Court of Appeal for Ontario

DATE: 2026-03-09 DOCKET: M56705 (COA-24-CV-0999)

Wilson J.A. (Motion Judge)

BETWEEN

Antonio Caruso — Appellant

and

The Law Society of Ontario — Respondent

Antonio Caruso, acting in person

Nadar R. Hasan and Stephen Aylward, for the respondent

Joss Covenoho, for the proposed intervener, acting in person

Heard: in writing

Reasons for Decision

[1] Joss Covenoho has brought a motion for leave to intervene in this appeal, which I am case managing. By way of background, Antonio Caruso has appealed from the order of the Divisional Court dismissing his application challenging the Law Society of Ontario's restrictions on the permitted scope of practice for paralegals in immigration matters: Caruso v. The Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 6744. Mr. Caruso is advancing multiple grounds of appeal in his challenge to the decision below. That appeal is scheduled to be heard by this court on May 6, 2026.

[2] In reasons released April 8, 2025 (2025 ONCA 270), I granted three intervenors, the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Ontario Paralegal Association, leave to intervene in the Caruso appeal as friends of the court, pursuant to r. 13.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, on certain terms.

[3] By Statement of Claim issued March 21, 2025, Ms. Covenoho commenced her own action challenging the authority of the Law Society of Ontario (the "LSO") in immigration matters. Her action was stayed by the order of Iacobucci J., dated January 9, 2026, pending the outcome of the Caruso appeal due to the substantial overlap between the issues raised in the two proceedings.

[4] I had issued a direction dated November 13, 2024, which provided that any motions to intervene in this appeal must be filed by January 24, 2025. Notwithstanding that direction, I agreed to hear Ms. Covenoho's motion.

[5] In an affidavit sworn February 1, 2026, Ms. Covenoho indicates that she is a licensed paralegal and is seeking to intervene "to assist the Court on the jurisdictional question of whether provincial regulators may use 'scope of practice' instruments to narrow or negate Parliament's express authorization under [s. 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27]."

[6] Ms. Covenoho's Statement of Claim references the Caruso case. It appears that although she has been aware of the Caruso matter since at least March of 2025, Ms. Covenoho took no steps to intervene until now.

[7] More importantly, she has failed to identify in what ways her intervention would assist the court. The issue of the provincial and federal regulatory regimes will be addressed by Mr. Caruso and the other intervenors.

[8] In determining whether to grant leave to intervene as a friend of the court pursuant to r. 13.03(2), the court will consider "the nature of the case, the issues which arise and the likelihood of the applicant being able to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice to the immediate parties": Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada (1990), 1990 CanLII 6886 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (2d) 164 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 167.

[9] "The likelihood of assistance is a function of many variables, including, but not only, the experience and expertise of the proposed intervener": Jones v. Tsige (2011), 2011 CanLII 99894 (ON CA), 106 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 25. In my view, Ms. Covenoho has not established that she will provide assistance beyond that which will be provided by the parties and the interveners who have already been granted status. Furthermore, her claims against the LSO in her own proceeding are very similar to those contained in the Caruso claim. She does not offer a unique perspective that would benefit the court.

[10] A review of her Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim demonstrates that it is full of inflammatory language, irrelevant statements and it is difficult to follow. Her motion materials do not particularize the arguments she intends to make if granted leave to intervene. The request to intervene comes long after the deadline for motions for proposed intervenors. As well, the materials fail to disclose in what way Ms. Covenoho would assist the court, given the overlap between her claims against the LSO and those of Mr. Caruso, as well as the role to be played by the intervenors.

Disposition

[11] Ms. Covenoho's motion for leave to intervene is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

"D.A. Wilson J.A."