Alberta’s Lawyers Police Their Own. The Process Is Brutal and Broken

In July, a Law Society of Alberta tribunal found former United Conservative Party health minister Tyler Shandro not guilty of unprofessional conduct in all three citations related to his behaviour toward several citizens while in office.

Several key witnesses in Shandro’s hearing told The Tyee they expected that outcome.

None, however, said they expected to be disrespected, denigrated and, in one case, traumatized by a gross privacy breach.

They said the law society forced them to testify, without legal representation, and then did nothing to shield them from a hearing process that they felt abused and revictimized them.

The Tyee spoke with three of the four main hearing witnesses, the alleged victims of Shandro’s alleged unprofessional conduct. None filed a complaint against Shandro but all were forced to testify under threat of subpoena.

All three said they would never recommend that anyone co-operate with a Law Society of Alberta investigation, and two said they would not recommend compliance with a subpoena to testify in a hearing.

“I would say to every single person I know today that it is an abusive process, they should have nothing to do with it, and they should fight it 100 per cent of the way,” said witness Janice Fraser, whose family’s privacy was breached by Shandro in the hearing.

“I would never do it again,” Fraser said. “They would have to actually convict me.”

In a 2019 opinion editorial in the Globe and Mail, University of Toronto law professor Anita Anand, now president of Canada’s Treasury Board, promoted changes that Ontario’s law society needed to make if it wished to continue to maintain the public’s support for self-regulation.

Several jurisdictions, including Australia and the United Kingdom, have stripped lawyers of the right of self-regulation because they weren’t serving the public interest but instead the vested interest of their members.

Anand argued law society benchers in Ontario “should be subject to an explicit twofold statutory duty contained in the Law Society Act to act in the best interests of the public and to exercise reasonable care when doing so.”

In the Shandro hearing case, the witnesses interviewed by The Tyee paint a picture of a proceeding in which the law society did not exercise reasonable care and how they were treated did not serve the public interest.

A dangerous breach of privacy

Their experiences demonstrate that the risks posed to witnesses can range beyond the emotional toll of being aggressively cross-examined.

At one point during Fraser’s testimony, Shandro’s lawyer revealed sensitive information that breached the privacy of Fraser and her family. The egregious disclosure went unnoticed by the law society’s external counsel, the tribunal’s counsel, the three members of the tribunal and Shandro’s lawyer.

I reported it to the law society within minutes of its occurrence after first consulting with Fraser. The law society later issued a publication ban. But at least a dozen people, including members of the public, were privy to the highly confidential information. The release of the information can’t be undone.

Apart from the publication ban, the law society has made no effort to mitigate the grievous harm done to Fraser and her family. It has never apologized or even acknowledged the harm.

Law society president Deanna Steblyk declined several interview requests and the law society refused to respond to questions about what, if anything, it did to review how the breach of privacy occurred, what recourse, if any, Fraser has and other questions related to the treatment of other witnesses.

“Our obligation is to ensure procedural fairness for all participants [in] the hearing,” a law society statement said. “We are satisfied that our obligation was met in this hearing.”

Andrew Flavelle Martin is a law professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax who has written about law society regulation of lawyers turned politicians.

“I'm very idealistic but my hope would be that anyone in a position of authority at the law society in this sort of incident [Fraser’s breach of privacy] would be bending over backwards to do whatever they could to mitigate what happened,” he said.

“But also to find out why it happened, and develop some sort of process to reduce the chance that it will happen again.”

Signals of disrespect and discrimination

Another main witness was Dr. Mukarram Zaidi. No one from the law society bothered to ask him for the correct pronunciation of his name. It was mispronounced by Shandro’s lawyer and others throughout the entirety of his testimony.

Zaidi, who is Muslim, said he felt disrespected and belittled. In the fall of 2020, the law society invited all its members, including articling students and internationally trained lawyers, “to share their experiences of racial discrimination and stereotyping.”

Remarkably, the law society later issued a statement in which it acknowledged “the existence and impact of systemic discrimination within the justice system, including within the Law Society and the legal profession.” And it vowed to address systemic discrimination because it “goes against principles of fairness that the legal profession values and upholds.”

