The Law Society Tribunal has ordered the immediate suspension of paralegal Ali Dabaja’s licence to provide legal services, following a hearing that detailed serious allegations of client fund misappropriation and involvement in a fraudulent scheme involving more than $8 million in counterfeit bank drafts1. The decision, released on September 10, 2025, concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Dabaja posed a significant risk of harm to the public if allowed to continue practising while the Law Society’s full investigation proceeds. The suspension is interlocutory, a temporary measure intended to protect the public until a final hearing on the merits of the allegations can be held.
The Law Society’s motion for suspension was heard by a three-member panel on June 13, 2025. The society’s case rested on evidence from its investigator, while Mr. Dabaja, who was licensed as a paralegal in November 2020 and operated the firm Dabaja Legal, represented himself. The tribunal was presented with a disturbing narrative that began with a client complaint and expanded to uncover a multimillion dollar civil lawsuit against the paralegal.
The investigation into Mr. Dabaja’s conduct was initiated after a complaint from a former client, identified only as Client A. This client had engaged Mr. Dabaja in relation to a multi-million dollar dispute between his company and a charity over a joint initiative. Mr. Dabaja acknowledged to the tribunal that this type of litigation was well beyond the permitted scope of practice for a paralegal and that he knew a lawyer would ultimately have to handle the matter. Despite this, he agreed to provide a service to Client A, which he described as holding funds in his trust account during the pre-litigation phase. For this service, he initially charged a fee of $45 per month.
Between August 2023 and January 2025, Mr. Dabaja deposited 30 cheques drawn on the joint initiative’s bank account, totalling nearly $25,000, into various bank accounts he controlled. These included a Scotiabank mixed trust account, a Scotiabank general account, and later, a newly opened TD Bank trust account. He opened the TD account after his Scotiabank accounts were frozen in July 2024 in connection with a separate, unrelated matter. Mr. Dabaja testified that at the time, he was not aware that his trust account could only be used in direct relation to the provision of legal services he was permitted to offer.
In early January 2025, Client A retained a lawyer and requested the return of $5,000 from the funds held by Mr. Dabaja, which was repaid approximately two weeks later. When Client A then requested the return of the remaining balance, the funds were not forthcoming. The tribunal heard that an amount of $19,983.22 remains outstanding to Client A. The investigation revealed that of this missing money, over $12,400 was held in the Scotiabank accounts that had been frozen. Another $2,080 was unaccounted for because Mr. Dabaja had failed to provide the necessary bank records to the Law Society.
Most significantly, the remaining $5,494.23 had been held in the TD trust account. During the hearing, Mr. Dabaja made a crucial admission regarding these funds. He testified that he had used this portion of Client A’s money to pay a different client. He explained that this other client’s funds had been inaccessible in the frozen Scotiabank accounts and that this client “was not as understanding” as others to whom he owed money. When cross-examined, Mr. Dabaja agreed that this specific act constituted misappropriation of Client A’s funds. He disputed, however, that the money in the frozen Scotiabank accounts was misappropriated, arguing it was still technically there. The tribunal learned that Client A has since reported the matter to the Windsor Police Service, which has an active investigation underway.
The freezing of Mr. Dabaja’s Scotiabank accounts led the Law Society investigation to a second, and much larger, set of allegations. The tribunal learned that Scotiabank had commenced a civil lawsuit against Mr. Dabaja in September 2024, seeking to recover $8,696,000. The bank alleges that Mr. Dabaja was involved in a counterfeit bank draft scheme. According to the bank’s claim, Mr. Dabaja deposited two counterfeit bank drafts, one for $4.9 million and another for $3.8 million, into a special trust account he operated at Scotiabank. The claim alleges that on the same day the funds were deposited, Mr. Dabaja transferred $6 million to third parties, followed by another $2 million the next day. The transfers were completed before Scotiabank could identify the drafts as fraudulent.
When questioned about this, Mr. Dabaja told the tribunal that he himself was a victim. He explained that a new client had approached his office in April 2024, claiming to need a trust account to process payments for goods and services, including rice, flour, and two vehicles. Mr. Dabaja stated that he charged a fee of $4,500 for his services. He testified that the individuals built a rapport with him over a two-month period and that their business seemed legitimate. He claimed to have taken steps to verify their identities and review receipts and other documentation. He told the panel it did not seem unusual to be asked to transfer $6 million out of his account on the same day it was deposited. When asked what legal services he provided in exchange for his fee, Mr. Dabaja was unable to articulate them clearly, stating only that he was advising the business from “a legal perspective.”
Mr. Dabaja testified that it was only after he walked out of the bank that it occurred to him that he had been “duped.” Despite this realization, he did not report the incident to the police or to the Law Society. He told the tribunal he was scared, and that as a visible minority, he felt the “system” undermines people like him.
In reaching its decision, the tribunal panel, chaired by Natalia Rodriguez, applied the legal test for an interlocutory suspension, which requires reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant risk of harm to the public or the public interest if an order is not made. The panel found the test was easily met. It pointed to the “strong evidence of misappropriation,” highlighting Mr. Dabaja’s own admission that he used Client A’s funds from the TD trust account to pay another client. The panel noted that if such an act is proven at a full hearing, the presumptive penalty is revocation of his licence.
The panel also expressed “serious concerns” about Mr. Dabaja’s role in the alleged counterfeit draft scheme. The decision stated that whether he was a willing participant or an unwitting victim, the incident demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the proper use of a trust account, a paralegal’s scope of practice, and the clear red flags of a fraudulent scheme. The panel found his explanations heightened their concerns, stating that Mr. Dabaja “appeared not to grasp the severity of his actions” and that his responses in cross-examination were at times “evasive and even somewhat flippant.”
Mr. Dabaja argued against a suspension, proposing that he be allowed to continue practising under restrictions. He submitted that a suspension would be a disservice to his clients, many of whom he described as being from underserved and marginalized communities. The panel rejected this argument, finding that serving vulnerable clients would appear to heighten, not lessen, the risk of harm. The panel concluded that restrictions would be inappropriate because the allegations raised fundamental questions about his integrity and trustworthiness. An order for restrictions, the panel reasoned, requires confidence that the licensee will abide by them, and in this case, “that confidence does not exist.” The tribunal ordered that Mr. Dabaja’s licence to provide legal services be suspended immediately, pending the final outcome of the conduct proceedings against him.
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.
