LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

Appeal DIVISION

Date: February 27, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 25A-021

BETWEEN:

Ferduse Bari

Appellant

• and -

Law Society of Ontario

Respondent in appeal

Before: Natalia Rodriguez (chair), Pam Hrick, Anna Mascieri-Boudria, Deborah Moriah, Eric Whist

Heard: November 28, 2025, by videoconference

Appearances:

Appellant, self-represented

Kristina MacDonald, for the respondent in appeal

Summary:

BARI – Appeal – Revocation – The hearing panel revoked the Paralegal’s licence – The Paralegal impersonated another licensee prior to obtaining his licence and he acted without honour and integrity when he continued the ruse after he was licensed – He failed to serve his client – The appeal panel found the hearing panel did not make any palpable and overring errors of fact and did not err in considering Mr. Bari’s pre-licensing conduct in determining whether his post-licensing conduct contravened s 33 of the Act – The hearing panel’s penalty of revocation was not “clearly unfit” – The appeal was dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1Natalia Rodriguez (for the panel):– Ferduse Bari appeals from the findings of misconduct and the penalty and costs imposed by the Hearing Division. The hearing panel found that, in misleading his client as to his real identity and holding himself out to be another paralegal, Mr. Bari failed to discharge all responsibilities to his client and to other members of the legal professions with honour and integrity. Among other things, the panel also found that Mr. Bari failed to uphold the standards and reputation of the paralegal profession. The panel revoked his paralegal licence and ordered him to pay $10,000 in costs over 12 months.

2Mr. Bari’s appeal centres on the following grounds:

a. The panel made palpable and overriding errors of fact.

b. There was an improper investigation and improper PAC approval.

c. The panel committed a jurisdictional error in considering pre-licensing conduct to establish professional misconduct under sections 33 and 34 of the Law Society Act.

d. The panel improperly considered pre-licensing conduct in assessing penalty.

e. The panel failed to properly apply the Aguirre factors and to consider mitigating circumstances in assessing the appropriate penalty.

3Mr. Bari also appeals the costs award of $10,000.

4For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

Factual background

Client A’s retainer pre-licensing

5Mr. Bari became a licensed paralegal on May 2, 2022.

6In April 2021, before he was licensed, he accepted a retainer from Client A through his business called Diamond Paralegal with respect to a landlord and tenant matter. Client A found Diamond Paralegal through a Google search and called the business. Mr. Bari answered the phone and introduced himself as “Shan”, which is a nickname for a licensed paralegal named Shabbirahmed (Shabbir) Shaikh, whom Mr. Bari casually knew and whom Mr. Bari was impersonating.

7The landlord and tenant matter related to Client A’s condominium unit, which he rented out. The tenant had caused a fire in the unit which had resulted in damage to the unit and other parts of the condominium. Client A wanted to evict the tenant and recover the repair costs.

8Mr. Bari, through text messages to Client A and still holding himself out as “Shan,” advised that his fee was “$1000 start to end” plus an additional $202 for a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) filing fee. Client A made a total of $902 in payments for fees and disbursements through various e-transfers.

9Mr. Bari completed two LTB forms, both of which listed Mr. Shaikh as the representative of record and included Mr. Shaikh’s Law Society licence number. The contact information, however, was for Diamond Paralegal, including the address and phone number. One of the forms also included a signature for Mr. Shaikh.

10At various times, Client A sent documents to Diamond Paralegal to support his claim. Some of the documents were sent to Jessica Kaur, a Diamond Paralegal employee. Ms. Kaur worked with Mr. Bari for about six months in 2021 and also called him “Shan” as she believed Mr. Bari was Mr. Shaikh.

11On April 22, 2021, Mr. Bari sent a settlement request letter to the tenant’s guarantor, that he signed as Shabbir Shaikh with Mr. Shaikh’s Law Society licence number.

Mr. Bari’s path to licensing

12Mr. Bari graduated from a paralegal college program in December 2020 and wrote his P1 paralegal licensing exam in February 2021. He believed he would pass the exam and so he registered Diamond Paralegal Inc. and began advertising his paralegal services before obtaining his licence.

13When Client A contacted him, he had not yet received the results of his paralegal licensing exam. Mr. Bari’s brother had a heart attack in early April 2021, and he needed to help financially. According to Mr. Bari, he accepted Client A’s retainer because of his financial needs related to his brother’s condition and because he was confident that he would obtain his licence. He testified that it was a shock to discover in May 2021 that he had not passed the exam. He wrote the P1 exam three times before he passed. He was licensed on May 2, 2022.

14Mr. Bari admitted using Mr. Shaikh’s name and Mr. Shaikh’s Law Society number in his dealings with Client A and the LTB. At no time was Mr. Shaikh aware that Mr. Bari was using his name or his Law Society licence number.