Acknowledging the impact of systemic discrimination was critical, it said, “to protecting the public interest and fulfilling its regulatory objectives.”

Professor Wendy Cukier is the founder and academic director of the Diversity Institute at Toronto Metropolitan University. Cukier declined to comment on how the law society treated Zaidi, but she said mispronouncing someone’s name is often considered a form of “microaggression” because it doesn’t show basic human respect.

“Names are really important, because names are part of people's identity,” Cukier said. “And certainly, good practice is always to ask people how they pronounce their names and to try to address them appropriately.”

Cukier directed me to letters recently written by a subcommittee of the Canadian Bar Association to the chief justices of the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal, to raise awareness about the importance of name pronunciation.

“Mispronunciation of names contributes to stigma and marginalization by signalling to certain individuals and groups that they do not belong, are less valued, and are not respected,” the letter reads.

It also “reinforces their ongoing social and systemic marginalization.”

The Law Society of Alberta refused to respond to a direct question from The Tyee about why it didn’t bother to check the proper pronunciation of Zaidi’s name.

Witnesses’ lives take a back seat

Two witnesses also felt the law society disrespected them and showed bias for postponing the hearing to accommodate Shandro’s political career.

The law society originally scheduled his hearing for Oct. 17 to 19, 2022, but postponed it without any public explanation until January 2023.

Family doctor Lauralee Dukeshire said she had either cancelled or not scheduled patients to be available to testify.

Danielle Smith was elected UCP leader on Oct. 6, 2022. That same evening, the law society’s legal counsel told Dukeshire in an email that the hearing might be postponed. The following day, that was confirmed.

After Dukeshire saw a video of UCP members playing paintball as part of a team-building exercise at a retreat, she asked the society’s legal counsel if the postponement was to accommodate Shandro’s participation. They confirmed it was.

She said she sent an email to the law society telling them that she “didn’t have a lot of faith in the process” and she wanted to withdraw and not co-operate any further.

“I was told, basically, if you don't do this voluntarily, then they would subpoena me.”

Dukeshire said she was asked during both the law society investigation and the hearing if Shandro’s actions had damaged her opinion of the legal profession. She said she would not trust Shandro as a lawyer but her opinion of the legal profession had not been damaged.

“Today,” she told The Tyee, “I can say that my opinion of the legal profession has been damaged by my experience of testifying for the law society and by the verdict rendered.”

She said the law society totally disregarded the power imbalance between the witnesses and the health minister and they disregarded the effect Shandro had on her and her family.

Janice Fraser said the law society refused to tell her the reason for the postponement. She also tried to withdraw when the hearing was postponed and told them she would refuse to testify.

“I said, ‘This is just a political charade, and I don't want to have any part of it.’ And then, I was threatened to be subpoenaed.

“So I thought, ‘Well, I have no power in this. They will subpoena me. I will still have to show up.’”

Zaidi also said he told the law society he did not wish to testify and was told he would be subpoenaed.

A witness relentlessly ‘berated’

The first citation alleging Shandro broke the lawyers’ code of conduct related to an incident in which Shandro went to Zaidi’s home and allegedly berated him on his driveway after the doctor posted a derogatory meme about Shandro and his wife, who are part owners of a company that offers private health insurance.

A second citation involved the alleged breach of privacy of two doctors, including Dukeshire, who had heckled Shandro at a funding announcement at Red Deer hospital. Shandro obtained the doctors’ names and personal cellphone numbers from Alberta Health Services and called the doctors at home at night.

His third citation related to an email he sent to Janice Fraser, who had contacted his wife’s insurance company through its website and told her she and Shandro were in a conflict of interest due to their private insurance company. Shandro threatened to send protective services after her if she ever contacted his wife again.

Shandro’s lawyer, Grant Stapon of Calgary, sought a summary dismissal of the citations because he argued Shandro was acting as a politician, not as a lawyer, and the law society should have no jurisdiction over him. He also argued the complaint against his client was politically motivated.

