Toronto, ON – The Law Society Tribunal has found that Ontario lawyer, Danielle Shannon Harrison, committed professional misconduct by facilitating and participating in a fraudulent mortgage scheme that stripped vulnerable senior homeowners of the equity in their properties. The ruling in Law Society of Ontario v Harrison, 2025 ONLSTH 98 (CanLII), issued on July 31, 2025, followed a five-day hearing in January. The Tribunal concluded that Harrison acted in a conflict of interest, ignored clear warning signs of fraud, commissioned false statutory declarations, and failed to cooperate with the Law Society’s investigation. A separate hearing will be scheduled to determine penalty and costs.
The case centered on Harrison’s work in high-volume residential real estate transactions involving two related private lending companies, Canada’s Choice Capital (CCC) and Canada’s Choice Investments (CCI). These companies specialized in short-term, high-interest mortgages secured against the homes of borrowers, many of whom were elderly and already facing financial pressures. In many cases, the borrowers’ properties were encumbered by Notices of Security Interest (NOSIs) in favour of CCC. NOSIs are legal instruments that register a creditor’s security interest against personal property or fixtures on real property, and in this context were used as a mechanism to secure substantial sums against borrowers’ homes.
Harrison’s involvement began in 2021 while she was eager to expand her real estate practice. The lender clients, controlled by businessman Anas Ayyoub, offered her a steady stream of files and the promise of additional business ventures. According to the Tribunal, this business relationship compromised her professional objectivity. She simultaneously acted for lender and borrower clients in the same transactions, despite the inherent and significant conflict of interest this created.
The Tribunal found that by mid-June 2021, Harrison was aware, or ought to have been aware, of red flags suggesting predatory lending and possible fraud. These included the vulnerability of the borrower clients, the nature of the loans being advanced, and the role of the existing NOSIs. On December 10, 2021, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly (ACE) contacted Harrison directly with concerns about the conduct of her lender clients, explicitly warning her about the risk of fraud. Nevertheless, she continued to act on their instructions without further inquiry.
By February 15, 2022, Harrison’s employer, KMB Law, had decided to stop accepting files from CCI because of suspected dishonest activity. The Tribunal found that from this point onward, Harrison was wilfully blind to the fraudulent nature of the transactions. She refrained from investigating further, in part because she wanted to preserve her relationship with the lender clients and continue receiving their business.
On April 14, 2022, the Tribunal concluded that Harrison had actual knowledge of the fraudulent conduct. Despite this, she continued to act for CCC and CCI until March 2023, facilitating additional transactions that advanced the scheme. In total, she acted for 18 senior borrower clients in mortgage transactions where the proceeds were used to pay off NOSIs in favour of CCC—many of which Harrison had herself registered.
The decision described how these transactions worked. Senior homeowners, often with limited understanding of the legal and financial implications, were encouraged to take out high-interest mortgages from CCI. The funds were then used to discharge existing NOSIs in favour of CCC. Both CCC and CCI were controlled by Ayyoub, and Harrison was aware that he was the sole director and signing officer of both entities. The Tribunal found that Harrison accepted his instructions without question, despite the obvious connection between the companies and the risk to the borrowers.
Harrison’s misconduct extended beyond her role in the transactions themselves. Between June 8, 2021, and October 2022, she acted in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct by representing clients in direct conflict with each other’s interests. She also failed to act with integrity by not providing the Law Society with trust ledgers from her personal law firm, Harrison Legal Professional Corporation, despite being specifically asked for all client trust ledgers from January 1, 2021, onward. The Tribunal found that she processed ten transactions through her firm’s TD trust account without disclosing the corresponding ledgers during the investigation.
In addition, the Tribunal determined that Harrison commissioned false statutory declarations that misrepresented the purpose of her borrower clients’ mortgage loans. This conduct breached the professional rule prohibiting lawyers from commissioning affidavits or declarations that they know to be false.
The panel rejected Harrison’s attempts to attribute her conduct to a lack of mentorship or oversight at her firm. It found that her actions demonstrated “a profound disregard” for the interests of her senior borrower clients, and that she preferred the interests of Ayyoub and his associates—interests that aligned with her own financial gain and ambitions to grow her law practice.
The Tribunal’s formal findings concluded that:
- Between June 14, 2021, and December 10, 2021, Harrison acted when she ought to have known she was participating in fraudulent conduct.
- Between December 10, 2021, and February 15, 2022, she was reckless in continuing to act despite clear warnings.
- Between February 15, 2022, and April 14, 2022, she was wilfully blind to the fraud.
- From April 14, 2022, to March 2023, she knowingly participated in dishonest and fraudulent conduct.
Harrison was also found to have breached conflict of interest rules by representing both lender and borrower clients in transactions where the borrowers’ mortgage proceeds were used to satisfy debts to her other clients, and by registering NOSIs on behalf of CCC against properties owned by her existing borrower clients.
A penalty and costs hearing will be scheduled to determine sanctions, which could include suspension or revocation of her licence to practise law, as well as an order to pay the Law Society’s legal costs.
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.