Events post-licensing

15After the forms were filed with the LTB, there was essentially no action in Client A’s matter. According to Mr. Bari, they were waiting for the LTB to set a hearing date, which he said was outside of his control.

16On June 8, 2022, Client A texted Mr. Bari to ask if he had received anything. Mr. Bari replied that he had not received anything yet.

17Client A sent several texts in July 2022 which went unanswered. On July 24, 2022, he asked “Shabbir” if they could meet at his office and he provided his availability for a meeting. On July 26, 2022, he texted that it was “very disappointing Shabbir” as he was waiting for his response. On July 27, 2022, he asked for the “money receipt with your organization letterhead.” He sent another text that day asking Shabbir to call him as he thought that his phone number had been blocked. He sent another text on July 29: “Shabbir call me.”

18On July 28 and 29, 2022, Client A also sent several emails, at times copying the Law Society, asking for updates and information. All the July texts and emails went unanswered. Mr. Bari’s position was that he did not receive them for various reasons.

19On September 2, 2022, Client A received an email from “Fred Bari” but signed by Jillian Mccurdy, which attached the information about the LTB hearing. The email indicated that, “Shabbir Shaikh is currently out of the country.” In fact, it was Mr. Bari who was out of the country. He had directed Ms. Mccurdy, his employee, to send this email.

20Client A sent emails to Diamond Paralegal on September 3, 2022, asking who would be attending the hearing, and expressing his frustration that until now, no one had talked to him face to face. He stated that he wanted to sit down and have a conversation about his case. He did not know the LTB procedures nor what questions he would be asked, which is why he had paid to obtain assistance.

21On September 3, 2022, Client A received another email from “Fred Bari”, also signed by Ms. Mccurdy, “legal assistant.” The email advised Client A that, “Mr Shabbir Shaikh is no longer working for Diamond paralegal and he is out of the country over 2 months now.”

22Client A stated he attended Diamond Paralegal’s office multiple times in the hope of speaking to someone, but no one was ever there.

23Leading up to the LTB hearing on October 3, 2022, Client A and Mr. Bari exchanged several texts and had a telephone conversation. In those messages, Mr. Bari assured Client A that he would attend the hearing. He asked Client A to put all supporting documents into one PDF file. Client A indicated he had sent all estimates to “Shabbir”. Mr. Bari replied that he needed actual invoices, not estimates. Client A said he had not yet fixed everything because the tenant was still occupying the unit and was unco-operative. Shortly after this exchange, the two had a phone conversation, the content of which is disputed. It is uncontested that the conversation became heated and that pejorative comments were made, though it is unclear who was the aggressor: each one points the finger to the other.

LTB hearing

24Client A attended the LTB hearing on October 3, 2022, but no one from Diamond Paralegal attended. During the hearing, Client A sent an email to Diamond Paralegal, asking them to send the pictures and evidence they had sent to the LTB because he was in the video hearing and needed the information. Mr. Bari did not reply.

25Client A’s evidence is that the LTB adjudicator asked him what the complaint was but when he tried to explain, the adjudicator could not see any complaint or other documents such that there was no way to proceed. As a result, the adjudicator indicated that Client A’s case was dismissed.

26After the hearing, Client A sent another email to Diamond Paralegal addressed to “Ferdaus Bari or Shabbir Shaikh” in which he advised that his case had been dismissed. He accused the paralegal of having submitted documents to the LTB that were not the same as those sent to him. He wrote that the paralegal had not asked for any compensation and had not submitted the evidence, such as the pictures and documentation Client A had sent to Diamond Paralegal. He asked them to clarify as soon as possible and to call him back.

27The LTB issued a formal order on October 14, 2022, dismissing Client A’s application.

Client A’s Law Society complaint

28Client A wrote to the Law Society to complain about the services received by the paralegal he had retained. At that time, the Law Society opened a file into Mr. Shaikh’s conduct. It was only after the investigator contacted Mr. Shaikh and found out that Mr. Shaikh had no knowledge of Client A’s matter that the Law Society opened an investigation into Mr. Bari’s conduct. Mr. Shaikh did not know Client A. He also never provided legal services in landlord and tenant law or ever appeared before the LTB.

29The complaint against Mr. Bari led to the conduct application, the outcome of which is the subject of this appeal.

findings of misconduct

Failure to provide legal services to Client A to the standard of a competent paralegal

30The hearing panel found that Mr. Bari breached Rule 3.01(1) and Rule 3.02 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct (Paralegal Rules). These rules require services on a client’s behalf to be performed to the standard of a competent paralegal and to provide service that is competent, timely, conscientious, diligent, efficient and civil.

31The panel concluded that Mr. Bari had failed to respond to communications from Client A and keep him apprised of the status of his legal matter before the LTB in a forthright and timely way. The panel rejected Mr. Bari’s defence that he did not receive the July 2022 texts and emails sent by Client A asking for updates and information on his LTB matter.

