Sanctions pleadings against Me Stéphane Harvey, who was found guilty of two decisions made by the Disciplinary Council of his professional order, will take place shortly. These will automatically result in deletion from the register (the duration of which will be determined by the Board).
In a motion he filed on May 19, Mr. Harvey pointed out that he was a victim of a unfair, unfair and unlawful treatment from the Council. This is why he also asked to be granted stay in proceedings leading to disciplinary sanctions, while the Superior Court considered his request. Continuation of legal proceedings […] cause irreparable harm since I can no longer work. He points out that he is no history of discipline.
The basis of his argument is based on the speed at which the first decision was given, given the weight of the work of Maurice Cloutier, the president of the disciplinary council that heard the disciplinary complaint, while issuing other decisions.
I believe Harvey because it seemed impossible for President Cloutier to complete the entire process of drafting such an impressive decision (213 pages and 871 paragraphs) within 20 legal days, in addition to other written decisions made in the same period ( total 241 pages and 683 paragraphs), following which the decision was developed in whole or in part in advance.
Counsel for Quebec relied on the same reasoning in the case of the second decision made against him, which we discussed.
Recall that Stéphane Harvey was convicted of ten counts of offenses on April 7th. The Council accuses him of allocating amounts held to a trust account at the expense of a young heir, a legend we have told.
Mr. always insists. Harvey that the executor approved (and even signed) the invoices, but instead the Council found out that his initials were fake by someone else.
In his motion in Superior Court, Me Harvey acknowledged that one of the issues at the heart of this case (is) whether the document is fake or not. He explained that the day after the decision, he asked to accept the full file to understand how the council came to such an analysis and conclusions that are so far from the truth.
He explained that the registry secretary had told him that it is impossible to return the documents to him in the order (…) that the documents and documents were sent out of order. As for the digital file, he describes it as bring. He’s finishing that the clerk of the Disciplinary Board did not compile and maintain any file contrary to what is provided for in the Professional Code.
He added in addition to giving a decision despite the absence of the file, the Board never saw the original of the document in dispute because it was never produced as evidence; to this day, it is still in the possession of the complainant.
Me Harvey argues that in doing so, the Disciplinary Council exceeded its jurisdiction and violated the most fundamental principles of natural justice.
It will be recalled that the Disciplinary Board taught Me Harvey multiplied methods which had the effect of delaying the hearing of the case involving the young heir. Me Alicia Soldevila, the judge who dismissed her motion to disqualify the trustee, ruled that these were additional delay measures deployed to defeat the disciplinary complaints filed against him. (…) Instead of postponing the process, he should face it.
A motion to dismiss the appeal and the motion for a stay have already been filed.
Source: Radio-Canada
