Rude and disruptive or just doing his job by zealously representing his client in court?

Toronto securities lawyer Joe Groia will soon have that question answered by the country’s top court.

In 2012, a discipline panel of Ontario’s legal regulator found Groia guilty of incivility for displaying a “consistent pattern of rude, improper or disruptive conduct” in the courtroom during the early part of the trial of his client, former Bre-X Minerals executive John Felderhof.

He was suspended for two months and ordered to pay $250,000 — later knocked down to one month and $200,000, which he has yet to serve and pay. He has always maintained he was simply doing his job as a forceful advocate for his client, who was facing serious charges.

Several years and millions of dollars in legal fees later, Groia is gearing up for a final showdown with the Law Society of Upper Canada. The Supreme Court announced Thursday it would hear Groia’s appeal of his conviction — an appeal he has so far lost at every level of court in Ontario.

His case has pitted those in the legal profession and academia who say defence lawyers must be zealous advocates in order to protect their clients’ best interests against those who say it’s crucial that a forceful defence be properly balanced with courtesy and respect.

A date has yet to be set for the appeal to be heard. Legal observers say it could be one of the most important Supreme Court rulings for defence lawyers in recent memory.

“Certainly the issues that we intend to raise are the issues that go squarely to freedom of expression of lawyers, how do we best protect clients, and is it right that lawyers be looking over their shoulders for fear they'll be the next Joe Groia?” he told the Star on Thursday.

“I do think that (the law society) didn't expect me to fight so strenuously and they didn't expect the bar to take my side as strongly as it has.”

In an interesting twist, Groia was elected a bencher of the law society — in other words, a member of its board of directors — in 2015 by thousands of lawyers across Ontario while his case against the law society was moving through the courts.

“I'm always gratified by the fact that I was elected by lawyers in Ontario even after I had lost my case, at least in the early stage, because I think that sends a message that most lawyers don’t agree with the law society's approach in this case, and 3,600 of them were willing to express that displeasure by voting,” he said.

The president of the Ontario Bar Association welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, saying it will bring clarity to an important legal issue, particularly for defence lawyers.

David Sterns pointed out that the law society began investigating Groia on its own initiative, and never received a complaint about his conduct from anyone involved in the Felderhof trial.

“So the continued prosecution of Groia, in my view, calls into question the priorities of the Law Society of Upper Canada,” he said.

The law society had fought against Groia’s appeal being heard at the Supreme Court, saying it did not raise issues of national importance.

A spokeswoman sent the Star a one-sentence comment Thursday: “The law society will be interested to hear the views of the Supreme Court on this matter.”

Felderhof, a Bre-X vice-president, had been accused by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) of insider trading and other securities charges in one of the largest business scandals in Canadian history. He was acquitted of all charges by a judge in a 600-page decision in 2007.

Among the law society’s criticisms of Groia during the early part of that trial in the early 2000s were his characterizations of the OSC as “the government” and of its prosecution as “lazy.” He denies using the term “the government” sarcastically.

Groia maintains that it was the role of the trial judge to regulate conduct in the courtroom.

Although he lost his appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal last year in a 2-1 decision, he was heartened by the dissenting opinion of Justice David Brown. Brown found that the law society failed to take into account, “in any meaningful way,” the fact Groia had complied with the trial judge’s rulings on his conduct during the Bre-X trial, and also complied when the OSC complained to the higher courts.

Brown said he would have allowed Groia’s appeal.

“This case will bring into focus the role of the judge versus the law society in matters of alleged incivility,” said Anthony Moustacalis, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

“The CLA will be adding its voice to the debate about where to draw the line between incivility versus forceful advocacy and who should draw it.”

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.