32The panel noted that, while Mr. Bari eventually replied to Client A’s texts in September 2022, it took him some time to do so. He did not reply to Client A’s emails asking Diamond Paralegal to clarify who would be representing him. He also did not reply to Client A’s requests for a meeting. Rather, there was a text exchange and eventual phone conversation. Neither the text nor the phone conversation ever satisfactorily answered Client A’s questions about the hearing. Mr. Bari also did not respond to Client A’s emails of October 3, 2022, during or after the hearing.

33The panel also found that Mr. Bari failed to complete the services for which he was retained in a diligent, timely, and effective manner. He failed to attend the LTB hearing without advising Client A and confirming by written communication that he would not be attending. Client A had retained Mr. Bari for two purposes: to evict the tenant and to recover the costs associated with the damages caused by the tenant. The panel determined that while Client A was ultimately able to get the tenant to move out, he did so without Mr. Bari’s assistance and Mr. Bari took no steps to assist Client A in trying to recover the repair costs. Where Mr. Bari’s version of events was incompatible with Client A’s version, the panel accepted Client A’s version.

Failure to provide a statement of account

34The panel found that while Mr. Bari had provided Client A with an invoice in April 2021 relating to a retainer for his fees, he never provided any subsequent account documentation despite Client A’s request on July 27, 2022 for a “money receipt.”

35The panel concluded that Mr. Bari failed to provide Client A with an accounting of services rendered, which clearly and separately detailed the amounts charged as fees and disbursements, contrary to Rule 5.01(4) of the Paralegal Rules.

Failure to provide legal services honourably and with integrity and to uphold the standards and reputation of the paralegal profession

36The panel found that between May and September 2022, Mr. Bari provided legal services under false pretences by holding himself out as another paralegal licensee. By doing so, he failed to discharge all responsibilities to his client and to the profession with honour and integrity and failed to uphold the standards and reputation of the paralegal profession, contrary to Rules 2.01 and 2.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules.

37Mr. Bari’s position was that, while he initially held himself out to be another paralegal, he did not do so after he had obtained his paralegal licence.

38The panel pointed to the following evidence in rejecting this argument:

a. Mr. Bari did not advise Client A in May 2022, when he obtained his licence, that he, not Mr. Shaikh, was the one who had completed and filed the forms with the LTB and would be handling his matter.

b. When Client A sent him texts that he addressed to “Shabbir” in July 2022, the respondent did not correct him or confirm that he was not, in fact, Shabbir.

c. In the email of September 2, 2022, sent by his assistant at Mr. Bari’s direction, Mr. Bari continued to mislead Client A that Mr. Shaikh was involved in this matter. Specifically, in response to Client A’s written inquiries about the LTB hearing, Mr. Bari advised that “Shabbir Shaikh” was currently out of the country when in fact, it was he who was out of the country.

d. Mr. Bari’s text of September 13, 2022, to Client A also maintained the deception that Mr. Shaikh was involved in the LTB matter since he advised Client A that in his review of the file, he had seen that “Shabbir” had sent a letter to the tenant and had properly filed Client A’s LTB application.

e. Client A was confused as to who was assigned to his matter, given that his email on October 3, 2022 advising Diamond Paralegal of the outcome of the LTB hearing is addressed to both Mr. Shaikh and Mr. Bari. Client A was never provided any clarity as to who was handling his legal matter.

39The panel concluded that Mr. Bari began the deception of Shabbir Shaikh’s involvement in April 2021 and continued it after he became a licensed paralegal.

40The panel found that Mr. Bari had engaged in misconduct as alleged.

Penalty reasons

41The penalty reasons can be found at Law Society of Ontario v Bari, 2025 ONLSTH 93. The panel began by setting out the objectives of penalty in professional misconduct cases: specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation and maintaining public confidence in the legal professions.

42It indicated it would consider the factors established in Law Society of Upper Canada v Aguirre, 2007 ONLSHP 46. The following headings are the same headings as in the section of the penalty decision dealing with the Aguirre factors.

Extent and duration of the misconduct

43The panel characterized Mr. Bari’s misconduct as “multifaceted” and as lasting throughout his representation of Client A’s matter. Mr. Bari had failed to serve Client A by failing to respond to Client A’s communications, by failing to file supporting documents with the LTB, and by failing to complete the services for which he was retained. He failed to attend the LTB hearing without advising Client A and the matter was ultimately dismissed. Mr. Bari had also failed to provide Client A with an accounting of services rendered.

44The panel, however, considered that the “more significant findings of misconduct” related to Mr. Bari’s failure to provide legal services honourably and with integrity and to uphold the standards and reputation of the paralegal profession, stemming from his impersonation of Mr. Shaikh.

