LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Tribunal File No.: 25H-169
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
Deborah Anne Howitt
Respondent
Before: Teresa Donnelly (chair), Anna Mascieri-Boudria, François Turpin
Heard: January 9, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances:
Andrea Luey, for the applicant
Salvatore (Sam) Pazzano, for the respondent
HOWITT – Interlocutory Suspension – The Paralegal represented clients in areas outside of a paralegal’s permitted scope of practice – She lied by saying that she was appearing on behalf of a lawyer but the lawyer was not involved – The panel found reasonable grounds exist to believe that if an interlocutory order is not made there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, including potential clients, and to the public interest in the administration of justice – The Paralegal’s licence was suspended on an interlocutory basis.
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1Teresa Donnelly (for the panel):– On January 9, 2026, finding that the evidentiary basis and legal test had been met, we issued an order suspending the paralegal licence of Deborah Anne Howitt on an interlocutory basis.
2This decision followed submissions from counsel, including the respondent’s consent, and a review of the evidence filed by the Law Society. No evidence was submitted by the respondent. These are the reasons for that decision.
BACKGROUND
3Following two investigations into the respondent’s conduct relating to three clients, the Law Society alleges that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct, contrary to s 33 of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8 (the Act), by:
- Repeatedly misleading the court, clients, and other licensees.
- Failing to act with honour and integrity.
- Providing legal services and/or holding herself out as entitled to provide legal services beyond the permitted scope of a paralegal licence.
- Failing to communicate.
- Failing to provide legal services in accordance with the standards of competence and quality.
Clients A and B
4The alleged misconduct in relation to Client A centres around the respondent’s representation in the Ontario Court of Justice of a client charged with refusing to comply with a demand for a breath sample, contrary to s 320.15 of the Criminal Code. The respondent was not allowed to represent the client on this charge as it is outside of a paralegal’s permitted scope of practice because of the maximum summary conviction penalty.
5Despite this, the respondent accepted the retainer in June 2023. It appears to us (with no evidence being adduced to the contrary) what followed was an elaborate ruse by the respondent to maintain the client, mislead the court, and drag an innocent lawyer licensee into her scheme.
6This scheme involved:
a. Convincing Client A that she was permitted to represent him and receiving fees in support of that deception. She also misled him about the potential resolution of his matter.
b. Convincing the court that she was permitted to appear on Client A’s behalf. The respondent told the court that Lawyer A was counsel of record and that she was appearing on behalf of Lawyer A. That was untrue and the respondent knew it. Lawyer A was not retained, did not know the client, had never communicated with the respondent about the client, and did not practise criminal law.
7The deceptions were uncovered by Lawyer A, an assistant crown attorney, and the court in December 2024.
8Between June 2023 to December 2024 were a series of misrepresentations and fabrications that the respondent spun to keep the client and hide from the court that she was acting outside her scope of practice.
9Those misrepresentations and fabrications, over the course of 16 court appearances, included:
a. Blaming the lawyer for the matter being delayed: including that the lawyer was on a six-month mental health leave, had a three-day trial, had left the province for a funeral, had COVID, and that his father had a heart attack.
b. Fabricating that the client had a death in the family that prevented him from attending court and that his mother was in palliative care.
10This conduct by the respondent had a demonstrable negative impact on Client A, Lawyer A, and the administration of justice.
11In reliance on the respondent’s communication to Client A that she had negotiated a plea deal that would allow him to keep his driver’s licence, he started a construction company and bought a new truck. For 18 months, he believed he was being properly represented. He paid fees of $2,040 and believed that a favourable resolution had been negotiated, only to find out it was all untrue. In December 2024, he was left to find new representation and come to terms with the fact that there would be a mandatory driver’s licence suspension on a finding of guilt for the offence.
12It also had a detrimental impact on Lawyer A. As a result of the respondent’s misrepresentations and fabrications, as the purported counsel of record, Lawyer A was ordered by the court to attend in person to speak to the matter. Lawyer A attended and explained to the presiding justice that he had never spoken to Client A and that the information provided previously by the respondent to justify adjournments was fabricated.
13The respondent’s alleged conduct fundamentally undermines the administration of justice and erodes both public and judicial confidence in the legal professions. Such actions weaken the very foundation of the professions’ obligation to act honourably, with integrity, honesty, and candour. Upholding these principles is essential to maintaining trust in the legal system and ensuring the proper functioning of the courts.
14During the investigation into the respondent’s conduct regarding Client A, the Law Society uncovered further alleged misconduct involving the respondent’s representation of Client B.
15In early 2022, Client B retained the respondent to address the criminal charges of impaired driving and driving with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration contrary to s 320.14 of the Criminal Code. These offences are outside of a paralegal’s permitted scope of practice because of the maximum summary conviction penalty.
16Notwithstanding that it was outside of scope of a paralegal’s practice, the respondent accepted the retainer and subsequently misrepresented to the Ontario Court of Justice that Lawyer A was counsel of record, and she was appearing as his agent. In fact, Lawyer A was not counsel, and had not met Client B.
17On July 4, 2022, despite the offence being outside the respondent’s scope of practice, the respondent represented Client B on his guilty plea to driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. His received a sentence of a $1,500 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition. The respondent conducted the plea and sentencing without the assistance, supervision, or presence of counsel.
18The respondent was interviewed on July 18, 2025, by the Law Society. During that interview, the respondent admitted Lawyer A was not counsel for either Client A or Client B, that she misled the court, and practised out of scope in both cases.
Client C
19Client C retained the respondent for a Small Claims matter in August 2021. In October 2021, Client C instructed and paid for a claim to be filed with the court.
20Despite Client C’s repeated follow-up communications with the respondent, the case languished for years. It is unclear on the evidence whether a claim was filed. The Law Society is in possession of a claim that bears a stamp indicating it was electronically issued in Ottawa, a handwritten claim number, and a clerk’s signature from Pembroke. In her interview with the Law Society, the respondent takes the position the claim was filed and denies applying the stamp or signing on behalf of the clerk.
THE LAW
21An interlocutory suspension can only be made pursuant to s 49.27 of the Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, or to the public interest in the administration of justice, if the order is not made.
22We find that the Law Society has demonstrated that reasonable grounds exist to believe that if an interlocutory order is not made there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, including potential clients, and to the public interest in the administration of justice based on the repeated fabrications and misrepresentations the respondent made to the court.
23Having made that finding, we considered whether we should make the order sought.
24We concluded that in light of the evidence filed, the lack of any evidence to the contrary, the lack of any evidence the conduct would not continue in the future, and the consent of the respondent, that an interlocutory suspension should be ordered.
25We were informed that a notice of application was filed by the Law Society on December 1, 2025, and that both parties are intent on moving this matter expeditiously to resolution.
ORDER
26We ordered on January 9, 2026:
Commencing immediately, the respondent’s licence is suspended on an interlocutory basis.
The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Paralegals Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Provide Legal Services while suspended pursuant to this order.
The costs of this motion are reserved to the panel that makes a final order in the conduct proceeding to which this motion relates.