LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: February 3, 2026
Tribunal File No.: 23H-115
BETWEEN:
Adam Frederick Estabrooks
Applicant
- and -
Law Society of Ontario
Respondent
Before: Anna Mascieri-Boudria (chair), Randi Druzin
Heard: In writing
Appearances:
Applicant, self-represented
Amanda Pinto, for the respondent
Summary:
ESTABROOKS – Licensing – Costs – The applicant applied unsuccessfully for a paralegal licence – The Law Society submitted a bill of costs totalling $27,580 excluding disbursements and investigative costs but sought only $5,000 in costs – The applicant consented to the amount but requested one year to pay ‒ The panel found that there was an absence of documentation demonstrating financial hardship, but granted a limited extension of two months to pay – Costs of $5,000 were ordered.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON COSTS
1Anna Mascieri-Boudria and Randi Druzin:– On October 22, 2025, we refused the applicant’s application for a paralegal licence: 2025 ONLSTH 155. The parties were invited to provide submissions on costs, which we have received and considered.
2The Law Society’s reduced costs in this matter total $27,580, exclusive of disbursements and investigator time. The Law Society seeks costs in the amount of $5,000, payable by the applicant by December 31, 2025. This represents only a fraction of the actual costs incurred and reflects the principles of proportionality and fairness to licensees and licence applicants.
3The applicant consented to the amount requested by the Law Society but requested a one-year period to complete repayment, with the option to make monthly payments if necessary.
4We accept that the professions as a whole should not bear the expense of an unsuccessful good character hearing. At the same time, costs should not be imposed in a manner that penalizes an unsuccessful applicant who has sought to become a licensee: Barroilhet Santibanez v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONLSTH 70; Polanski v Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONLSTH 140 at paras 15-28.
5In determining costs following an adverse decision in a good character hearing, a panel may consider a number of factors including the length and complexity of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties during the process, and the ability of the applicant to pay: Polanski and Santibanez, above, Zoraik v Law Society of Ontario, 2018 ONLSTH 166, and Ikhuiwu v Law Society of Ontario, 2018 ONLSTH 49.
6As the parties concur on the quantum of the costs at $5,000 and we do not consider this to be an unreasonable amount in the circumstances, the sole issue is whether additional time to pay should be granted.
7The applicant provided no documentary evidence of financial circumstances or inability to pay by December 31, 2025. During the hearing, the applicant noted he is a single parent with two children, one currently attending university and another in secondary school with autism. In the absence of documentary evidence, we are unable to place significant weight on the applicant’s unsupported assertions regarding financial hardship.
8As confirmed in Law Society of Upper Canada v Peterson, 2014 ONLSTH 191, the likelihood of whether the Law Society will ultimately recover costs is not a relevant consideration. Our focus must remain on the fairness and proportionality of the award itself, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding and the applicant’s present ability to pay.
9The applicant holds a senior leadership position within a police organization, which reasonably suggests stable income and an ongoing ability to meet the financial obligations arising from this proceeding. The Law Society requested repayment by December 31, 2025.
10We acknowledge the applicant’s responsibilities as a single parent supporting a university-aged child and another in secondary school who requires additional support. In the absence of documentation demonstrating financial hardship and considering the applicant’s senior leadership role, we are unable to justify an extended repayment schedule. Balancing these considerations with fairness to the professions, we grant a limited extension, requiring repayment within two months of this decision. This extension appropriately balances the applicant’s request for more time while recognizing the absence of evidence supporting a full-year payment plan.
11Accordingly, we order:
The applicant shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $5,000 by April 6, 2026.
Interest will accrue on any unpaid costs as of the day those costs are due at the rate of 4% per year.