Sexual Harassment Discipline in Ontario's Legal Profession: Power, Evidence, and Accountability

Sara Santos-Vigneault
Dec 8, 2025
4 min read

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault

Date: December 8, 2025

Ontario's legal profession has taken formal steps toward addressing misconduct, particularly in matters involving sexual harassment and authority misuse. Recent decisions from the Law Society Tribunal illustrate inconsistencies in disciplinary outcomes, particularly when comparing cases with differing levels of evidentiary documentation. The decisions in Law Society of Ontario v. Suh and Law Society of Ontario v. Moubarak reveal a core concern in professional regulation, disparities between the severity of harm and the availability of proof.

Law Society of Ontario v. Suh: Misconduct in the Absence of Digital Evidence

In Law Society of Ontario v. Suh, 2023 ONLSTH 152, the Tribunal determined that lawyer Sang-Kyun Suh engaged in professional misconduct involving verbal abuse, sexualized commentary, and unwanted physical contact toward a junior colleague. Incidents included shouting in the office, suggesting the complainant unbutton her blouse during a networking dinner, and groping her thigh and buttocks while she was in a vulnerable state [1].

The Tribunal described Suh’s conduct as “objectively humiliating and degrading.” It stated:

“The respondent touched her in a sexualized way while she was intoxicated and vulnerable. This abuse of power was not incidental—it was deliberate.” (para 71)

Despite recognizing the gravity of the conduct, Suh received a three-month suspension and $6,000 in costs. Mitigating factors cited included a lack of prior discipline and partial cooperation. The Tribunal accepted the complainant's testimony as credible but emphasized the evidentiary limits:

“The panel finds the complainant’s evidence to be clear, compelling, and credible. However, there is a lack of contemporaneous documentation to support the timeline of incidents.” (para 66)

This acknowledgement reflects a systemic issue within legal disciplinary processes. In cases involving interpersonal misconduct, particularly those that occur in social or informal workplace settings, victims rarely have access to contemporaneous documentation. Comments may be made verbally, physical contact may occur in private, and witnesses may be absent entirely. The difficulty in proving such interactions to an adjudicative standard can disincentivize reporting and affect the credibility assessment, even where a complainant is fully believed.

Law Society of Ontario v. Moubarak: Admitted Misconduct Supported by Documentation

In Law Society of Ontario v. Moubarak, 2025 ONLSTH 116, the respondent Rabah Moubarak admitted to sexually harassing two junior employees. The conduct included repeated flirtations, unwelcome comments about appearance, emotionally manipulative messages, and instances of unwanted touching. The misconduct was extensively documented through a large volume of digital communications [2].

Among the most troubling findings were text messages in which Moubarak called one employee “the love of my life” and continued to contact her after she made clear his comments were unwelcome:

“The complainant clearly expressed that she was not interested. Despite this, Mr. Moubarak continued to send inappropriate and emotional messages, which created a hostile work environment.” (para 38)

The Tribunal imposed a four-month suspension and $12,500 in costs. In assessing the impact of the digital evidence, the panel noted:

“The existence of written messages and the respondent’s own admission to the agreed statement of facts obviate the need for a credibility assessment. The evidence is overwhelming.” (para 45)

Evidentiary Disparities and Ethical Consequences

The comparative outcomes demonstrate how documentary evidence significantly influences disciplinary penalties. In both matters, the misconduct involved abuse of authority and clear violations of professional standards. Yet the outcomes differed based on the volume and type of supporting material.

In Suh, the complainant’s account, while accepted as credible, was not supported by documentation such as emails, messages, or contemporaneous notes. This shaped the Tribunal’s assessment of the frequency and severity of the incidents, and arguably influenced the relative leniency of the penalty.

Sexual harassment and other forms of workplace abuse often unfold in ambiguous or private contexts. Victims may delay reporting, minimize incidents, or lack technological documentation, especially when misconduct is verbal, covert, or normalized within office culture. The absence of contemporaneous documentation should not be mistaken for the absence of harm. As seen in Suh, procedural limitations can result in lighter sanctions despite serious findings.

A person’s hand rests on another person’s lap. The person whose lap it is is wearing a grey suit and a ring. — Photo by <a href="

Conduct Expectations Under Professional Rules

Legal professionals in Ontario are bound by rules that prohibit sexual harassment, discrimination, and other forms of misconduct, reflecting the values set out in Ontario’s human rights laws. These professional obligations require licensees to act with integrity, civility, and respect in all workplace and client relationships.

Guidance materials published by the Law Society of Ontario emphasize that harassment includes unwelcome behaviour of a sexual nature and that such conduct often occurs outside the presence of third-party witnesses or physical evidence. A respectful and safe working environment is not just aspirational, it is an enforceable standard tied to professional responsibility [3][4].

This is not a theoretical concern. A 2022 report from the Law Society of Ontario’s Retention of Women in Private Practice Working Group found that more than 50 percent of women lawyers under 40 considered leaving practice, citing reasons such as harassment, lack of mentorship, and exclusion from meaningful work. In the same report, over one-third of racialized women in private practice reported experiencing discrimination or bias. These figures reflect ongoing challenges for equity within the profession and suggest that under-enforcement of harassment norms can contribute to attrition and inequality.

Power, Gender, and Structural Challenges

Both respondents held supervisory or senior positions over their complainants. The misconduct was shaped not only by inappropriate behaviour but also by an imbalance of power. The Tribunal in Suh explicitly acknowledged this power dynamic:

“The respondent’s behaviour occurred in professional and social contexts where he held authority. This power imbalance compounded the harm.” (para 70)

This raises concerns about the regulatory process itself. When proof becomes the gatekeeper for meaningful sanctions, complainants who lack evidence may face barriers to justice. These challenges disproportionately affect individuals whose experiences unfold outside of documented contexts.

Institutional Response and Future Direction

Tribunal decisions increasingly reflect an awareness of the evolving standards in professional ethics, particularly surrounding gender-based harm. However, as these two cases demonstrate, the application of those standards remains uneven. Regulatory bodies may need to reassess how they weigh oral testimony and contextual patterns of behaviour in the absence of digital proof.

The integrity of the profession depends not only on punishing misconduct but on ensuring consistent, equitable approaches to discipline that prioritize the safety and dignity of all legal workers.