LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: February 20, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 23H-068

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario

Applicant

• and -

Antonio Caruso

Respondent

Before: Lubomir Poliacik

Heard: November 5, 2025, by videoconference

Appearances:

Alex Kens, for the applicant

Respondent, self-represented

CARUSO – Motion – Summonses – The Paralegal issued five summonses to Law Society employees and former and current Treasurers – The Law Society moved to quash the summonses – The panel dismissed the Paralegal’s recusal request – Much of the evidence sought in the summonses is linked to the Paralegal’s abuse of process allegations that were dismissed in an earlier proceeding – There were no links between the evidence sought and the issues to be determined in the conduct application – The motion was granted and the summonses quashed.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONSES

1Lubomir Poliacik:– The Law Society brought this motion to quash five summonses to witness issued by Antonio Caruso under Rule 11.5(1) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP). The summonses are for Law Society employees and former and current Treasurers to attend, on November 18-21, 2025, the hearing on merits of the Law Society’s notice of application 23H-068.

2After reading the materials filed and hearing the submissions of the parties, I ordered the summonses to witness to Glenn Stuart, Executive Director, Professional Regulation; Sharon Greene, Counsel, Intake and Resolution; Malcolm Mercer, former Treasurer and current Chair of the Tribunal; Laurie Pawlitza, former Treasurer; and Peter Wardle, current Treasurer, quashed, with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

3At the commencement of the motion hearing, Mr. Caruso requested that I recuse myself based on an allegation that I was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias, stemming from my membership on several Convocation committees in 2019. After hearing Mr. Caruso’s submissions on the issue, I declined to recuse myself as the allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias had not been made out, with reasons to follow. These reasons also address my decision not to recuse myself.

OVERVIEW[^1]

4Mr. Caruso is a paralegal. He has taken issue with the Law Society’s position regarding the paralegal scope of practice in immigration matters. Mr. Caruso’s position was considered by the Divisional Court in Caruso v The Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 6744. Mr. Caruso’s position is described by the Divisional Court as follows at paras. 1 to 5:

1The central issue raised in this application is whether the processing and filing of immigration applications on behalf of clients is within the Applicant’s scope of practice as a paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO).

2The Applicant takes the position that he is authorized to provide such legal services pursuant to s. 91(2) of the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA).

3The Applicant takes the position that, properly interpreted, there is no LSO by-law that limits the authorization set out in the IRPA. Accordingly, the LSO’s policy that purports to limit his scope of practice in matters relating to immigration to providing legal services in connection with proceedings or intended proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is, therefore, not authorized by the LSO by-laws.

4In the alternative, the Applicant argues that, to the extent that the LSO by-law does limit his scope of practice in matters relating to immigration, the by-law conflicts with the IRPA and is rendered inoperative by virtue of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

5In the final alternative, the Applicant argues that the LSO’s restriction on his scope of practice infringes Charter s. 7.

5Mr. Caruso was not successful in the Divisional Court. He is pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

THE CONDUCT APPLICATION

6The Law Society alleges in the notice of application that Mr. Caruso engaged in professional misconduct by:

1. publishing misleading statements addressed to fellow licensees in social media posts in which he asserted falsely that one or more changes had taken place, the effect of which was that licensed paralegals had become authorized to provide legal services in the immigration field beyond services in connection with proceedings and intended proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada;

2. encouraging and/or inducing other licensees to violate or attempt to violate the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, the Law Society Act, or By-Law 4; and

3. failing to communicate with requisite civility, respectfulness, and professionalism in his social media posts in relation to fellow licensees.

7The issues in the conduct application are whether Mr. Caruso engaged in professional misconduct by misrepresenting the current scope of paralegal practice and encouraging/inducing other paralegals to provide legal services outside the permitted scope of paralegal practice, as well as being uncivil, disrespectful and unprofessional in social media posts.

8In 2024, Mr. Caruso brought an abuse of process motion seeking to have the conduct application dismissed.²

9On September 11, 2024, Mr. Caruso’s abuse of process motion was dismissed by a three-adjudicator panel. It was later determined that the lay adjudicator on that panel had sat on a panel with Ms. Corsetti – the complainant in the lack of civility allegation in the conduct application – on an unrelated matter on or around the same time as the abuse of process motion was being heard. Mr. Caruso became aware of this overlap and objected to the lay adjudicator’s participation in the conduct application and in the abuse of process motion. By this time, the abuse of process motion had been decided and the reasons for decision provided to the parties. The conduct application had been heard, but no decision had yet been issued.

