FORM 68A

Courts of Justice Act

THE DIVISIONAL COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

DR. SATYAM PATEL

(APPLICANT)
AND

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SASKATCHEWAN

(RESPONDENT)

TO THE RESPONDENT
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the Applicant. The claim made by
the Applicant appears on the following pages.

THIS APPLICATION for judicial review will come on for a hearing before the Divisional Court
on a due date to be fixed by the registrar at the place of hearing requested by the applicant. The
applicant respectfully requests that this application be heard at V ictoria Avenue Court House at
2425 Victoria Avenue, Regina, at date and time determined by the Court.

IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the
application or to be served with any documents in the application, you or an Saskatchewan
lawyer acting fo you must forthwith prepare a notice of appearance in Form 38A prescribed by
the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on Applicant’s lawyer or, where the Applicant does not
have a lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and file it with proof of service, in the office of the
Divisional Court, and you or your lawyer must appear at the hearing.

IF YOU WISH TO PRESENT AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO

THE COURT OR TO EXAMINE OR CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES IN THE
APPLICATION, you or your lawyer must, in addition to serving you notice of appearance, serve
a copy of the evidence on the applicant’s layer or, where the Applicant does not have a lawyer,
serve it on the applicant, and file it with proof of service, in the office of the Divisional Court
within thirty days after service on your of the applicant’s application record, or at least four days
before the hearing, whichever is earlier.

IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN TO YOU IN

YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO
DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT UNABLE TO OAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY
BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.
Date Issued by
Registrar
Address of court office
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
TO DIVISIONAL COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
of Law Society of Saskatchewan’s Complaint Review Committee’s Decision
Dated May 30, 2023
RE: Complaint against Nicholas Stooshinoff, Case No. 80-18501

The Applicant makes an application for judicial review seeking:

1. This is an application for judicial review of the refusal by the Respondent, and the Law
Society of Saskatchewan (LSS), to act on Applicant’s Complaint dated November 19,
2021, against Mr. Nicholas Stooshinoff re: unprofessional behavior, and judge shopping.
The Decision is attached as Appendix “A”.

2. The Applicant seeks an order of mandamus from this Court to require the Law Society
of Saskatchewan to reopen the Applicant’s complaints against Mr. Nicholas Stooshinoff
and conduct a full investigation.

3. For the avoidance of doubt the Applicant request that the Respondent be ordered to
proceed directly to a full hearing regarding charges of professional misconduct rather
than preliminary review and that the Applicant is granted standing pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Law Society Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

4. The Applicant seeks a writ of Certiorari that the LSS must revise its policies vis-à-vis
dismissal of complaints in order to comply with the governing case law re/; provisions
of intelligible reasons.

5. That the Respondent shall produce a full record of proceedings pursuant to Rule 61.09
(2) including any submissions to the LSS by Mr. Nicholas Stooshinoff including all
correspondence and affidavit material filed, internal correspondence, any voting
decisions, any minutes or transcripts, and any reasons related to the decision. All
correspondence received by the LSS regarding this complaint from third parties,
including but not limited to Justice M.D Tochor, which may have influenced decision
making should also be produced.
6. Applicant requests the Respondent produce all versions of the LSS code of Conduct, By
laws, Procedures, and Policies relied upon by the Respondent in the handling of this
complaint, or potentially applicable to the underlying complaint for the purposes of this
Judicial Review.

7. The Applicant also requests the production of all case law or precedent (both external or
internal) considered by the Respondent in relation to the underlying complaint.

8. Pursuant to Rule 6/01 (1) the Applicant requests the Court to hear the Notice of
Application for Judicial Review against the LSS Decision in Case No. 80-18501,
assigned to the Applicant’s complaint against Mr. Nicholas Stooshinoof. K.C.

9. Such other relief just and equitable as this Court will allow.

Facts and timeline:

10. This Application stemmed from a civil claim initiated by the Applicant against inter alia,
the Western Medical Assessment (WMA) in Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench and
docketed as Case no. QBG 240 of 2020.