After a six-month break, the tribunal ruled against Shandro’s claim that he was not acting in his capacity as a lawyer during the incidents.

Martin, the Dalhousie law professor, addressed this issue in a 2012 Canadian Bar Review article, which the tribunal, in part, relied upon in its ruling.

Martin said the law society ruling addressed two key principles. “One being if you are a lawyer, then you are a lawyer and the law society has jurisdiction over you, even if you’re not practising, even if it is ‘off time’ or ‘off hours.’”

The other principle was that even if there was a political agenda or collateral purpose behind the complaints, “that doesn’t mean there wasn’t misconduct.”

Martin said the tribunal clearly rejected Shandro’s argument that “this is all a political attack against me, and you shouldn’t consider it.”

Nonetheless, Shandro’s lawyer spent hours attempting to advance the theory that Zaidi had somehow politically colluded with the Alberta Medical Association, or AMA, and the Alberta NDP to smear Shandro by co-ordinating the leak about, and concomitant media coverage of, Shandro’s confrontation with the doctor on his driveway.

Shandro’s lawyer also advanced the associated theory that this collusion and resultant negative publicity was somehow meant to leverage the AMA’s bargaining position as it sought higher fees for doctors during ongoing negotiations with the government.

“That is a very serious thing to allege without supporting evidence,” Martin said.

Because no evidence had been adduced to support either theory or any of Stapon’s accusations — no smoking-gun emails, no internal documents, no independent witnesses — Stapon’s examination of Zaidi devolved into a series of repetitive accusatory statements that Zaidi first testily, and then wearily, denied.

Stapon accused Zaidi of co-ordinating an NDP news conference about the driveway incident, and he accused him of “setting up” the nine interviews he did with media outlets after the story broke.

At one point I counted that Stapon asked Zaidi 15 similar questions in a row. That sort of repetitive questioning is generally not allowed in a court of law.

When testimony continued one morning, Zaidi apologized to the tribunal chair for losing patience the previous day but said, “When the opposing counsel accuses me of the same thing multiple times, can I just say no, or do I have to answer?”

Tribunal chair Bud Melnyk told him he was not obligated to answer a question if he had already given the answer but he was obligated to answer questions even if they appeared to be in repetitive sets.

“I would also note you're not on trial,” Melnyk said.

“I get the sense you feel that you're somehow being attacked. That isn't the case. You're not on trial here.”

I produced the original story for CBC about Shandro allegedly berating Zaidi on his driveway and the alleged threat against Janice Fraser.

Zaidi had testified during the hearing that he had told only five trusted people from the AMA, and UCP MLA Mike Ellis, about the driveway incident with Shandro.

Stapon accused Zaidi and his AMA friends of leaking the story to me “because they were attempting to lever fee negotiations.” Stapon’s groundless accusation was posted on X by a Postmedia reporter covering the hearing.

Reporters are never supposed to become part of the story, but Stapon was imputing a motive to Zaidi when he had no supporting evidence. I felt an obligation to set the record straight.

In a series of posts on X, I revealed the truth, which is that the tip I received didn’t come from an AMA doctor but from “an active UCP member who dislikes Shandro and didn’t appreciate him being parachuted into the [Calgary] Acadia riding.” I also posted that my source heard about it from another political person.

And I said it took me a total of about 40 minutes over two phone calls to persuade Zaidi to tell the story on the record of what happened on his driveway with Shandro.

Zaidi had seen my post and asked the tribunal chair if it could be read into the record since it showed neither he nor anyone from the AMA had leaked me the story.

Tribunal member Grant Vogeli, a Calgary lawyer, intervened and brusquely chastised Zaidi.

“You are here to answer questions only,” Vogeli said. “Not to give us a speech or offer information.”

In an interview, Zaidi said he didn’t understand how the process worked, and if he had, he never would have agreed to co-operate unless the law society provided independent counsel.

Although the tribunal chair told Zaidi he was not on trial and was not being attacked, that is exactly how it felt to him when he was being accused of colluding with the AMA and NDP to smear Shandro.

