LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

APPEAL DIVISION

Date: May 7, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 25A-028

BETWEEN:

Jenna Schroeder Appellant

• and -

Law Society of Ontario Respondent in appeal

Before: Malcolm M. Mercer (Chair)

Heard: April 16, 2026, by videoconference

Appearances:

Salvatore Pazzano, for the appellant Alex Kens, for the respondent in appeal

SCHROEDER – Stay Motion - Appeal – The Paralegal was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and her licence to provide legal services was revoked - The Paralegal appealed the decision and requested a stay – The panel concluded that the relevant interests of upholding confidence in the administration of justice and avoiding harm to members of the public in this case of misappropriation outweighed the limited strength of the appeal and the likelihood of harm to the Paralegal – Delay in bringing the stay motion meant that future harm to the licensee had been avoidable. The motion was dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION FOR A STAY

1Malcolm M. Mercer:– Jenna Schroeder’s paralegal licence was revoked on October 31, 2025: Law Society of Ontario v Schroeder, 2025 ONLSTH 162. She has appealed and now seeks a stay pending appeal.

STATUS OF THE APPEAL

2Ms. Schroeder filed her appeal on November 27, 2025. She has not yet perfected her appeal. When this motion was heard, she has not filed an appeal book, an appeal factum, a book of authorities or transcripts. She has since filed transcripts.

3Ms. Schroeder’s motion for a stay was filed on February 21, 2026. This motion hearing was scheduled at a proceedings management conference (PMC) held on March 9, 2026.

4At the March 9 PMC, I directed that Ms. Schroeder perfect her appeal by April 2, 2026. She did not do so. There has been no request for an extension of time.

5During submissions, Mr. Pazzano advised that Ms. Schroeder could not comply with this deadline because she had not obtained transcripts in time to do so. Mr. Pazzano advised that Ms. Schroeder’s delay in obtaining transcripts was because of lack of resources. Mr. Kens disputed that Ms. Schroeder could not meet the April 2 deadline, stating that he had received transcripts from Mr. Pazzano in early March. Mr. Pazzano did not respond to this assertion.

THE DECISION UNDER APPEAL

6In its reasons on findings (2025 ONLSTH 16), the hearing panel found that Ms. Schroeder:

• Transferred approximately $6,600 from her trust account to her general account between March 19, 2020 and April 14, 2021 in multiple small transactions.

• A client retainer of $2,000 constituted the total funds held in Ms. Schroeder’s trust account during that period.

• Ms. Schroeder paid money back into her trust account by multiple transfers, but she repeatedly again withdrew funds from the trust account, hence the total of $6,600 of unauthorized withdrawals.

• The funds were not used frivolously, but rather for family necessities, including groceries and fuel, during a period when Ms. Schroeder had no income due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

• She replenished the funds to her trust account once she was able to do so.

7The hearing panel found misappropriation on two bases. The primary basis was that it was Ms. Schroeder who transferred the trust money from her trust account to her general account. The hearing panel rejected Ms. Schroeder’s evidence that the transfers were bank errors.

8Alternatively, the hearing panel concluded that, if Ms. Schroeder did not make the trust transfers, she was required to promptly return the trust funds to her trust account when she learned of the transfers.

9The hearing panel found that presumptive revocation applied and that there were no extraordinary circumstances that justified a lesser penalty than revocation.

TEST FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

10The test for stay pending appeal is well established and is not in dispute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the following three criteria must be considered:

1. Does the appeal raise a serious issue to be tried? At this stage, the Appeal Division does not determine the merits of the appeal and the moving party need not show that her appeal will succeed. Rather, she must show that the appeal is arguable and not frivolous.

2. Will the licensee suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted and the appeal is successful?

3. Does the balance of convenience favour granting a stay? The protection of the public is key when assessing the balance of convenience. The risk of further misconduct or harm to clients and others, as well as public confidence in the administration of justice and the self-regulation of the legal profession if a stay is granted are relevant considerations.

The above factors are not watertight compartments, and the ultimate question is whether the interests of justice favour a stay.

SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED

11Ms. Schroeder submits that the hearing panel erred in its application of the test for misappropriation articulated in Law Society of Ontario v Wilkins, 2021 ONLSTA 15.

12In para 63 of the findings reasons, the hearing panel stated:

In considering Ms. Schroeder’s handling of the trust fund transfers we apply the definition of misappropriation set out by the appeal panel in Law Society of Ontario v Wilkins, 2021 ONLSTA 15 at para 103, as “knowing unauthorized use of client property by a lawyer or paralegal for their own purposes, on the basis that knowledge may be actual knowledge, willful blindness or recklessness.”

13As set out in her factum, Ms. Schroeder’s position is that the panel erred in two analytically distinct ways:

• The panel is said to have made an unreasonable finding of fact that Ms. Schroeder personally initiated the online transfers, a conclusion premised entirely on inferential expert opinion from a forensic accountant and general convention testimony from a bank manager who was not present during the relevant period. Neither of them had access to actual user-access logs for the account. No direct evidence established that Ms. Schroeder, rather than an automated bank process, originated the transfers.

• More fundamentally, it is said that the panel's alternative holding at paras 76-79 of the findings reasons treats the failure to "immediately" replenish trust funds as itself constituting misappropriation – regardless of who initiated the withdrawal. This amounts to a de facto strict-liability standard.

14As to the first alleged error, Ms. Schroeder seeks to appeal a question of fact. The standard of review on appeal for questions of fact is palpable and overriding error. The standard of review is not reasonableness: Law Society of Ontario v Manilla, 2021 ONLSTA 25 at para 10. It does not appear that Ms. Schroeder is doing more than asking that the evidence be reweighed.

