We also find that Mr. Dumanian has not been candid and forthright with the Law Society throughout the licence application process and in his testimony before us, and we conclude that he is not currently of good character.
The allegations of misconduct against Mr. Dumanian involved sexual contact without consent on four occasions, with a different female undergraduate student on each occasion, at his UA graduate student residence. The alleged incidents occurred between September 2014 and August 2015. All four incidents were reported to UA within a month of each other, in or around September 2015. The incidents were not reported to the police.
Ms. Eerkes found that “Mr. Dumanian’s behaviour was not just problematic, it was habitual and predatory. He frequented fraternity parties where he knew that younger undergraduate women would be drinking, and therefore vulnerable.”
After an appeal in which he was found to have accepted the findings of wrongdoing
the Appeal Board reduced the length of suspension to one year, to be served retroactively, and made an order of exclusion from the University of Alberta for the same period as the order of suspension. The Appeal Board also imposed the following probation conditions on Mr. Dumanian for the remaining period of his degree program:
a. no direct or indirect contact with the four complainants;
b. not to reside in UA residential housing;
c. abstain from the possession, use and/or consumption of alcohol while on UA properties and/or at activities or functions; and
d. not to attend at any UA campus without first obtaining written permission from UA security.
On the bar application, he reported the incidents but
We conclude that this description does not provide details of the penalty imposed and is not complete as required in the application for licence.
…We find that, in his application for licence, Mr. Dumanian intentionally misrepresented the basis of the resolution of the sexual misconduct allegations, omitted the fact that he had admitted to the misconduct in order to obtain a more lenient penalty, and falsely claimed that he had maintained his innocence throughout the UA process.
(Mike Frisch)