11. The Applicant is a pro se litigant in Case no. QBG 240 of 2020 in which he claimed that
Dr. McMurtry and WMA provided biased and misleading evidence to the tribunal tasked
with reviewing his suspension. Due to the said case, he had dealings with Mr.
Stooshinoof and Ms. Periera.

12. The WMA is represented inter alia by Jennifer Pereira while Dr. McMurty was
represented by Nicholas Stooshinoff.

13. Ms. Karen Prisciak was the opposing counsel in two cases docketed as QBG 1957 of
2019 and QBG 3187 of 2019 in which the Applicant was one of the parties. However,
Ms. Prisciak later on withdrew her representation as opposing counsel in those actions.
It was Mr. Justice M.D. Tochor who presided and heard the cases.
14. In another case filed against the Applicant by another lawyer, the latter was represented
by Mr. Stooshinoff in a limited capacity and his formal appearance was not filed in the
court.

15. There are instances when Mr. Stooshinoff used derogatory remarks in his
communications in Court pertaining to the Applicant. A copy of the correspondence is
attached as Appendix “B”.

16. Applicant expressed his concern regarding the misconduct of Mr. Stooshinoff by writing
to the Registrar and requesting a conference call with Justice Tochor. However, the said
Letter and request fell on deaf ears. A copy of the Letter and formal registration are
attached as Appendix “C” and Appendix “D”.

17. Applicant learned that in February 2021, Mr. Stooshinoff and his colleagues, Ms.
Jennifer Pereira and Ms. Karen Prisciak approached the Local Registrar about bringing
a matter before the Honorable Justice Tochor which includes the schedules of the court
and to whom the case will be brought. Ms. Prisciak does not represent any of the parties
in the case nor applied for a legal standing but she is included in the chain of electronic
mail involving the matter. Additionally, she was added to the email for scheduling
around February 9, 2022, to February 16, 2021. During those periods, there were 13
instances of ex-parte communication between the Registrar/ Presiding Judge of the case,
Ms. Pereria, Mr. Stooshinoff and Ms. Prisciak. A copy of the correspondence between
the Counsel and Registrar is attached as Appendix “E”.

18. The correspondences contained several de novo applications submitted by the opposing
counsel and the Applicant was never furnished copies of it.

19. In the application for the recusal of the Honorable Justice Tochor, the latter asked the
consent of the Applicant to allow Ms. Periera, Ms. Prisciak and Mr. Stooshinoff to attend
the hearing virtually on February 24, 2021. The said application for recusal was opposed
by Ms. Pereira QC and Mr. Stooshinoof by filing an Application to Strike. Applicant’s
request for the recusal of justice Tochor marked as Appendix “F”.

20. In QBG 240 of 2020, the Honorable Justice Tochor issued a fiat dated March 24, 2021 in
which he adjourned the matter to be heard by another judge.

21. Applicant requested a transcript of record for March 24, 2021 hearing of QBG 240 of
2020 which was denied. He then asked for a copy of the entire record of the case but the
same was not also granted as he was only given transcripts. The correspondence to and
from the registrar was omitted.

22. For several times, the Applicant wrote to the Registrar and Mr. Justice Tochor to raise
his concerns about the ex parte correspondence relative to QBG 240 of 2020 and QBG
3187 of 2019. As a result, Justice Tochor issued a fiat dated April 7, 2021.

23. Justice Tochor was a former partner in the firm of MLT Aikins LLP which retained to
represent the Saskatchewan Hospital Association (SHA) in actions against the Applicant.
SHA also employed Mr. Stoonshinoff’s client. While Ms. Prisciak is retained through
the SLIA which is a subsidiary of the LAWSS.

