Skip to content

Lawyer alleges he was slandered by colleague

BY KEITH LACEY What one lawyer said to a second lawyer about a third lawyer is the focus of a rare slander lawsuit trial being held at the Sudbury courthouse this week.

BY KEITH LACEY

What one lawyer said to a second lawyer about a third lawyer is the focus of a rare slander lawsuit trial being held at the Sudbury courthouse this week.


Lawyer Leo Arseneau filed a civil lawsuit against the Sudbury law firm Conroy Trebb Scott Hurtubise and Nicola Munro, a family lawyer who is an employee of the firm, alleging Munro defamed him by making untruthful comments to a Sault Ste. Marie lawyer almost five years ago.

Arseneau has hired Toronto lawyer Michael Ruby to represent him. Munro and her law firm are being represented by Toronto lawyer Joyce Harris.

Ruby told the court in an opening address that Arseneau was recommended to act as a mediator in a divorce settlement, and Munro was acting as an agent for Sault Ste. Marie lawyer Kenneth Davies back in 2001. The woman in the divorce was being represented by Sudbury lawyer Rejean Parise, a friend of Arseneau’s.

Lawyers often hire other lawyers as agents to do legal work for them.

Ruby alleges Arseneau was slandered by Munro during a conversation she had with Davies Nov. 21, 2001.

Davies testified Monday during his conversation with Munro, she said she objected to Arseneau being involved as a mediator in the divorce settlement because she had filed a complaint against Arseneau to the Law Society of Upper Canada alleging professional and ethical misconduct.

Munro did not file any formal complaint with the Law Society and was not telling the truth to Davies, said Ruby.

The Law Society of Upper Canada is the organization which administers the legal profession in Ontario and handles allegations of misconduct by members of the public and lawyers against other lawyers.

Davies testified because there were obviously problems between Arseneau and Munro, Arseneau was not hired as the mediator.

Davies said he never used Arseneau’s name, but did ask two veteran lawyers for advice in Sault Ste. Marie and both advised him they would not go forward with Arseneau as a mediator, based on what Munro had told him.

Munro should be held liable for slander because she lied about there being a complaint filed by her to the law society and for impugning Arseneau’s reputation in the legal community, said Ruby.

A complaint was filed against Arseneau with the Law Society in 1997 relating to the sale of a home in Sudbury, but the society dismissed the allegations in April 1999, said Ruby.

Munro was involved in that 1997 complaint by helping a client prepare documentation to present to the law society, said Ruby.

She knew when she talked to Davies, there was no outstanding complaint with the Law Society about Arseneau, Ruby said.

For some reason, Munro doesn’t like Arseneau and has engaged in conduct “out of spite and ill will towards my client,” said Ruby.

Harris said slander cases so seldom proceed to trial because they are so difficult to prove and those that do almost always result in no damages or minimal damages being awarded.

In this case, Munro was speaking to another lawyer about Arseneau and “absolute privilege should apply,” and this case is basically a waste of time and money, she said.

Davies has never met Arseneau and there has been no diminishing of Arseneau’s reputation to anyone, said Harris.

“This case is much ado about nothing,” she said.

The only person Davies talked to about Munro’s comments was Parise. Parise didn’t believe her allegations and remains friends with Arseneau. There was no lowering of Arseneau’s reputation as a result, said Harris.

Harris said Munro told Davies about a difficult professional relationship she had with Arseneau and was simply trying to stress having Arseneau mediate any hearing involving her would not be a good idea.

Five witnesses, including Munro and Arseneau, are expected to testify at the trial, which is expected to wrap up this week.