10The Law Society agreed that the circumstances presented a reasonable apprehension of bias in respect of the lay adjudicator, who then withdrew from the panel. The conduct panel initially believed it could decide the conduct application by moving forward with two adjudicators only. On this basis, the conduct application was decided in December 2024. The reasons can be found at Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 152.

11However, in February 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued the decision in Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v Mexico, 2025 ONCA 82, which the conduct panel determined stood for the proposition that the existence of a reasonable apprehension of bias in one member of the panel tainted the entire panel. On the panel’s own motion, it determined that it had to set aside its own decision and that the two allegations had to be re-heard in their entirety by a freshly constituted panel: Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 26.

12Given that conclusion, the abuse of process decision was also set aside. In September 2025, Mr. Caruso’s abuse of process motion was heard by a differently constituted panel and was dismissed: Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 130.

13The summonses to witness challenged by the Law Society in this motion were issued for the rehearing of the conduct application.

THE RECUSAL REQUEST

14At the commencement of the hearing of this motion Mr. Caruso submitted that I should recuse myself. While not articulated exactly in his oral submissions, Mr. Caruso’s position appears to be that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on my part.

15Mr. Caruso submits that while a bencher, I sat on several Convocation committees; Ms. Corsetti, Mr. Mercer and Ms. Shortreed were also members of some of them. As such, Mr. Caruso submits that I had “material knowledge”, I am “protecting misconduct of Ms. Corsetti”, and I “would have been privy to all of [Mr. Caruso’s] correspondence”.

16Mr. Caruso also stated he is “going to have to call [me] in as a witness now, because you were the chair of two of these committees.”

17Mr. Caruso submitted no motion materials in support of his recusal request. Other than the committee membership lists, there is no evidence on which he relies in support of his claim of reasonable apprehension of bias on my part. His claim is a bare allegation.

18What is more, only a month earlier, on October 1, 2025, I heard a formal motion for my recusal brought by Mr. Caruso, also based, in part, on my membership of Convocation committees with Ms. Corsetti. I dismissed that motion.

19In respect of this recusal request, I conclude that an informed, reasonable and right-minded person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would not conclude that it was more likely than not that I would not decide fairly, whether consciously or unconsciously.

THE JURISPRUDENCE

20The applicable test for quashing of summonses was reviewed in Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 85:

Quashing summonses

19There is no apparent issue between the parties as to the test to be applied in a motion to quash a summons. In Airport Taxicab (Pearson Airport) Association v. Toronto (City), 2009 CanLII 25973 (ON SC) at paras. 26-30, Justice Perell articulated the following principles (citations omitted):

26There is a prima facie right to examine a witness for a pending application, but the party seeking to conduct the examination must show on a reasonable evidentiary basis that the examination would be conducted on an issue relevant to the application and that the proposed witness is in a position to offer relevant evidence.

27An opposing party may move to quash a summons to examine a witness on the grounds that the evidence sought is not relevant to the application or that the examination or the underlying proceeding would amount to an abuse of process.

28If the party seeking the examination cannot satisfy the relevancy and evidentiary screening, then the summons is regarded as a fishing expedition and an abuse of process.

29In considering whether to strike a summons to a witness, the court will consider the nature and grounds for the motion, application, or action to determine what are the issues for which the examination is in aid.

30Once the party seeking to conduct the examination shows that the proposed examination is about an issue relevant to the pending motion or proceeding and that the party to be examined is in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence, it is not necessary for the party to go further and show that the proposed examination will yield evidence helpful to that party's cause.

20The Tribunal Appeal Division has affirmed and applied these principles in several cases including Law Society of Ontario v. Isaac, 2021 ONLSTA 21, and Law Society of Ontario v. Hutton, 2021 ONLSTA 23.

21Relevancy is not established by “bare assertion.” The party proposing to call the witness must establish that the witness can give material evidence in the proceedings: R. v Elliott, 2003 CanLII 24447 (ON CA).

THE SUMMONSES

22Before I examine each area of evidence sought in the summonses in turn, it is important to keep in mind that Mr. Caruso has previously brought a motion to dismiss this conduct application as an abuse of process. That motion was heard over two days in September 2025 and was dismissed.

23Much of the evidence sought in the challenged summonses has potential links to Mr. Caruso’s abuse of process allegations. Indeed, he states so himself in his factum:

15. The witnesses summoned are highly material to prove an abuse of process and a collaborative effort to commit an abuse of process either by purpose or by negligence; only by interviewing the witness will establish the motive either in favour of the Law Society or the Responding Party.