24. Consequently, the Applicant filed complaints against Jennifer Pereira, and Nicholas
Stooshinoff to the Law Society of Saskatchewan on 19 November 2021. The complaints
assert that the above-mentioned Respondents committed unprofessional behavior and
judge shopping in Q.B.G 240 2020 which has been explained in the Affidavit attached
to this Application and marked as Appendix “E”

25. The Law Society of Saskatchewan assigned the complaint submitted against Mr.
Stoonshinoff as file No. 80-18501.
26. On May 30, 2023, the Law Society of Saskatchewan issued a Decision regarding case
with file No. 80-18501. In the said Decision, the LSS concluded that no further action or
investigation is required as the complaint of conduct unbecoming lacks a reasonable
basis. On the issue of ex parte correspondence, the LSS concluded that Courts are open
to the public, and who attends public hearing are not restricted unless not permitted by
an Order. Hence, any citizen can contact the Registrar to attend a hearing remotely and
they are under no obligation to inform any of the parties of their intention to attend. On
the issue of judge shopping, the LSS held that the allegation is not supported by the
evidence.

Grounds for Judicial Review:

27. The Law Society of Saskatchewan failed to properly investigate the Applicant’s
complaint against Mr. Stoonshinoff.

28. The LSS failed to observe an open and transparent manner and breached the rules of
natural justice and procedural impartiality.

29. The Law Society of Saskatchewan and or the agent Mr. Thompson Dorfman Sweatman
LLP has failed to adequately enforce their own Code of Conduct. The decision to do so
is neither transparent nor intelligible as required by the Supreme Court in case of
Vavilov1 and Dunsmuir2. The LSS failed to clearly describe the reasoning process
adopted, including demonstrating that the tribunal considered the arguments raised by
the parties, grappled with the issues raised by the parties, and explained how it resolved
the issues in dispute between the parties.

30. The rule for all communication with the court is that notice must be provided to the
opposing party unless a valid exception applies.

31. A lawyer must not communicate with a tribunal respecting a matter unless the other
parties to the matter, or their counsel, are present or have had a reasonable prior notice or
1
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) vs. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
2
Dunsmuir vs. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC (CanLII), (2008) 1 SCR 190
unless the circumstances are exceptional and are disclosed fully and completely to the
court. In the case at bar, the Applicant was only informed of the correspondence during
the hearing of the matter.

32. LSS ignored the fact that the ex parte communication made by Mr. Stoonshinoff and his
colleagues is without prior notice to the Applicant. He was not given an opportunity to
oppose or comment on the content of the communications. The requests should have not
been made in an ex parte communication considering that the reasons cited by Mr.
Stoonshinoff do not fall under any of the exceptions. It is unethical to simply send a
Letter or communicate through an email for matters involving procedural rules as they
arouse suspicion of partiality and collusion which might affect the rights of the
Applicant. The Applicant as the adverse party in the subject ex parte correspondence
should have been given a reasonable opportunity to review, comment, and respond to the
communication especially if it involves a person not even a party to the case.

33. The actions of Mr. Stoonshinoff and his colleagues which the LSS has refused to address
caused prejudice and harm to the Applicant and is within the LSS’s mandate to impose
sanction. Consequently, the Applicant seeks an Order of Mandamus from this Honorable
Court requiring the LSS to reopen this matter and conduct a full and proper investigation
to determine the merits of the case.

34. It is a well-established principle in judicial proceedings that a judge should not discuss
any part of an ongoing case with only one party to the dispute. In the case of Hunt3, the
Court held that private conversations between an arbitrator and one party to the dispute,
even those touching on procedural matters, can give rise to a reasonable apprehension of
bias and provide a basis to set aside an arbitral award.

35. The Law Society of Saskatchewan erred in failing to find that the subject ex
parte communications, the associations, or relationships between the judge, Mr.
Stoonshinoff, and his colleagues created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
3
Hunt v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2556,
36. It is a well-accepted principle that the closer the function of the decision-maker is to the
judicial function of adjudicating a dispute, the more the decision-maker will be expected
to comply closely with the standards expected of judges.

37. The Court held that though issues being discussed in the ex parte communications were
not trivial, "Private conversations between an arbitrator and one party to the dispute do
not necessarily have to deal with the merits of the dispute or evidence in order to be
disqualifying." 4

Relevant Rules of Professional Conduct

36. Rule 2.1-1 of the Society of Saskatchewan -

2.1-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities

to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honorably and with
integrity.