45The panel noted his pre-licensing conduct which included advertising his business before he was licensed, accepting Client A’s retainer, and misrepresenting his identity to Client A and to the LTB, including using Mr. Shaikh’s Law Society number and signature.

46The panel stated at para 10 that, “[o]nce he became a licensed paralegal in May 2022, [Mr. Bari] continued the deception. He never disabused Client A that he was not the person whom Client A thought he was dealing with.” The panel agreed with the Law Society that Mr. Bari had multiple opportunities to “come clean” with Client A but never did so. He maintained the deception that the other paralegal licensee had been the one who had handled Client A’s matter.

47The panel considered the deception to be “widespread” as it included Mr. Bari’s assistants who also believed he was Mr. Shaikh. Mr. Bari had gone as far as making business cards with Mr. Shaikh’s name but with Mr. Bari’s contact information. He had admitted to distributing these business cards.

48The panel found the deception to have lasted 18 months: from April 2021 until the LTB matter ended in October 2022.

Impact on others

49The panel determined that the impact of Mr. Bari’s conduct was significant. He misled Client A and ultimately abandoned him as a client on the eve of an LTB hearing. Even though Mr. Bari eventually used both his own name and that of the paralegal he was impersonating in his later communications with Client A, Client A never had any clarity as to who was representing him.

50Mr. Bari’s conduct also impacted Mr. Shaikh who had to respond to a Law Society investigation and attend the Tribunal hearing to give evidence.

51Finally, the panel noted the impact on the administration of justice. Mr. Bari had filed documents containing false information with an administrative tribunal, the LTB.

Remorse and acceptance of responsibility, rehabilitation

52The panel determined that Mr. Bari did not fully accept responsibility for his conduct. He minimized the impact of his conduct on Client A, and accused Mr. Shaikh of “hiding something” regarding their interactions before Mr. Bari assumed his identity.

53He also did not provide any concrete actions indicating rehabilitation such as taking any ethics courses. While Mr. Bari had said he would return the money he received from Client A, it appeared he had not yet done so.

Mitigating and extenuating circumstances and whether the misconduct is out of character

54The panel accepted that Mr. Bari had been dealing with financial difficulties when he took on Client A’s matter. He was helping his extended family due to his brother’s health issues. At the penalty hearing, Mr. Bari advised that he continues to support his brother’s family as his brother’s health has worsened.

55In the panel’s view, while the family and financial difficulties could help explain the conduct, there remained a risk of future misconduct given that those difficulties, which had contributed to the initial misconduct, were ongoing.

56Finally, the panel noted that Mr. Bari had no previous discipline history. It considered this a “neutral factor” since the misconduct started before Mr. Bari became a licensed paralegal and continued in the first year after he was licensed.

Conclusion on Penalty

57The panel stated that the seriousness of the underlying misconduct and its impact on the administration of justice required a significant penalty.

58The panel considered the case of Law Society of Upper Canada v Spyrc, 2015 ONLSTH 23, also a case of impersonation in the context of a motion for an interlocutory suspension. The panel in Spyrc noted the seriousness of the allegations of impersonation. It held that those allegations “suggest that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Respondent is not a person of integrity who can be relied upon by clients, referring lawyers, opposing counsel and the court...”

59The hearing panel noted that, similarly, Mr. Bari’s “lengthy dishonesty” raised “integrity issues that put into question public confidence in the legal professions if he is allowed to continue to practise in a position of trust.” In the absence of any significant mitigating factors or significant evidence of remorse or rehabilitation, the panel concluded that revocation of Mr. Bari’s licence was required to maintain public confidence in the legal professions. It also considered revocation to send a message to Mr. Bari, who the panel determined had not fully accepted responsibility, and to the professions that this type of conduct would not be tolerated.

ISSUES

60The issues we must decide on this appeal are the following:

a. Did the hearing panel make any palpable and overriding errors of fact?

b. Was there an improper investigation and improper PAC approval?

c. Did the panel improperly consider pre-licensing conduct to establish professional misconduct or in assessing penalty?

d. Did the panel fail to properly apply the Aguirre factors and to consider mitigating circumstances in assessing the appropriate penalty?

e. Should the costs award be disturbed?

SUBMISSIONS AND ANALYSIS

Palpable and overriding errors of fact

Mr. Bari’s position

61Mr. Bari submits that the panel erred in attributing Client A’s frustration to Mr. Bari, rather than to the systemic LTB delays of hearing dates during the relevant period. Mr. Bari argues that there was no evidence that he caused delay and that attributing LTB delays to him is “an error in principle and an unreasonable inference.”

62Mr. Bari also submits that the panel made a palpable and overriding error in treating Client A’s matter before the LTB as dismissed as opposed to withdrawn by Client A. He argues that, as he had explained to the hearing panel, Client A’s tenant had moved out by the date of the LTB hearing and so Client A was going to attend the hearing himself to withdraw the case. He states this error is “palpable and overriding” because it “underpins adverse credibility and responsibility findings.”