16. The Responding Party holds the position that some of the witnesses have engaged in conduct that is an abuse of process so much so that a claim of misfeasance could be successfully claimed.

24Mr. Caruso’s abuse of process motion has been heard and dismissed. Any evidence that may have been relevant to his claim of abuse of process only, and is not relevant to the allegations raised in the notice of application, is not a proper basis for the summonses to witness.

Glenn Stuart

25Glenn Stuart is the Executive Director of Professional Regulation at the Law Society.

26In the Summons to Witness, Mr. Caruso sets out the evidence he proposes to elicit from Mr. Stuart:

You are being summoned in connection with your role as Executive Director, Professional Regulation at the Law Society of Ontario. Your testimony is required to provide evidence regarding the Law Society’s governance, communications, and regulatory practices relevant to this proceeding.

Specifically, you will be questioned on the following matters:

1. Correspondence Between Yourself and Ms. Cathy Corsetti-You will be asked to identify, authenticate, and explain the content and context of email communications exchanged between yourself and Ms. Corsetti relating to regulatory, disciplinary, or governance matters.

2. Interpretation of By-Law 4 – Scope of Practice- You will be asked to identify and explain any section(s) within Law Society By-Law 4 that reference or govern paralegal scope of practice in relation to immigration and Landlord and Tenant Board matters, including any policies or interpretations applied by the Professional Regulation Department.

3. Status of Bencher Code of Conduct Complaint – Ms. Cathy Corsetti. You will be required to provide an update on the investigation, handling, and current status of any complaint made against Ms. Cathy Corsetti under the Bencher Code of Conduct, including what steps were taken and by whom.

4. Third-Party Policy – Complaints Department You will be asked to explain the Law Society’s third-party complaint policy, including how such complaints are processed, evaluated, and communicated to affected licensees.

5. Collection of Costs Prior to Final Order- You will be asked to explain why the Law Society proceeded with the collection of costs prior to a final order being issued, contrary to the requirements of the Law Society Act, and to identify the authority or policy relied upon in doing so.

27In the preamble paragraph Mr. Caruso seeks “evidence regarding the Law Society’s governance, communications, and regulatory practices relevant to this proceeding.” This is very broad and is so vague that no link to the issues in the conduct application is discernible.

28In the first numbered paragraph, Mr. Caruso directs Mr. Stuart to provide an explanation about unspecified email communications he had with Ms. Corsetti, the complainant, “relating to regulatory, disciplinary, or governance matters.” None of this evidence regarding Mr. Stuart’s correspondence with the complainant has any nexus with the issues raised the notice of application.

29In paragraph 2 of the summons, Mr. Caruso states that Mr. Stuart “will be questioned” about Professional Regulation’s interpretation of By-Law 4 regarding paralegal scope of practice. The Law Society’s interpretation of By-Law 4 is well known to Mr. Caruso and is on the record in the Divisional Court decision referred to above.

30There is no discernable connection between the status of a Bencher Code of Conduct complaint against Ms. Corsetti, sought in paragraph 3 of the summons, and the issues to be decided by the merits panel.

31In paragraph 4 Mr. Caruso seeks Mr. Stuart’s testimony regarding the Law Society’s third-party complaint policy. No nexus of this evidence with the issues to be decided by the merits panel has been identified.

32In paragraph 5 Mr. Caruso states that Mr. Stuart “will be asked to explain why the Law Society proceeded with the collection of costs prior to a final order being issued, contrary to the requirements of the Law Society Act, and to identify the authority or policy relied upon in doing so.” There is no indication as to how this evidence relates to the conduct application.

33I am not satisfied that Mr. Stuart is in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the hearing of this conduct application.

Sharon Greene

34Sharon Greene is Intake and Resolution Counsel. The summons to witness lists the following evidence sought from Ms. Green:

You are being summoned in connection with your role as intake of the Law Society of Ontario from 2020 to 2025 . Your testimony is required to provide evidence regarding the Law Society's governance/complaints process of intake, communications, and external relations during that period.

Specifically, you will be questioned on the following matters:

1. your closing letter re: Daniel English and the law society jurisdiction when it comes to freedom of expression and its polices,

[sic]

35There is no indication of any connection between evidence regarding “the Law Society’s governance/complaints process of intake, communications, and external relations” during the period from 2020 to 2025 and the issues in the conduct application.

36There is also no discernable link between evidence about Ms. Greene’s closing letter in an unrelated matter and the Law Society’s jurisdiction over freedom of expression and related policies and the issues before the merits panel.