“I would tell people not to help the law society because this was a very, very unpleasant experience,” he said.

“There wasn’t any respect and I felt like I was just being berated by his lawyer,” Zaidi said.

He questioned why the law society’s outside counsel didn’t intervene when he was being “berated” by Stapon and subjected to false accusations that directly attacked his reputation.

And when he attempted to complain about his treatment, he was publicly scolded by Vogeli.

“He was very disrespectful and insulting,” Zaidi said, adding that he has no doubt that if he had been represented by independent counsel, they would have objected to it.

The law society refused to answer a question about Vogeli’s treatment of Zaidi.

In its ruling, the tribunal found Shandro’s behaviour toward Zaidi did not rise to the level of sanction. The tribunal characterized the interaction as an argument between neighbours, and it found there is nothing inherently wrong with a lawyer approaching a neighbour with concerns.

“To find Mr. Shandro guilty would mean that no lawyer could engage in an argumentative or emotionally heated private conversation with another person,” the ruling stated.

Zaidi couldn’t understand how the law society determined he was a neighbour of Shandro in any way, other than the physical proximity of their houses.

Martin, the law professor, does not understand how the tribunal determined the interaction between Zaidi and Shandro was simply an argument.

“If I were in that doctor's position at my home, being accosted by someone I barely knew, someone I might recognize visually, but I'm not neighbours within the colloquial sense, I would be terrified,” he said.

Martin said this incident makes him think less not only of Shandro but of the tribunal for ruling his behaviour was acceptable.

The dissenting tribunal member’s view

Edith Kloberdanz, the tribunal’s civilian member, dissented on the tribunal’s finding in relation to Zaidi. She said she would have found Shandro guilty.

Kloberdanz did not consider Shandro’s conduct to be just a “‘conversation’ with his neighbour.” Shandro, she said, “attended uninvited and unannounced at [Zaidi’s] residence in an emotional state.”

Shandro could have taken a “plethora” of options other than going to Zaidi’s house, she said, and his failure to do so is “incompatible with the best interest of the public and negatively affects the public perception.”

Kloberdanz was “particularly troubled” that Zaidi’s children witnessed at least some of the incident. When Shandro arrived and found Zaidi’s children playing on the driveway, she noted that he still persisted in his plan to confront Zaidi.

“I am even more troubled by the undisputed fact of Mr. Shandro telling the children to stay inside while the conversation took place,” she wrote. “This shows not only poor judgment but, in my opinion, crosses the line into inappropriate conduct on Mr. Shandro’s part.”

The other tribunal members had found Shandro’s behaviour was somewhat justified given the threats against his family.

But Kloberdanz said there was “no justification or emergency” for Shandro to engage Zaidi at his house.

“The public’s trust and confidence in lawyers is based on the ability of lawyers to manage their behaviour in highly stressful situations and circumstances,” she wrote, adding that Shandro’s conduct “erodes public confidence in the legal profession and as such puts the legal profession into disrepute.”

The other tribunal members found no nexus between Shandro’s off-duty conduct and his position as a lawyer “that demonstrates a sufficiently negative impact on the public interest or the profession.” Kloberdanz pointed out that Shandro, as health minister, was a high-profile member of the government and was well known to be a lawyer.

“Public perception is fundamental here,” she wrote, and his confrontation with Zaidi at his home, in front of his children, over a meme posted on social media, is conduct that is “damaging to the reputation of lawyers and negatively affects the public perception of lawyers.”

Kloberdanz acknowledged that Shandro’s integrity wasn’t at issue with the citation. But she said the law society’s code of conduct “requires a lawyer to retain the trust, respect and confidence of members of the public and I find in this case that has not occurred.”

Martin said the dissent by Kloberdanz takes a more well-rounded, and realistic, approach to public perception than the majority in relation to how Shandro’s behaviour could challenge public confidence in the profession.

“His conduct was actually much more serious than the majority states, and given that extra seriousness, it goes over the line to become misconduct.”

If you have any information for this story, or information for another story, please contact Charles Rusnell in confidence via email.