63Finally, Mr. Bari argues that “impersonation” was not established post-licensing because there was no use of Mr. Shaikh’s name after May 2022. He states the panel’s findings that he impersonated another individual post-licensing are unreasonable and those findings should be vacated.

Law Society’s position

64The Law Society’s position is that Mr. Bari has not given us any basis on which to disturb the hearing panel’s findings of fact and credibility.

Analysis

65The standard of review for errors of fact or errors of mixed fact and law is that of a “palpable and overriding error”: Law Society of Ontario v De Rose, 2021 ONLSTA 9 at paras 20-21. The Divisional Court confirmed this conclusion in Khan v Law Society of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 1951 at para 76 and 86.

66To demonstrate that a hearing panel committed a palpable and overriding error, an appellant must show that the error is one that is plainly seen, does not require review of all the evidence to identify, and has affected the result: Colangelo v Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONLSTA 16 at para 16.

67We find that Mr. Bari has not identified any palpable and overriding errors. All of the purported “errors” were either supported by the evidence, did not affect the outcome, or both.

68Mr. Bari’s concern that there were systemic delays at the LTB that contributed to Client A’s frustrations is immaterial to the conclusions reached by the hearing panel. It did not put any significant weight on the delay of Client A’s matter or on his frustration arising from such delay. Whether there was delay and to whom it could be attributed was not a material issue.

69Likewise, whether Client A’s matter was dismissed by the LTB or withdrawn was of no consequence. The hearing panel specifically stated as much at para 49 of the conduct decision, Law Society of Ontario v Bari, 2025 ONLSTH 52:

In our view, whether the case was dismissed for lack of documentation or because the tenant had moved out is not significantly relevant to the issues before us, which focus on the respondent’s conduct, including his non-attendance at the hearing and his failure to file all the relevant materials.

70Finally, the hearing panel was entitled to make the finding that Mr. Bari continued his deception post-licensing because it was supported by the record. At paras 70-74 of the conduct decision, the hearing panel sets out the facts on which it based its conclusion that Mr. Bari continued his impersonation of Mr. Shaikh post-licensing. We see no error in this finding.

71Therefore, the hearing panel did not commit any palpable and overriding errors in determining Mr. Bari’s misconduct and we dismiss this ground of appeal.

Improper investigation and improper PAC approval

Mr. Bari’s position

72Mr. Bari argues that the authorization to proceed with a conduct application from the Proceedings Authorization Committee (PAC) should be set aside because an internal Law Society memo from the investigator asserted that Mr. Bari had been licensed in May 2021, which is incorrect. This error, according to Mr. Bari, compromises the entire proceeding.

73In the alternative, Mr. Bari asks that the authorization be quashed and remitted for a new authorization which is based on correct information.

Law Society’s position

74The Law Society did not deal with this ground of appeal in its factum or in oral argument.

Analysis

75The Tribunal does not have statutory authority to review decisions of PAC. The Hearing Division’s role is to decide whether there is misconduct and, if so, to order a penalty. In addition to there being no explicit authority to review PAC decisions, section 49.20(3) of the Law Society Act stipulates that PAC decisions are final and “not subject to appeal or review.”

76As there is no authority for the relief sought, this ground of appeal is dismissed.

Consideration of pre-licensing conduct to establish professional misconduct or assess penalty

Mr. Bari’s position

77Mr. Bari notes that sections 33 and 34 of the Law Society Act relate to obligations of a licensee and authorize a conduct application into a licensee’s conduct. He argues that these sections do not allow a panel to consider pre-licensing conduct. He submits that the panel applied “the wrong legal category to core facts” amounting to an error of law.

78Mr. Bari requests that the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct based on pre-licensing conduct be set aside. He argues that the rest of the findings will “collapse[e]” for “want of foundation.”

79Mr. Bari submits that the panel erred in law when it considered his pre-licensing conduct in determining that the misconduct lasted 18 months.

Law Society’s position

80The Law Society submits that a purposive interpretation of the Law Society Act, as a whole, is the need to protect the public and to maintain public confidence that every licensee meets high standards of integrity.

81The Law Society takes the position that Mr. Bari’s pre-licensing conduct cannot be “hived off”: it is part of a continuum of behaviour which started pre-licensing and continued post-licensing.

82It submits that the hearing panel’s findings of professional misconduct were based on Mr. Bari’s continued deception post-licensing in May 2022, i.e. his failure to “come clean” to his client and to the LTB. It argues that, not only did Mr. Bari not come clean, but he doubled down on the impersonation. He did not correct any of the forms with Mr. Shaikh’s name on them which were filed with the LTB. The Law Society notes that the hearing panel rejected Mr. Bari’s argument that he did not impersonate Mr. Shaikh post-licensing.

