LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: February 4, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 25H-091

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario Applicant

• and -

Bruce Gordon Joseph Moquin Respondent

Before: Barbara J. Murchie (chair), Paula Callaghan, Gisele Chretien

Heard: October 27, 2025, by videoconference

Appearances:

Kandace Forbes, for the applicant Respondent, not present or represented

Summary:

MOQUIN – Failure to Co-operate – Failure to Produce Documentation – Ungovernability – Proceeding in the Absence of the Licensee – The Paralegal did not respond to any of the Law Society’s attempts to communicate – He did not provide any of the information or documentation requested – The panel found that the nature, duration, and repetitive character of the Paralegal’s misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant a finding that he is unwilling to be governed – The Paralegal’s licence was revoked and he was ordered to pay $5,055 in costs to the Law Society.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1Paula Callaghan (for the panel):– The Law Society brought an application alleging that Bruce Gordon Joseph Moquin (the Paralegal) engaged in professional misconduct by failing to co-operate in two Law Society investigations and by failing to promptly and completely produce all requested information and documentation.

2The Paralegal did not attend the hearing. We found misconduct as alleged and that the Paralegal was ungovernable. We ordered his licence revoked, effective immediately, and costs of $5,055 to the Law Society. These are our reasons.

BACKGROUND

3The Paralegal was licensed to provide legal services in 2021. He was suspended on July 19, 2024 by an order from conduct application 24H-061 and again on December 16, 2024 by an order from conduct application 24H-121. The Paralegal is currently suspended pursuant to both disciplinary orders.

PROCEEDING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PARALEGAL

4The Paralegal did not appear at the hearing at the scheduled time. The matter was held down while Tribunal staff attempted to reach him by telephone and email, without success.

5Based on the affidavit evidence of Daryna Haiduk attesting to service of the notice of application, and the Tribunal’s notice of hearing, we were satisfied that the Paralegal received proper service in accordance with the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure. We ordered that the hearing proceed in his absence in accordance with Rule 6.7 of the Tribunal Rules.

INVESTIGATION AND COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

6On July 9, and September 29, 2024, the LSO received complaints about the Paralegal from Complainants A and B respectively. The complaints raised issues including misappropriation or mishandling of trust monies and failures to serve, to communicate, and to account.

7On December 19, 2024, the investigator, Sophie Galipeau, published two case requirements (CASRs) in relation to Complaint A, and five case requirements in relation to Complaint B, to the Paralegal’s Portal asking for his full response by January 6, 2025. Case requirements are requests for documents, information or written representations that the LSO requires to investigate complaints against the licensee. The Paralegal did not read nor respond to the portal request.

8On December 20, 2024, Ms. Galipeau sent two emails to the Paralegal’s business and personal emails on record with the Law Society, attaching copies of the portal messages. She notified him that if he did not provide a complete response by January 6, 2025 a report would be made to the Proceedings Authorizing Committee for possible discipline action.

9On January 8, 2025, in response of a request from Ms. Galipeau, duty counsel, Michael Spratt, was assigned.

10On January 9, a follow-up attempt was made via the Portal reminding the Paralegal of his obligations to provide the requested documentation and giving him a response deadline of January 23, 2025. Duty counsel was advised of the extended deadline.

11On February 3, Ms. Galipeau attempted to contact the Paralegal by calling his personal telephone number on record. The call went to his private mailbox which prompted the caller to leave a message. Ms. Galipeau left a voicemail advising the call was in regard to the complaints of Complainants A and B and asking him to call back as soon as possible. The paralegal did not respond to the voicemail. Duty counsel was unable to contact the Paralegal despite several attempts. On the same day, Ms. Galipeau called the Paralegal’s business telephone. The call returned a busy signal and immediately disconnected suggesting the number may no longer be in service.

12To date, the Paralegal has not responded to any LSO attempts to communicate. He has not provided any of the information or documentation requested in these investigations. As a result, Ms. Galipeau has been unable to complete the underlying investigations.

13On July 10, 2025, this application was filed and served on the Paralegal. He did not respond at any time. He failed to attend or participate in two scheduled proceeding management conferences (PMC) held on August 11 and 25, 2025. By endorsement at both PMCs, the PMC adjudicator cautioned the Paralegal that his licence was at risk and that further steps could be taken without his participation. On August 25, this hearing date was set and the Paralegal was properly advised.

FAILURE TO CO-OPERATE

14Rule 9.01 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct requires paralegals to respond promptly and completely to LSO communications. It states:

9.01(1) A paralegal shall reply promptly and completely to any communication from the Law Society and shall provide a complete response to any request from the Law Society

15As set out in Law Society of Upper Canada v Ghobrial, 2014 ONLSHP 5 at para 13, to prove professional misconduct for failing to respond or co-operate, the Law Society must show on a balance of probabilities that:

1. the Law Society communicated with the licensee, requesting a response; and

2. the licensee failed to act in good faith to respond (i) promptly and (ii) completely, given all the circumstances.

16Ms. Galipeau’s uncontested evidence clearly establishes that between December 19, 2024 and February 3, 2025, the Law Society communicated with the Paralegal about Complainants A and B, requesting a response. The Law Society repeatedly sent communications to the Paralegal requesting information and documentation required for its investigations. The Paralegal failed to act in good faith by failing to respond to any of these communications, although he was afforded ample opportunity to do so and offered the assistance of duty counsel.

17For these reasons, we found the Paralegal engaged in professional misconduct as alleged.

