The hearing committee heard from the two complainants. The appellant did not testify, but he was represented by counsel. The hearing committee ruled the standard of proof required is that of “convincing evidence”. This test is well established (see Shumiatcher v. Law Society of Saskatchewan[48]): The principles to be deduced from these authorities, in my opinion, are these: When a complaint is made against a solicitor which may result in his suspension or disbarment, effect should not be given thereto unless the grounds of the complaint are established by convincing evidence, and when the complaint involves a criminal act, by evidence establishing the grounds beyond a reasonable doubt.[49] The hearing committee found that the “intended recipients” were the complainants B. and H. It also found the letters in issue, including the attachments, fell within the definition of “marketing activity”. No issue was taken with this finding. All arguments were addressed to the remaining questions.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.