s LSA hearing resumed in 2023 with his wife Andrea bursting into tears while speaking about the harassment they faced. READ MORE: Shandro's Law Society of Alberta hearing sees his wife break down“Just things like ‘Die die die you f*cking bitch,’” said Andrea. “Just terrible things.”
Former Alberta justice minister Tyler Shandro has been found not guilty of professional misconduct by the Law Society of Alberta (LSA). LSA Hearing Committee members Bud Melnyk and Grant Vogeli had agreed with the entirety of the ruling, but member Edith Kloberdanz dissented for part of it. “While we conclude that the Citations were not made out, the Committee thought that Mr. Shandro’s conduct at the time of the events that give rise to the Citations was at times inappropriate,” said Melnyk and Vogeli in a Thursday ruling.“However, we find that the conduct did not rise to the level of conduct deserving of sanction."The three citations brought against Shandro were he went to a neighbour's home and behaved inappropriately by engaging in conduct bringing the profession into disrepute, used his position as health minister to obtain personal cellphone numbers and contacted people outside of regular working hours using them, and responded to an email to his wife by threatening to refer the sender to authorities if she did not address future correspondences to his office. While Shandro did confront his neighbour in his driveway, Melnyk and Vogeli said there “is nothing in the conduct of Mr. Shandro which impairs his ability to perform as a lawyer nor does the incident reflect negatively on the competence or ethics of Mr. Shandro.” They added it is clear he attended his neighbour’s home as a father, husband, and the Alberta health minister. They said there is no evidence his actions would reflect negatively on the characteristics of a competent, ethical lawyer. Given the circumstances of what was transpiring on social media, they said it was understandable he would be upset. He was not in any capacity acting as a lawyer and did not identify himself as one during the altercation. While his neighbour would have known he was a lawyer, the issue around the meme he posted arose from his concern for the safety of he and his family. The members went on to say his phone calls to two physicians was done as health minister and had no connection to practicing law. He had called as the health minister and did not identify himself as being a lawyer. There was no connection in the calls to practicing law. In response, they said there were no actions reflecting negatively on the characteristics required to be a competent, ethical lawyer. In hindsight, they acknowledged he should have been more diligent in confirming the consent of the doctors prior to obtaining their cellphone numbers or calling them. While this might be careless on his part, they said mere carelessness cannot be sanctioned. Melnyk and Vogeli found Shandro’s conduct in the email he sent does not reflect negatively on the characteristics required to be a competent, ethical lawyer. Although the email was unsanctionable, they said it lacked civility and professionalism. The tone of the email was not done in a professional manner. After considering the context of the ordeal, they said it does not rise to a sanctionable level. They noted the conduct was acceptable, especially because of the personal circumstances at the time. While the recipient’s trust in lawyers might have been diminished, the email would not impair client trust to average people. “Mr. Shandro is not guilty on all three Citations,” said Melnyk and Vogeli. Kloberdanz disagreed with Melnyk and Vogeli on the analysis, reasons, and decision on the first citation. “Instead, I would find Mr. Shandro guilty of conduct deserving of sanction on Citation 1 for the reasons set out below,” said Kloberdanz. “In writing the Dissent, I am guided by the principle that ‘the purpose of disciplining lawyers is to protect the public interest and maintain public confidence in the legal profession.’”She said there was a plethora of options available to him to resolve his concerns with his neighbour without going to his house. Since he failed to consider these options, she called it “unreasonable and inappropriate and is incompatible with the best interest of the public and negatively affects the public perception.” Shandro responded by saying these complaints were the culmination of years of personal attacks against he and his family. “These complaints were based on false allegations, and I have maintained the allegations were baseless and frivolous,” he said. “Today, I am pleased to have been exonerated.”.He said he and his family are grateful this process is over. Moreover, he argued the abuse of the LSA for political purposes is wrong. Shandro’s LSA hearing resumed in 2023 with his wife Andrea bursting into tears while speaking about the harassment they faced. READ MORE: Shandro's Law Society of Alberta hearing sees his wife break down“Just things like ‘Die die die you f*cking bitch,’” said Andrea. “Just terrible things.”
