MANDEL: Toronto lawyer who allegedly threatened to 'smash in' his lover's face cleared to practise
· Toronto Sun
See more Toronto Sun on Google — save as a Preferred Source
A tribunal has ruled that a Toronto lawyer originally charged with intimate partner violence and making death threats can continue to practise.
Visit tr-sport.bond for more information.
The Law Society of Ontario wanted Jagdeep Sikh Virk, 47, placed on a temporary suspension – or at least, subject to practice restrictions – while he faced serious criminal charges. But in a recent decision, a panel of the Law Society Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no risk to the public or to the public interest in the administration of justice.
“I am happy to continue practicing law, and vigorously defend my clients as I have been for the past 20 years,” Virk wrote in an email when reached by the Toronto Sun. “I am grateful to the tribunal for making the right decision.”
But does this send the right message?
In October 2025, Virk was charged with two counts of sexual assault, four of assault, and one of uttering threats related to incidents in 2024. He says the sex assault and assault charges were withdrawn on June 26: “The Crown came to the correct conclusion that the complainant lied to the police,” Virk wrote.
“As I said from the beginning I was innocent and a victim of an extortion attempt.”
But the tribunal didn’t know that. At the time of the panel’s decision released June 22, Virk was still facing serious charges of intimate partner violence.
Remaining allegation hasn’t been tested in court
The remaining allegation of uttering a threat hasn’t been tested in court – and Virk says he expects it to be withdrawn soon as well – but quotes reproduced in the tribunal decision taken from an alleged audio recording of Virk and the complainant are very disturbing.
“Can I tell you I know where you live right now, b—h…You want to see how gangster I am? Cause you could see. Don’t worry. You’ll see how gangster I am. You’ll see how gangster I am b—h,” he’s alleged to have said on the recording.
“OK, you whore. Listen to this… Guess what? Guess what? No body – no body, no case. No body – no charge. No body – B—h. B—h. No body, no murder. No body, no murder. F–k you, whore. I’m going to f–king kill you, b—h.
“I’m going to smash your face, story [sic]. I know how much you love your f–king face. I’m going to smash it for you… You’re going to be unrecognizable. You’re going to be unrecognizable, b—h. No guy’s ever going to look at you again. Don’t worry.”
‘All of these allegations remain unproven’
His lawyer, Nader Hasan, said they will not be commenting on specific pieces of evidence while the charge remains before the court, “But it bears mentioning that all of these allegations remain unproven, including the allegation that Mr. Virk is the male voice on the recording.”
According to the Law Society’s case, Virk first met the woman through Instagram in 2022 when he was 44 and she was in her early 20s. In the fall of 2023, they met in person. In April 2024, they began dating.
“The Licensee admits she was his girlfriend during this time and … he was ‘taking care of her financially’ and ensuring they could spend time together …,” the decision notes.
The relationship continued after she left for law school overseas in the fall of 2024. By November, though, Virk said it had become “very, very toxic.”
When she returned for the summer, she wanted him to hire her; when he refused, she allegedly struck him. He relented but a few days later, Virk called her back to rescind the offer and say they were done. He says she was furious and threatened to ruin his life and career.
Law Society argued public confidence would be shaken
The Law Society argued that in light of both the audio and the criminal charges, public confidence would be shaken if Virk was permitted to continue to practise.
The panel disagreed.
“The allegations are serious, and the audio recordings relied upon by the Law Society contain language that is violent, misogynistic, threatening, and deeply troubling,” they agreed.
But the recordings don’t exist in “isolation,” there are inconsistencies in the complainant’s story – she says they weren’t in a relationship – there’s no clear case that she was a vulnerable subordinate and the Law Society’s investigation is still at an early stage. So they denied the motion to suspend him.
“A reasonable member of the public would also be troubled by a lawyer being removed from practice on an interlocutory basis, before any finding of guilt or misconduct, where the record contains significant unresolved issues about context, credibility and the strength of the allegations.”
The Law Society said it’s reviewing the decision.