Immigration lawyer cleared of sexual misconduct by Law Society of Ontario panel
Criminal charges were withdrawn against Toronto lawyer Richard Odeleye in 2016
A Toronto immigration lawyer has been cleared of sexual misconduct allegations by a Law Society of Ontario disciplinary panel.
Two refugee claimants told the hearing that Richard Odeleye touched them inappropriately during his representation of them on Legal Aid certificates, but the panel dismissed the case against him after finding problems with both clients’ evidence.
“Given the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence, we were unable to accept the testimony of [the clients] as reliable,” wrote Chair Barbara Murchie for the three-member tribunal panel. “The Law Society has not met its burden to prove its allegations against Mr. Odeleye on a balance of probabilities.”
According to the ruling, one client testified that Odeleye sexually harassed or assaulted her on three occasions times between December 2013 and March 2014, when she switched lawyers.
In one incident, she claimed the lawyer kissed her and put her hand on his penis while confined to his car. The other incidents occurred at Odeleye’s office, where the client claimed he touched her breast and approached her with an erection while making inappropriate comments.
Odeleye denied all the allegations, arguing his former client had a motive to fabricate her evidence on sexual misconduct because she was unsatisfied with his representation and Legal Aid Ontario would only authorize a change of lawyers in extraordinary circumstances.
According to the law society ruling, criminal charges were laid in 2015 in relation to the alleged incidents, but the Toronto Police Service withdrew them in several months later when an entry in the client’s diary indicated one of the incidents occurred on March 10, when Odeleye was actually out of the country.
Assessing her evidence, the disciplinary panel noted that the client was a “combative witness” who was “willing to fabricate entries in her diaries and lie in her testimony before the panel.”
Her testimony was inconsistent about her contact with Odeleye and key details did not match up with the account she gave to police, the panel found.
“After hearing Client 1’s evidence and considering its deficiencies and inconsistencies, we are not satisfied that the LSO has met its burden to prove the allegations it advanced,” the panel concluded.
The second client met Odeleye soon after her arrival in Canada in 2012, and alleged the lawyer advised her to falsely claim that she was bisexual to boost her application for refugee protection. Her hearing had still not been scheduled by the time the sexual charges were laid against Odeleye in 2015, and her referred her to another lawyer when the legal aid certificate was cancelled, according to the law society decision.
On the advice of her new lawyer, the woman ultimately retracted her claim of bisexuality at her refugee board hearing in 2018, blaming Odeleye for the lie. She also filed a complaint with the LSO about his conduct, which included an allegation that he sexually harassed her.
However, the disciplinary panel found that her testimony on Odeleye’s responsibility for the lie about her bisexuality did not fit the circumstances, since she had already made her refugee claim based on sexual orientation before she ever met or spoke with the lawyer.
In addition, they accepted Odeleye’s argument that the client had a motive to come clean about the lies in her refugee application and portray Odeleye as the villain, noting that she filed a copy of her LSO complaint with the Immigration and Refugee Board, as well as newspaper reports about his criminal charges.
“Her risk paid off. She was congratulated by the [IRB] Member for recanting,” the panel’s decision reads.
On the issue of sexual misconduct, the second client claimed that Odeleye massaged her shoulders and commented on her appearance, but the panel wrote that she was not forthcoming in her testimony, and that her allegations were vague.
“On balance, we do not accept that Mr. Odeleye made inappropriate gestures and comments as alleged. Although both say that they discussed her children at this meeting, the similarity ends there…She was most forthcoming when talking about Mr. Odeleye preying on vulnerable refugee women rather than on what he said to her, suggesting to us that her evidence may have been tainted by what she understood happened to others,” the ruling reads. “Given we have found that [the client] was not truthful in other allegations and in the context of the delivery of her evidence, we cannot find, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Odeleye acted as she described.”
Odeleye did not respond to a request for comment, but following the withdrawal of the criminal charges against him, he issued a news release on the case.
"I have always insisted that this was a complete fabrication from a disgruntled former client and I am relieved that I have been very decisively vindicated," he said in the March 2016 statement. "I am grateful to my wife and children who stood solidly by me throughout this ordeal. I am also grateful to all our friends, family members, clients, and my defence counsel, Mr. Michael Owoh, whose skill and hard work helped to expose this fabrication by the complainant."
Follow us on Twitter @CourtReportCA
Story tips or comments to CourtReportCanada@gmail.com