In February of 2020 - when Michel Chebat was still in private practice, two of his clients Rae English and Stanley D. Cook complained that Chebat and his associates failed to respond to them about their case. They allege, quote, "his negligence has caused us to lose a boat we had repossessed..."

They say Chebat's firm never made them aware of a hearing in 2019 and because of this a default judgment was made against them.

The council found that Chebat was not the attorney with direct responsibility for the Complainants' case - it was Nazira Uc Myles - who later left the firm.

Chebat entered an affidavit that he never met the clients and does not know them and that he did not receive an email in 2020 from the clients advising him of their total frustration.

In the end, the Council found that a duty of care was owed to the Complainants by Mr. Chebat. However, the Council could not find that there was a breach of this duty in relation to the hearing they missed. The decision says, quote, "The Council therefore finds that there is no evidence that Mr. Chebat breached Rule 69 of the Legal Profession (Code of Conduct) Rules.

The conclude, quote, "we are satisfied that the failure to respond to inquiries of the Complainants, and thereby failing to provide assistance when requested by the client, Mr. Chebat breached Rule 28(1) of the Legal Profession (Code of Conduct) Rules.

Although we have found that Mr. Chebat is not guilty of negligence, the Complainants' (situation)...stemmed from the lack of responsiveness of M. H. Chebat & Co.

Although Mr. Chebat is not actively engaged in his practice, he is liable for the actions of his staff." End quote...Not being physically present in the office does not exculpate him from liability.

He has until October 25th to make his case in writing to the council.

In the other case, Bruce Cho complained against Senior Counsel Hubert Elrington. Mr. Cho complains that Mr. Elrington, who was representing him in a suit before the then Supreme Court, failed to comply with case management orders, and refused to, despite Mr. Cho's instructions, put forward evidence before the then Supreme Court.

So, he lost the case because no evidence was presented

The judgement says, quote, "the Council is satisfied and is unanimous in finding that Mr. Elrington is guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his representation of Mr. Cho.