UNGOVERNABILITY AND PENALTY

18The guiding principle governing a finding of ungovernability is protection of the public interest. If a licensee is unwilling or unable to be governed by the LSO and abide by and its discipline process and guidelines; or comply with the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8; the LSO’s Rules and By-Laws; then the public cannot be protected. In those circumstances the licensee will not be permitted to provide legal services to the public.

19To determine whether the respondent is ungovernable, the jurisprudence has set out a two-part test: Law Society of Upper Canada v Shifman, 2014 ONLSTA 21 at para 25:

(1) Is the nature, duration and repetitive character of the licensee’s present and past misconduct sufficiently serious that it suggests an unwillingness or inability to be governed by the Law Society, notwithstanding progressively increased penalties for repeated incidents of misconduct?

(2) If so, in light of the circumstances, is revocation appropriate? This involves balancing the nature of the misconduct and disciplinary history against mitigating factors including:

a. any character evidence;

b. the existence of remorse and a recognition and understanding of the seriousness of the misconduct;

c. evidence that the licensee is willing to be governed by the Society;

d. medical or other evidence that explains (although does not excuse) the misconduct;

e. the likelihood of future misconduct, having regard to any treatment of other remedial efforts undertaken;

f. the licensee’s ongoing co-operation with the Society in addressing the outstanding matters that are subject of the misconduct and other regulatory matters.

20In our view, the nature, duration, and repetitive character of the Paralegal’s misconduct is sufficiently serious to warrant a finding that he is unwilling to be governed.

21The Paralegal failed to co-operate with three Law Society investigations arising from at least six client complaints over the last two years. Based on the material before us, he failed to attend at least two of three conduct hearings and he failed to comply with two existing orders requiring that he respond to LSO case requirements dating back to November 2023.

22The Paralegal’s first finding of misconduct for failure to co-operate occurred on July 19, 2024, in file no 24H-061. He was suspended pending a full and complete response to an LSO request dated November 22, 2023, and for an additional month after compliance.

23The second finding of misconduct for failure to co-operate was made on December 16, 2024, for reasons at Law Society v Moquin, 2024 ONLSTH 150. The panel ordered an immediate suspension pending his compliance with outstanding requests in LSO investigations arising out of three client complaints dating back to April 2024. The panel ordered an additional two-month suspension to follow compliance plus an immediate fine of $2,000 and a second conditional fine of $2,000 in accordance with the principles of progressive discipline.

24Failing to respond to Law Society investigation requests is serious misconduct. It delays or prevents the investigation of client complaints, a fundamental part of the Law Society’s regulatory framework. In the second and third proceedings against the Paralegal, client complaints raised issues of misappropriating or mishandling trust funds, allegations that are potentially licence-revoking offences. The Paralegal’s misconduct has prevented the investigation of these complaints, which undermines the LSO’s mandate to govern in the public interest and can lead to erosion of public’s confidence in the regulator and its ability to govern its members. In addition, the Licensee’s behaviour has the potential to significantly impact the reputation of the paralegal profession.

25We are satisfied that the Law Society met the first part of the test.

26The second part of the test is to determine whether there are any mitigating factors to suggest that a finding of ungovernability should not be made. There is no evidence of any mitigating factors that might explain the Paralegal’s non‑compliance with prior orders or current Law Society requests.

27The Paralegal has prevented the Law Society from fulfilling its public protection mandate for over two years. He continues to fail to respond, fails to attend hearings, and flouts Tribunal orders. As a result, his licence must be revoked. In our view, there is no lesser penalty that will deter future misconduct. Revocation is the only penalty that will achieve specific and general deterrence and maintain public confidence in the paralegal profession. The Paralegal has demonstrated that he is ungovernable, incapable of responding to regulatory oversight, and unwilling to accept the authority of the Law Society.

COSTS

28We ordered that the Paralegal pay $5,055 in costs, the amount sought in the Law Society’s bill of costs.

29In Law Society of Ontario v Perelli, 2018 ONLSTH 80 at para 30, the panel emphasized a key principle: the professions as a whole should not bear the costs of prosecuting licensee misconduct. As stated in Law Society of Upper Canada v Baker, 2006 ONLSHP 21 at para 12, costs are not an additional penalty imposed on the licensee, but rather serve to defray amounts paid by Law Society licensees through their fees.

30The principles to be considered in determining appropriate costs are set out in Perelli at para 48:

1. Find an appropriate general range, considering key litigation steps including pre-hearings, the length of the hearing and the work product of Law Society representative(s).

2. Determine a place within the range by taking into account:

a. the complexity of the case;

b. any conduct of the parties during the Tribunal process that lengthened the proceedings;

c. any financial hardship that affects the ability of the licensee to pay; and

d. any other factors particular to the case.

31In Law Society v Saskin, 2021 ONLSTH 8 at para 60, the panel reviewed 11 comparable cases where the licensee did not attend, was unrepresented, and was found ungovernable. The panel concluded that the appropriate range for costs for such a case was between $3,000 and $20,475. The panel in that case accepted the LSO submission that the starting point in such a case was $10,000.

32The costs sought by the Law Society here are substantially less than the starting point of $10,000 and are at the lower end of costs awarded in the 11 comparable cases. An award of $5,055 appropriately reflects the lack of complexity in the case. Further, neither party did anything to lengthen the proceedings. There are no factors that would justify reducing the costs sought below those justified by the Law Society’s bill of costs.

Order

33We ordered:

1. The respondent’s licence is revoked, effective immediately.

2. The respondent shall comply with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Former Paralegals Whose Licences Have Been Revoked or Who Have Been Permitted to Surrender Their Licences.

3. The respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $5,055 immediately. Starting the day following the date of this order, interest shall accrue on any unpaid part of those costs at a rate of 4.0 % per year.