37. Rule 2.1-1 A of the Society of Saskatchewan -

“2.1-2 A lawyer has a duty to uphold the standards and reputation of the legal profession
and to assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations and institutions.”

38. Rule 3.1-2 A of the Society of Saskatchewan

“3.1-2 A lawyer must perform all legal services undertaken on a client’s behalf
to the standard of a competent lawyer .”

39. Rule 5.1-4 A of the Society of Saskatchewan

“5.1-4 A lawyer who has unknowingly done or failed to do something that, if done or
omitted knowingly, would have been in breach of this rule and who discovers it,
must, subject to section 3.3 (Confidentiality), disclose the error or omission and do all
that can reasonably be done in the circumstances to rectify it.”

40. Rule 5.1-4 A of the Society of Saskatchewan

“.5.1-2 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must not:

4
Hunt, supra at para 99.
(c) appear before a judicial officer when the lawyer, the lawyer’s associates or the
client have business or personal relationships with the officer that give rise to or
might reasonably appear to give rise to pressure, influence or inducement
affecting the impartiality of the officer, unless all parties consent and it is in the
interests of justice; (d) endeavour or allow anyone else to endeavour, directly or
indirectly, to influence the decision or action of a tribunal or any of its officials in
any case or matter by any means other than open persuasion as an advocate; (e)
knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by
offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false
or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed or otherwise
assisting in any fraud, crime or illegal conduct;

41. Rule 7.2-1 A of the Society of Saskatchewan

“7.2-1 A lawyer must be courteous and civil and act in good faith with all persons
with whom the lawyer has dealings in the course of his or her practice.
Commentary.”

[1] The public interest demands that matters entrusted to a lawyer be dealt with
effectively and expeditiously, and fair and courteous dealing on the part of each
lawyer engaged in a matter will contribute materially to this end. The
lawyer who behaves otherwise does a disservice to the client, and neglect of the
rule will impair the ability of lawyers to perform their functions properly.
[2] Any ill feeling that may exist or be engendered between clients,
particularly during litigation, should never be allowed to influence lawyers
in their conduct and demeanour toward each other or the parties. The
presence of personal animosity between lawyers involved in a matter may
cause their judgment to be clouded by
emotional factors and hinder the proper resolution of the matter. Personal remarks
or personally abusive tactics interfere with the orderly administration of justice
and have no place in our legal system.
[3] A lawyer should avoid ill-considered or uninformed criticism of the
competence, conduct, advice or charges of other lawyers, but should be prepared,
when requested, to advise and represent a client in a complaint involving another
lawyer.
[4] A lawyer should agree to reasonable requests concerning trial dates,
adjournments, the waiver of procedural formalities and similar matters that
do not prejudice the rights of the client.

42. Rule 7.2-4 A of the Society of Saskatchewan

A lawyer must not, in the course of a professional practice, send correspondence or

otherwise communicate to a client, another lawyer or any other person in a manner that is
abusive, offensive, or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional
communication from a lawyer
Rule 7.2-4 A of the Society of Saskatchewan

“A lawyer must not, in the course of professional practice, send correspondence or

otherwise communicate to a client, another lawyer, or any other person in a

manner that is abusive, offensive, or otherwise inconsistent with the proper
tone of a professional communication from a lawyer.”

Relevant Rules of Practice & Procedure

43. Pursuant to Rule 68.01 the Applicant is allowed to bring an application to the Divisional
Court of Justice for Judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

44. Pursuant to Rule 14.05 of the Applicant is allowed to bring an originating application
regarding the inaction of the Law Society of Saskatchewan regarding his complaint against Mr.
Periera.

45. Pursuant to Rule 59.04 the Court may quash or declare void the decision of the Law of
Society of Saskatchewan which fail to uphold or enforce its own Code of Conduct.

46. The requirement of administrative decision to be transparent, intelligent, and justified is

established by the Supreme Court in Vavilov.

47. The framework of “regulations governing review of breach of undertaking the LSS is flawed
and must be reviewed, subject to the principles established by the Federal Court of Law Society
of Canada model Code of Professional Conduct.