Analysis

83The Law Society Act provides as follows:

33 A licensee shall not engage in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a licensee.

34 (1) With the authorization of the Proceedings Authorization Committee, the Society may apply to the Tribunal for a determination by the Hearing Division of whether a licensee has contravened section 33.

84As noted by the panel in Law Society of Ontario v Hang, 2019 ONLSTH 146 at para 8, the plain, grammatical meaning of section 33 of the Act creates a prohibition that applies to licensees once they acquire that status. Meaning, only once someone becomes a licensee are they prohibited from engaging in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a licensee. A purposive interpretation of the statute as a whole should focus on the need to maintain public confidence that every licensee meets high standards of integrity.

85The hearing panel in this case focused on post-licensing conduct in determining that misconduct had been established under section 33 of the Law Society Act. However, it took pre-licensing conduct into account when assessing the nature and extent of the misconduct and other factors that are normally considered in an Aguirre analysis. For example, it determined that the misconduct lasted 18 months.

86In our view, Mr. Bari’s pre-licensing conduct in relation to Client A cannot be artificially divorced from his post-licensing misconduct, as it constitutes one continuous course of conduct. Had Mr. Bari’s pre-licensing conduct not continued post-licensing, the analysis may be different, but that is not the set of facts before us or before the hearing panel.

87Although we are characterizing Mr. Bari’s misconduct as one continuous course of conduct, predating his licensing but continuing post-licensing, it is true that the quality of that misconduct appears to have been different at different points in that continuum.

88For example, it appears that Mr. Bari stopped assuming Mr. Shaikh’s name in correspondence after May 2022. While he did not correct any of the forms he had completed or filed with the LTB, it does not appear that he signed any new forms using Mr. Shaikh’s name, signature, or Law Society number after May 2022. This makes sense: Mr. Bari no longer needed to assume another licensee’s identity because he was now licensed himself.

89That said, and as found by the hearing panel, Mr. Bari continued the ruse that Mr. Shaikh had been the one with carriage of Client A’s file in correspondence following May 2022. For example, in September 2022, he directed his employee to advise Client A that “Shabbir Shaikh” was currently out of the country when in fact, it was Mr. Bari who was out of the country. He also did not correct Client A when, in text messages in July 2022, he addressed Mr. Bari as “Shabbir”. He made no effort to correct a form that had been filed with the LTB pre-licensing with Mr. Shaikh’s name and Law Society number on it. At no time did he ever clarify the situation or “come clean” with Client A, and he continued to allow Client A to be confused as to who was representing him.

90These actions and omissions constitute Mr. Bari’s continuation and adoption of his pre-licensing conduct after he became licensed. He did not disavow his pre-licensing conduct and, in fact, continued it, even if to a different degree. It is for this reason – and in keeping with the purposive interpretation of the Law Society Act – that Mr. Bari’s conduct constitutes one continuous course of conduct, entitling the hearing panel to take it into consideration in assessing the nature, quality and length of the post-licensing misconduct when applying the Aguirre factors.

91In our view, ignoring the conduct pre-May 2022 and considering the post-May 2022 conduct in isolation would lead to an absurd result. The pre-May 2022 provides the necessary context and flavour to assess Mr. Bari’s post-licensing conduct. Such an artificial separation would not advance the objectives of the Law Society Act: to maintain public confidence that every licensee meets high standards of integrity.

92We therefore dismiss this ground of appeal. The hearing panel did not err in considering Mr. Bari’s pre-licensing conduct in its Aguirre analysis.

Aguirre factors and mitigation

Mr. Bari’s position

93Mr. Bari submits that the hearing panel’s penalty decision does not “demonstrate a meaningful Aguirre analysis.” He argues that the panel chose the “most severe sanction” of revocation without grappling with the mitigation factors on record: family and medical hardship, remorse, partial refunds, steps towards remediation, and the “limited/non-systemic nature” of the harm.

94He argues that revocation is reserved for the clearest cases in which lesser sanctions cannot protect the public or maintain public confidence in the legal professions. He submits that revocation is not justified or proportionate in this case.

95Mr. Bari requests that we set aside the penalty of revocation and (A) substitute the hearing panel’s outcome with a finding of no professional misconduct or (B) substitute a lesser penalty of either a reprimand with conditions or a time-limited suspension or (C) remit the matter back to the Hearing Division with directions to properly apply the Aguirre factors.

Law Society’s position

96The Law Society submits there is no reason to interfere with the hearing panel’s assessment of penalty. It states revocation was necessary to meet the penalty goals of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, and maintaining public confidence in the legal professions. In the Law Society’s view, the hearing panel considered Mr. Bari’s submissions on penalty in reaching its decision.

