An Ontario man who admitted to inappropriate sexual behaviour with children is permitted to become a lawyer as long as he is not alone with minors. .“We find that significant time has passed since the serious misconduct that took place in 2009 and that his actions since 2017 show a sincere and concerted attempt to address not only the historical sexual misconduct but also to address his failure to be candid, forthright and open about that misconduct with his family, medical practitioners and the Law Society during the initial licensing process,” said the Ontario Law Society Tribunal adjudicator Jay Sengupta in a ruling. .Sengupta said AA, (his real name is under a publication ban), found himself experiencing symptoms of sexual dysfunction which concerned him. He said it is undisputed AA engaged in acts of sexual abuse towards children, including one of his own, which involved touching them and being touched by them while clothed, three times in 2009. .His conduct came to light when the father of one of the children confronted him. He was not criminally charged, began to take medication to curb his sexual dysfunction and was subject to supervision when around children, including his own, for a few months. .In AA’s first application to be licensed as a lawyer in 2012, he did not disclose any of the events from 2009. An anonymous letter prompted the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) to launch an investigation. .During that investigation, he continued to withhold medical records and information about his past sexual misconduct. .He admitted to this in 2017 when he discontinued his first licensing application and agreed to pay the costs related to it. Prior to the investigation, he minimized his actions in discussions with medical practitioners and admits he did the same with the LSO. .By failing to own up to what he had done, Sengupta said he admits to behaving dishonestly. He said he “rationalized and tried to justify his actions, describing himself as scrambling to avoid the shame as he imagined that he could not survive in a world where he was outed as a child sex offender.”.The Law Society Tribunal heard a great deal of evidence about the therapeutic interventions AA had sought out and engaged in since 2017. His goal was to live with honesty and integrity and to learn how to speak about the behaviours. .He began by seeking referrals through the Canadian Association of Mental Health, but he encountered some difficulties because he was not involved in the criminal justice system. .The applicant attended weekly treatment sessions with a psychologist for one year in 2018. This included working through assigned readings and journalling and led to him participating in group therapy for three months. .He said he was shocked how stable most people in the group were, despite having seen their lives almost ruined. He called seeing group members achieve healthy lives a “cold splash of water.” .AA submitted to an assessment by a psychiatrist he retained who interviewed him on one occasion, conducted various tests and reviewed his medical records. The psychiatrist provided a report and attended the hearing. .He diagnosed him as suffering from a pedophilic disorder in remission. While he had symptoms in the past, he no longer has them. .The psychiatrist explained the methods used in his assessment and tests conducted. The risk for reoffending decreases every five years and AA’s overall risk assessment is lower than most men on the scale because of his lack of criminal history and the passage of time since the incidents in 2009. .He recommended it would be wise for him to attend group therapy and not engage in activities which would bring him in contact with women and children unchaperoned. He emphasized the importance of support and having a place where he could talk to people who are aware of his circumstances and challenges. .Sengupta acknowledged it considered the question of whether and when terms and conditions can be imposed in the context of a good character licensing application from Levenson vs. Law Society of Upper Canada. .“In the present case, we are persuaded that the applicant has established he is currently a person of good character and that his application for an L1 licence should be granted,” he said. .“We have also considered his offer of an undertaking not to meet in unsupervised settings with minor children and conclude that public confidence in the regulation of lawyers and paralegals would be enhanced by a term that requires that he not do so.”
An Ontario man who admitted to inappropriate sexual behaviour with children is permitted to become a lawyer as long as he is not alone with minors. .“We find that significant time has passed since the serious misconduct that took place in 2009 and that his actions since 2017 show a sincere and concerted attempt to address not only the historical sexual misconduct but also to address his failure to be candid, forthright and open about that misconduct with his family, medical practitioners and the Law Society during the initial licensing process,” said the Ontario Law Society Tribunal adjudicator Jay Sengupta in a ruling. .Sengupta said AA, (his real name is under a publication ban), found himself experiencing symptoms of sexual dysfunction which concerned him. He said it is undisputed AA engaged in acts of sexual abuse towards children, including one of his own, which involved touching them and being touched by them while clothed, three times in 2009. .His conduct came to light when the father of one of the children confronted him. He was not criminally charged, began to take medication to curb his sexual dysfunction and was subject to supervision when around children, including his own, for a few months. .In AA’s first application to be licensed as a lawyer in 2012, he did not disclose any of the events from 2009. An anonymous letter prompted the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) to launch an investigation. .During that investigation, he continued to withhold medical records and information about his past sexual misconduct. .He admitted to this in 2017 when he discontinued his first licensing application and agreed to pay the costs related to it. Prior to the investigation, he minimized his actions in discussions with medical practitioners and admits he did the same with the LSO. .By failing to own up to what he had done, Sengupta said he admits to behaving dishonestly. He said he “rationalized and tried to justify his actions, describing himself as scrambling to avoid the shame as he imagined that he could not survive in a world where he was outed as a child sex offender.”.The Law Society Tribunal heard a great deal of evidence about the therapeutic interventions AA had sought out and engaged in since 2017. His goal was to live with honesty and integrity and to learn how to speak about the behaviours. .He began by seeking referrals through the Canadian Association of Mental Health, but he encountered some difficulties because he was not involved in the criminal justice system. .The applicant attended weekly treatment sessions with a psychologist for one year in 2018. This included working through assigned readings and journalling and led to him participating in group therapy for three months. .He said he was shocked how stable most people in the group were, despite having seen their lives almost ruined. He called seeing group members achieve healthy lives a “cold splash of water.” .AA submitted to an assessment by a psychiatrist he retained who interviewed him on one occasion, conducted various tests and reviewed his medical records. The psychiatrist provided a report and attended the hearing. .He diagnosed him as suffering from a pedophilic disorder in remission. While he had symptoms in the past, he no longer has them. .The psychiatrist explained the methods used in his assessment and tests conducted. The risk for reoffending decreases every five years and AA’s overall risk assessment is lower than most men on the scale because of his lack of criminal history and the passage of time since the incidents in 2009. .He recommended it would be wise for him to attend group therapy and not engage in activities which would bring him in contact with women and children unchaperoned. He emphasized the importance of support and having a place where he could talk to people who are aware of his circumstances and challenges. .Sengupta acknowledged it considered the question of whether and when terms and conditions can be imposed in the context of a good character licensing application from Levenson vs. Law Society of Upper Canada. .“In the present case, we are persuaded that the applicant has established he is currently a person of good character and that his application for an L1 licence should be granted,” he said. .“We have also considered his offer of an undertaking not to meet in unsupervised settings with minor children and conclude that public confidence in the regulation of lawyers and paralegals would be enhanced by a term that requires that he not do so.”
