What is the legal test for an unwitting dupe?

In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Fazio, 2009 ONSLAP 1 at para. 83, the appeal panel stated in part as follows: …An unwitting dupe is guilty of professional misconduct where he or she has facilitated or potentially facilitated his or her client's unscrupulous and often criminal conduct through carelessness, inattention or other neglect or abdication of professional responsibilities. Being a dupe is less morally blameworthy than being a knowing participant, but is nonetheless serious misconduct, particularly where the licensee's misconduct has facilitated criminality. The level of moral blameworthiness of an unwitting dupe will be informed by various considerations, such as: the extent to which the licensee neglected or abdicated his or her professional responsibilities, the duration of such neglect or abdication, whether it was accompanied by other ethical breaches, its importance in facilitating the client's criminality and the extent to which the licensee personally benefitted from the subject transactions(s). Of course, these are not the only determinants of penalty; others include, but are not limited to, the impact of the misconduct or facilitated criminality on clients or victims, the size or quantum of the facilitated criminality, the extent of remorse, whether the misconduct is admitted and the need for proof obviated, and whether the misconduct was out of character or isolated or explained, in whole or in part, by medical factors. Of course, the existence or lack of a prior disciplinary record is also of importance.