Anna Mascieri-Boudria

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application alleging that the respondent paralegal engaged in professional misconduct through his online communications.

The paralegal had published social media posts falsely asserting that paralegals were authorized to provide a full scope of immigration services, despite Law Society restrictions limiting their practice to Immigration and Refugee Board hearings.

The Tribunal found these posts were deliberately misleading and encouraged other paralegals to engage in unauthorized practice.

Additionally, the Tribunal found the paralegal engaged in professional misconduct by making uncivil, abusive, and disparaging comments about a paralegal bencher and other licensees over several years.

The Tribunal concluded that the paralegal's conduct overstepped the bounds of protected freedom of expression and directed that a hearing be scheduled for penalty and costs.

The appellant, a licensed paralegal, appealed a Hearing Division decision that revoked his licence and ordered him to pay $10,000 in costs.

The hearing panel found that the appellant had impersonated another licensed paralegal prior to obtaining his own licence and continued the deception after becoming licensed, failing to serve his client and abandoning the client's matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

On appeal, the appellant argued the hearing panel made palpable and overriding errors of fact, improperly considered pre-licensing conduct, and failed to properly apply the Aguirre factors for penalty.

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors, and held that the pre-licensing conduct was properly considered as part of a continuous course of conduct.

The penalty of revocation was affirmed as not clearly unfit given the serious findings of proven dishonesty and lack of integrity.

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty hearing following findings that the respondent paralegal engaged in extensive practice misconduct, including failing to serve 11 clients, and integrity breaches, most notably licensing dishonesty by articling without a required Certificate of Qualification.

The Tribunal found the misconduct to be egregious and protracted.

Despite the respondent's remorse and a 20-month interlocutory suspension, the Tribunal concluded that his deliberate licensing dishonesty went to the heart of his professional obligations.

The respondent's licence was revoked, and he was ordered to pay $2,147.50 in restitution to three clients and $150,000 in costs to the Law Society.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent's paralegal licence.

The respondent allegedly represented clients in criminal matters outside her permitted scope of practice, repeatedly misled the court by claiming she was acting as an agent for a lawyer who was entirely uninvolved, and fabricated excuses for delays.

Finding reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice, and noting the respondent's consent, the Tribunal ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of her licence.

Following the refusal of the applicant's application for a paralegal licence, the Law Society sought costs of $5,000.

The applicant consented to the quantum but requested a one-year period to pay, citing his responsibilities as a single parent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no documentary evidence of financial hardship and noted his senior leadership position within a police organization.

Balancing fairness to the professions with the applicant's circumstances, the Tribunal granted a limited extension of two months to pay the costs.