Ian Mulgrew: High-profile Vancouver 'driving' lawyer slammed for bullying, wrongly axing student
Credit to Author: Ian Mulgrew| Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:42:22 +0000
A high-profile Vancouver law firm must pay a former articling student nearly $70,000 for her “unnecessary and psychologically brutal,” deliberate public firing after only four months, rendering her temporarily homeless.
In a scathing rebuke of Acumen Law Corp. and lawyer Paul Doroshenko, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Gomery said the consequences of wrongfully terminating Melissa Ojanen’s employment in a dispute over marketing materials and involvement with a competing blog were severe.
“She is the victim of unfair, bullying, bad faith conduct by her former employer and her former principal and has suffered substantial and prolonged emotional distress because of that conduct,” Justice Gomery writes in his decision.
“Since her termination, she has mostly been unemployed. She could not afford her rent and lived out of a car for three months. The car belonged to (her ex-husband Nicholas) Dominato and he repossessed it and moved back to Ontario. Ms. Ojanen lived on the street for a week or so after that before she was able to persuade her parents to take her in; she now lives in an apartment they own.”
Gomery hammered Doroshenko:
“The usual power imbalance between employer and employee was accentuated in this case. Ms. Ojanen was a young woman without local contacts in the legal profession. Mr. Doroshenko was the head of an established law firm. Ms. Ojanen was terribly vulnerable. Mr. Doroshenko was possessed of reputational capital and financial resources. He was not content simply to fire her but took full advantage of his favoured position to launch a campaign against Ms. Ojanen through this lawsuit.”
Ojanen blamed the humiliation for causing her to not complete her legal training and the lawsuit for breaking up her marriage.
Called to the bar in 2000, Doroshenko founded Acumen in 2008 and was the sole proprietor in 2016 when the firm had several associate lawyers at three offices in the Lower Mainland and one in Victoria, Gomery said.
It specializes in “driving law,” reviewing prohibitions and related enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Act, conducting judicial reviews of suspensions, defending traffic tickets and was at the forefront of the constitutional fight against the anti-impaired driving Immediate Roadside Prohibition program.
“While driving law is a niche practice area, Acumen has made a meal of it,” Gomery said.
“According to Mr. Doroshenko and (his senior associate Kyla) Lee, Acumen has established itself as the leading law firm in the area. They work hard to market the firm’s services by various means, including social media, and are understandably protective of its competitive position.”
Kyla Lee (above), a senior associate at Acumen Law Corp., has come to Paul Doroshenko’s defence on social media. ‘In my time at Acumen Paul bent over backward for his employees and has given them financial support in troubled times and more,’ Lee says. ‘Allegations that impugn his character are false.’
Doroshenko said he was “not happy” with the decision and defended his conduct towards Ojanen, who began as an articling student at Acumen in May 2016.
On Sept. 10, 2016, Doroshenko discovered a website called “BC Driving Prohibitions Blog,” which offered information Acumen also provided online and that he presumed Ojanen had stolen.
But he did not contact her.
Instead, on Sept. 16, he filed a lawsuit and had her served with a letter in front of her classmates at the Professional Legal Training Course stating: “I am terminating you for violating the Articling Agreement, deceitful conduct, and dishonesty.”
Acumen sued her for trespassing in its office, stealing its files and data and attempting to compete with it while she was employed there — all allegations that were dismissed.
In the 12,000-word ruling, Doroshenko said Gomery assessed the evidence differently than he had.
“Having to make difficult choices in the moment, with the information I had, I took steps that I concluded were necessary,” said Doroshenko, a regular media commentator. “The court disagreed with the steps I took.”
He was disappointed the case took nearly three years to get to trial.
“The evidence does not improve with time and all parties end up putting things on hold. The process was painful and unpleasant for all parties. It has provided me with a different view of the justice system from the perspective of a litigant.”
Lee, also a prominent legal pundit, defended Doroshenko on social media:
“Paul has never to my knowledge bullied or harassed anyone in the office or in his employ. In the time I worked for him there were very difficult situations involving employees and Paul handled them without resorting to inappropriate tactics. In my time at Acumen Paul bent over backward for his employees and has given them financial support in troubled times and more. Allegations that impugn his character are false.”
But Justice Gomery chastised Doroshenko, saying he “gave evidence I do not accept.”
“Acumen and Mr. Doroshenko plead that Ms. Ojanen adopted a practice of avoiding responsibility by deliberately pretending to misunderstand instructions making it effectively impossible for the lawyers to assign her work that was not menial,” the justice noted.
“In his evidence in chief, Mr. Doroshenko invoked a sexist stereotype of female incompetence in describing this alleged practice. This was a low point in his evidence.”
Gomery dismissed the claims against Ojanen, which included accusations she engaged in disloyal and drunken “trouble-making” activity at an office party and dinner.
He also rejected the complaints about her web activity.
“The blog does not infringe on copyright,” Gomery said. “It does not disclose private information that Acumen and Ms. Lee have not themselves made public. It does not disclose client confidences. The Blog could have been written by anyone making use of information in the public domain … It provides information concerning roadside prohibitions that is equivalent to that offered by Acumen and Ms. Lee in their blogs, without charge, to the world at large.”
There was no evidence Ojanen was ever in possession of or misused information that could be described as “a trade secret,” Gomery added: “She did not appropriate corporate opportunities belonging to Acumen.”
Ojanen was being paid $687 a week or $30,915 for the year of articling, the justice figured.
Acumen had paid her $11,981 so Gomery ordered the firm to pay the difference $18,934 for her wrongful dismissal and $50,000 in aggravated damages, and Doroshenko personally to pay a nominal $10 for wrongly terminating her articles.
“At that point in time, I made the decision to terminate the employment of my former student because I felt it was necessary to protect the privilege and privacy of my clients,” Doroshenko maintained.
“My foremost concern was recovering anything that had been removed and was not in the possession of my office.”
As for an appeal, Doroshenko added: “that is always a possibility.”
CLICK HERE to report a typo.
Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.