Barreau suspends owner of Old Montreal fire site as criminal charges collide with professional duty
The Barreau case surrounding barreau is not just about a lawyer’s right to practice. It is about what happens when 15 criminal charges meet a profession built on public trust. Émile-Haïm Benamor, the owner of the Old Montreal building where seven people died in the 2023 fire, has been provisionally suspended from practicing law.
What exactly did the Barreau decide?
Verified fact: The Barreau du Québec announced a provisional suspension of Mr. Benamor’s right to practice. The decision became effective Thursday and was formally announced Friday. The disciplinary file says he is also barred from using the title of lawyer.
Verified fact: The suspension followed his arrest on March 18, when he was charged with 15 offences: seven counts of involuntary manslaughter and eight counts of criminal negligence. The disciplinary request was made five days later, and hearings were set for April 10.
Informed analysis: The key point is not only the number of charges. It is the way the Barreau treated them as incompatible with the profession itself, even before the criminal trial has taken place. That is where the public-interest logic of professional discipline becomes central.
Why did the disciplinary body act before trial?
The Council of Discipline did not accept the argument that the presumption of innocence should block disciplinary action. In its reasoning, the council said that principle applies in criminal and penal matters, but not in disciplinary law. It also relied on a comparable decision from the disciplinary council of the Ordre des psychologues du Québec.
The assistant syndic, Me Nicolas Bellemare, argued that the allegations were “very serious” and that seven of the charges carry potential life imprisonment. He said the criminal allegations contradict the essence and values of the profession and are severe enough that public protection requires action. The council agreed that the offences can carry at least five years of imprisonment, which it considered sufficient for a provisional suspension.
Verified fact: The council also stated that the allegations “directly affect the safety and integrity of persons” and are therefore “inherently incompatible” with the practice of law. That language matters. It shows the disciplinary body was not weighing only legal exposure, but reputational and ethical incompatibility as well.
What did Benamor argue in his defense?
Mr. Benamor, an investor and lawyer aged 63, maintained that he has not yet been tried and therefore remains entitled to the presumption of innocence. He also argued that suspending his practice would cut off a source of income and undermine his right to a full defense.
Verified fact: He had earlier requested a non-publication order, and that request was refused on April 14. He was later brought before the Barreau’s disciplinary council on April 17, where the syndic’s position prevailed.
The tension is clear: the criminal court has not yet ruled, but the disciplinary system has already decided that the public cannot wait. For the Barreau, the question was not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was whether the allegations alone were serious enough to justify urgent protective measures. In the context of barreau, that distinction is the entire case.
Who is protected, and who is exposed, by this decision?
Verified fact: Seven people died in the 2023 fire in the heritage building in Old Montreal. Mr. Benamor owns that building and now faces both criminal proceedings and professional suspension.
For the Barreau, the protected party is the public. For Mr. Benamor, the decision creates immediate professional and financial consequences before trial. For the profession, the ruling draws a bright line: allegations that threaten life, safety, and integrity can be treated as fundamentally inconsistent with legal practice.
Informed analysis: The broader implication is that the disciplinary system is signaling low tolerance for conduct that may undermine confidence in the justice system itself. That is especially significant when the accused is not only a lawyer but also the owner of the site linked to a deadly fire. The overlap of roles heightens scrutiny and intensifies the demand for transparency.
What should the public take from this case?
At minimum, the case shows that professional regulation can move faster than criminal adjudication when public protection is at stake. It also shows that the Barreau is willing to treat alleged conduct as disqualifying even while a trial remains pending.
Verified fact: The disciplinary decision is provisional, not final. But its effect is immediate, and it removes Mr. Benamor from the public-facing authority that comes with the title of lawyer.
Informed analysis: That is why the case matters beyond one individual. It raises a larger question about accountability when a lawyer is accused of conduct that, if proven, would clash not only with criminal law but with the profession’s core obligation to protect the public. In this sense, barreau is not just a disciplinary label; it is the institution forcing a reckoning between status and responsibility.
The public now needs a clear and complete explanation of how these parallel proceedings will unfold, and what safeguards will govern them. If the allegations are sustained, the profession must show how it prevents similar breaches of trust. If they are not, the disciplinary process must still justify the severity of a provisional suspension. Either way, barreau has already been placed at the center of a test of credibility, transparency, and public confidence.