15If Ms. Schroeder overcomes the first alleged error then a novel point arises, i.e. whether a licensee who knows that trust funds have been taken from trust must immediately return the funds to trust. In other words, is the uncorrected failure to correct a taking by another equivalent to taking by one’s self? As this is an issue of law, the review standard is correctness. While this ground of appeal appears weak, it is novel and I would not treat it as being frivolous at this stage.

16In her affidavit in support of this motion, Ms. Schroeder also takes issue with the application of presumptive revocation. She submits that a failure to apply the Aguirre factors improperly fettered the hearing panel’s discretion and “resulted in a failure to conduct the required individualized penalty analysis”. But the law is otherwise: Bishop v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2014 ONSC 5057, and Law Society of Upper Canada v Abbott, 2017 ONCA 525. The standard of review of a penalty decision is whether there is an error in principle or a clearly unfit penalty, in respect of a penalty decision.

17In my opinion, the merits of the appeal are weak at best. On the record before me (i.e. absent an appeal book, transcripts and a factum), I am unable to assess whether there is a prospect of meeting the review standard on each of the issues raised by the appellant.

IRREPARABLE HARM

18Ordinarily, there is some irreparable harm in merits appeals in revocation cases. If the licensee is successful in setting aside the findings of misconduct, then the inability to practise pending appeal cannot be undone. It is irreparable: Law Society of Ontario v Watson, 2023 ONLSTA 25at paras 12-17, Law Society of Ontario v Saran, 2025 ONLSTA 8 at paras 37-40, Law Society of Ontario v Bari, 2025 ONLSTA 25 at para 66, and Law Society of Ontario v Mazinani, 2026 ONLSTA 3 at para 25. But this does not necessarily mean that the irreparable harm is weighty. It is a factor to consider but it is not dispositive.

19The Law Society submits that there are two specific reasons that there is no irreparable harm in this case. The first is that the evidence is that Ms. Schroeder had transferred her clients to others prior to her revocation. However, it is likely harder to reinstate a practice the longer it takes to be permitted to do so.

20The second is that Ms. Schroeder’s licence will likely be suspended for some months if it is not revoked. In response, Ms. Schroeder submits that any suspension that she would serve if successful on appeal has already been served.

21There is a common problem with Ms. Schroeder’s positions on both of these points; namely, that this appeal has not been promptly perfected. The appeal could have been heard by now. In submissions, Ms. Schroeder submitted that the cost of transcripts was the reason for the delay. Unfortunately, whether this is so cannot be sorted out at this stage on this record.

BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE

22Ms. Schroeder’s position is that she should be permitted to practise as an employee and be placed under supervision pending appeal. The Law Society’s position is that a licensee who has been found to have misappropriated client money should not be trusted to practise pending appeal.

23The Law Society also submits that Ms. Schroeder has not fully complied with the revocation order in respect of shutting down her practice. Some of this is in dispute, but Ms. Schroeder admits some non-compliance which she says is understandable and benign in context.

24The motion panel in Law Society of Ontario v Wilkins, 2019 ONLSTA 23 at para 27, observed that:

… the balance of convenience engages a “myriad of considerations” which do not fall neatly into the first two criteria. Most prominently, the panel must consider protection of the public which involves an evaluation of whether the public would be at risk of the applicant committing further acts of misconduct if the stay were granted. In addition, the panel must also consider whether public confidence in the administration of justice and self-regulation would also be undermined if a stay were granted. Harm to third parties (such as clients) is also a relevant consideration.

25In assessing the balance of convenience, I must weigh the interests of Ms. Schroeder against those of the public, taking into account the apparent strength of the appeal. As said in Sazant v College of Physicians & Surgeons (Ontario), 2011 CarswellOnt 15914, cited in Law Society of Ontario v Bari, 2025 ONLSTA 25 at para 67:

15Under this part of the test, the court will weigh the interests of Dr. Sazant against those of the public. The public interest goes beyond that of public safety and also includes public confidence in the administration of justice, and in cases such as this, confidence in the disciplinary process of the College.

16In this case, the interests of Dr. Sazant ultimately come down almost exclusively to his loss of income from his practice of medicine. This must be measured against the weakness of his appeal; the comprehensive and strong reasons of both the Committee and the Divisional Court; and the public interest. The third part of the test favours not granting the stay.

17The public confidence in the College's ability to discipline members of the medical profession, in all of the circumstances of this case, weighs against the limited financial interest of Dr. Sazant. These were serious breaches of sexual conduct committed by a medical doctor against young boys. The public has a right to feel confident that the College, in circumstances such as this, will discipline one of its members accordingly and that our courts will respect its decision.

26This is a case of misappropriation, which is most serious misconduct. The relevant public interest includes avoiding harm to members of the public, public confidence in the administration of justice, and confidence in the disciplinary process of the Law Society. Ordinarily, the strength of this public interest in cases where revocation is ordered will defeat a stay pending appeal.

27In my opinion, the balance of convenience does not favour a stay pending appeal. The apparent merits of the appeal are weak. The interests of the public are strong. Ms. Schroeder’s interests are not atypical.

INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

28In this case, the interest of justice is mostly dependent on the balance of convenience taking into account the likely result of the appeal. The only additional factor is that this motion for a stay is much delayed and the appeal could have been heard by now. Any future irreparable harm appears to have been avoidable.

Conclusion

29The motion for a stay pending appeal is dismissed with costs reserved to the appeal panel hearing the merits.