97The Law Society submits the hearing panel considered the nature and extent of the misconduct, which necessarily required a consideration of the pre-licensing conduct, the lack of discipline history, which it assessed as a “neutral factor”, and his expressions of remorse, which the panel considered did not fully accord with his penalty submissions.

98With respect to Mr. Bari’s mitigating circumstances, the panel considered that he was struggling financially because he was financially supporting his extended family due to his brother’s health issues. However, the hearing panel concluded that there remained a risk of future misconduct since the factors that led to the initial misconduct were ongoing, that is, family and financial difficulties.

99The Law Society disputes that the penalty imposed was clearly unfit in light of the need for general deterrence and maintaining public confidence in the legal professions.

Analysis

100To determine whether the hearing panel committed an error in assessing penalty, we must determine whether (1) the hearing panel made any errors of law; (2) the hearing panel made any palpable and overriding error in findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law in its consideration of the Aguirre factors; or (3) the penalty ordered is clearly unfit: Law Society of Ontario v Manilla, 2021 ONLSTA 25 at paras 92 and 93.

101In this case, Mr. Bari does not allege that the hearing panel misdirected itself with respect to the applicable legal principles to be considered in assessing penalty. Rather, he argues that the hearing panel did not do a proper Aguirre analysis, including not adequately taking into account mitigating factors, leading to an unfit penalty.

102The Aguirre factors, as they are commonly known, are a set of considerations that panels typically weigh to determine the appropriate penalty. One reason to not consider and weigh the Aguirre factors is if the misconduct in question falls within a category that attracts revocation as the presumptive penalty. In that case, a panel assessing penalty will consider whether there are any exceptional circumstances that would warrant imposing a penalty other than revocation.

103In this case, no aspect of Mr. Bari’s misconduct falls within a category for which presumptive revocation applies. The parties did not argue presumptive revocation and it was not before the hearing panel. The parties and the panel proceeded on the basis that it was appropriate to consider the Aguirre factors particular to this case to assess penalty.

104As set out in Law Society of Ontario v Strashin, 2025 ONLSTH 179, the ordinary case-by-case approach to determining an appropriate penalty involves consideration of the following, at para 35:

a. The purposes of making penalty orders, the primary of which are (i) specific deterrence, (ii) general deterrence, (iii) maintaining public confidence in the profession and its regulation and, (iv) where appropriate, matters such as rehabilitation, restitution, and improving competence: Law Society of Upper Canada v Strug, 2008 ONLSHP 88.

b. The misconduct and mitigating and aggravating factors, following the approach articulated in Law Society of Upper Canada v Aguirre, 2007 ONLSHP 46.

c. Decisions in comparable cases for guidance and for reasonable consistency and predictability: Law Society of Ontario v von Achten, 2022 ONLSTH 117.

105A restatement of the Aguirre factors, which address matters relating to the misconduct and to the licensee, is as follows:

1. Factors principally related to the misconduct:

a. the nature, extent, and duration of the misconduct; and

b. the potential impact of the misconduct upon others.

2. Factors principally related to the licensee:

a. the existence or absence of a prior disciplinary record;

b. whether there are extenuating circumstances (medical, family-related, systemic racism, disability or other personal hardship or others) that might explain, in whole or in part, the misconduct;

c. other adverse consequences resulting from the misconduct;

d. whether the licensee has since complied with their obligations;

e. whether the licensee has admitted misconduct, and obviated the necessity of its proof;

f. the existence or absence of remorse, acceptance of responsibility or an understanding of the effect of the misconduct on others; and

g. evidence as to whether the misconduct is likely to recur.

106In this case, the hearing panel considered and weighed the nature, extent, and duration of the misconduct. As we have previously noted, it properly considered the pre-licensing conduct as being part of a continuum that flowed into the post-licensing period. It was entitled to consider the conduct to have lasted 18 months, not to penalize Mr. Bari for pre-licensing misconduct but to properly and fully assess the appropriate penalty for his breach of s 33 of the Act.

107The hearing panel was entitled to consider the seriousness of the pre-licensing conduct in assessing the overall nature of the misconduct. As noted, the post-licensing misconduct – viewed in isolation – was not as serious as the pre-licensing conduct, which involved using another licensee’s name, Law Society number, and signature on at least one form filed with the LTB. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated, the panel was entitled to consider the pre-licensing conduct and not view the post-licensing misconduct in isolation. When understood in the context of the pre-licensing conduct, the post-licensing misconduct was properly seen as being a serious failure of integrity.

108Viewing the conduct as a whole, the nature of the misconduct was very serious, and the hearing panel was correct in assessing it as such.

109The hearing panel also noted the impact of the misconduct on Client A, on Mr. Shaikh, and on the administration of justice, all of which was part of a proper Aguirre analysis. We see no errors in this assessment.