37I am not satisfied that Ms. Greene is in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the hearing of this conduct application.

Malcolm Mercer

38Malcolm Mercer is a former Treasurer of the Law Society and the current Chair of the Tribunal. The summons to witness lists the following evidence sought from Mr. Mercer:

You are being summoned in connection with your role as Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario from 2018 to 2020. Your testimony is required to provide evidence regarding the Law Society's governance, communications, and external relations during that period.

Specifically, you will be questioned on the following matters:

1. Bencher Code of Conduct (2018-2020): You will be asked questions regarding the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the Bencher Code of Conduct during your tenure as Treasurer.

2. Law Times Article (May 14, 2019): You will be asked to explain the context, accuracy, and relevance of statements attributed to or concerning you in the Law Times publication dated May 14, 2019.

3. Correspondence Between You and the Summoning Party (2019- 2020): You will be asked to identify, authenticate, and explain correspondence exchanged between yourself and the undersigned during your term as Treasurer.

4. Correspondence with the Ministry of Immigration (2018- 2020): You will be asked to clarify any communications, initiatives, or consultations between yourself (as Treasurer) and the Ministry of Immigration relating to paralegal or lawyer regulation, licensing, or scope of practice.

5. Positions with the Canadian Bar Association: You will be asked to describe any offices or roles you held with the Canadian Bar Association and how such positions may have related to, or influenced, your role as Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario.

6. Website Content (malcolmmercer.ca): You will be asked to confirm and clarify information published on your personal or professional website, https://malcolmmercer.ca/, as it relates to your professional background and public statements relevant to the above matters.

39There is no discernable link between any of the evidence sought in the summons to Mr. Mercer and the issues to be determined in this conduct application. No such link was identified in Mr. Caruso’s factum or his submissions.

40I am not satisfied that Mr. Mercer is in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the hearing of this conduct application.

Laurie Pawlitza

41Laurie Pawlitza is a former Treasurer of the Law Society. The summons to witness lists the following evidence sought from Ms. Pawlitza:

You are being summoned in connection with your role as Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario from 2010 to 2011. Your testimony is required to provide evidence regarding the Law Society's governance, communications, and external relations during that period.

Specifically, you will be questioned on the following matters:

1. standing committee on citizenship and immigration November 1, 2010 - you will be asked why did you take the position that lawyers and paralegals do not need to be duly licensed.

42There is no discernable link between the evidence sought by Mr. Caruso from Ms. Pawlitza and the issues in conduct application. None is identified in Mr. Caruso’s factum or submissions.

43I am not satisfied that Ms. Pawlitza is in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the hearing of this conduct application.

Peter Wardle

44Peter Wardle is the current Treasurer of the Law Society. The summons to witness lists the following evidence sought from Mr. Wardle:

You are being summoned in connection with your role as Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario from 2023 to 2025. Your testimony is required to provide evidence regarding the Law Society's governance, communications, and external relations during that period.

Specifically, you will be questioned on the following matters:

1. In your December 2024 correspondence to the Minister of Immigration, you will be required to justify your position that lawyers and paralegals ought not to be duly regulated.

45The conduct that is the subject of this application is alleged to have taken place between May 2019 and August 2022. Mr. Caruso does not indicate, either in his factum or in his submissions, how Mr. Wardle’s evidence regarding the governance of the Law Society in the period from 2023 to 2025 relates to the issues in this application.

46As for Mr. Wardle’s December 2024 letter, it is mischaracterized in the summons. It is difficult see how Mr. Caruso interpreted the letter to indicate that Mr. Wardle took the position “that lawyers and paralegals ought not to be duly regulated”. But even if I accepted Mr. Caruso’s interpretation of the letter, which I do not, Mr. Caruso has not demonstrated how Mr. Wardle’s testimony about this letter, written in December 2024, could be relevant to the allegations set out in the NOA.

47I am not satisfied that Mr. Wardle is in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the hearing of this conduct application.

ORDER

48The summonses issued by Mr. Caruso to the five witnesses, namely, to Glenn Stuart, Sharon Greene, Malcolm Mercer, Laurie Pawlitza and Peter Wardle, for the hearing of the merits of this conduct application are quashed.

49If the Law Society seeks costs, it should deliver its written submissions by March 6, 2026 and Mr. Caruso may deliver his responding submissions by March 20, 2026.

Lubomir Poliacik

Footnotes

1. 2The following summary of the history of the 2024 abuse of process motion and the original merits decision is adapted from Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 130, paras 6-9.
2. 1Adapted from Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 85, paras 5-6.