110With respect to the factors relating to the licensee, the hearing panel noted that the absence of a prior disciplinary record was a neutral factor. It considered that the family and financial difficulties were extenuating circumstances which could help explain the misconduct, but that there remained a risk of future misconduct given that those difficulties, which had contributed to the initial misconduct, were ongoing. The hearing panel also found and took into consideration that Mr. Bari had not fully accepted responsibility for his misconduct and that he minimized it.

111Contrary to Mr. Bari’s submission, the hearing panel did consider the Aguirre factors. And while the hearing panel did not consider each factor under a separate heading – that is, it collapsed some of the factors together in the analysis – the factors were addressed and we see no revisable error in that regard. In any event, each case depends on its own facts, which necessarily means that some factors will feature more prominently in the analysis or be more relevant than others. The Aguirre factors are not a checklist and need not be “checked off” in penalty reasons in a rote and mindless manner.

112The question is whether there was any palpable and overriding error in findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law in its consideration of the Aguirre factors. Mr. Bari argues that the panel erred in not adequately considering mitigating factors. Was it a palpable and overriding error to consider that family and financial difficulties were not truly mitigating but, rather, that these facts served as evidence of a risk of reoccurrence?

113In our view, it was an error to characterize Mr. Bari’s ongoing family and financial circumstances as constituting evidence of a risk of recurrence. While the panel was correct that family and financial circumstances contributed to the misconduct, and therefore helped to explain it, the actual catalyst for the misconduct was the fact that Mr. Bari had expected to be, but was not yet, licensed.

114This is evident in how the nature of the misconduct changed post-licensing: Mr. Bari no longer used Mr. Shaikh’s name in correspondence after May 2022. There is no evidence he created any new documents or forms using Mr. Shaikh’s name, signature, or Law Society number after May 2022. As noted above, he no longer needed to assume Mr. Shaikh’s identity after May 2022 because he was now a licensee, although he needed to conceal the original deception and keep that ruse going, which he did.

115The panel ought to have viewed his family and financial situation as mitigating and not aggravating, as it did. Mr. Bari needed a source of income to support his family and his brother’s medical issues but was not yet licensed as a paralegal. Once he became licensed, that was no longer an issue.

116Although the panel ought to have viewed the circumstances Mr. Bari put forward as mitigating, this error did not change the analysis. There were other more serious aggravating factors than his personal circumstances at the inception of the misconduct, as noted by the panel: the misconduct was intentional and extremely serious, Mr. Bari had not shown true remorse and continued shifting the blame to others, including Client A and Mr. Shaikh, both of whom were victims of his deception. There was no evidence he had repaid Client A or had apologized to him for his misconduct. Even before us, Mr. Bari continued to blame Client A and call his integrity into question. It is clear to us that he still has not taken responsibility for the misconduct and that he lacks insight into the seriousness of his actions.

117As noted by the panel, Mr. Bari had not taken any meaningful action to address his integrity issues: there was no evidence of any attempts at rehabilitation—not even taking an ethics course. Absent any rehabilitative steps, there remained a risk of reoffending.

118Even discounting Mr. Bari’s family and financial circumstances as aggravating, the panel’s conclusion on penalty based on a weighing of the Aguirre factors and in light of the objectives of penalty would not have been different. There is therefore no palpable and overriding error in this regard.

119This answers the next question: whether revocation – after weighing the Aguirre factors – was “clearly unfit” as a penalty. As stated by the Divisional Court in Mitelman v College of Veterinarians of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 3039, at para 18: “To be clearly unfit, the penalty must be disproportionate or fall outside the range of penalties for similar offences in similar circumstances.”

120Mr. Bari’s misconduct involves aspects of proven dishonesty. As stated by the hearing panel in Law Society of Ontario v McKöena, 2024 ONLSTH 137 at para 16, “Proven dishonesty is extremely serious misconduct and can result in revocation.”

121In McKöena, the licensee misrepresented himself as an officer currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in phone calls with members of the military police. He was charged with a criminal offence for doing so. He then failed to report this charge to the Law Society. He denied misrepresenting himself as a serving CAF member until he was confronted by the Law Society with a recording of the phone calls in question. In denying the misrepresentation, Mr. McKöena was found to have misled the Law Society.

122The Law Society sought a six-month suspension. The licensee argued that a reprimand was appropriate. The hearing panel in McKöena imposed a four-month suspension.

123We are constrained by the fact that there are not many cases involving impersonation and none brought to our attention relating to the impersonation of another licensee. That said, there is no question that the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct include aspects of proven dishonesty that seriously impugn Mr. Bari’s integrity. There are plenty of Tribunal cases dealing with lack of integrity and dishonesty that we can turn to.

124As outlined in the seminal case of Bolton v Law Society, [1994] 1 W.L.R 512, any lawyer “who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity, and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed.” In Law Society of Upper Canada v Mucha, 2008 ONLSAP 5 at para 25, the Appeal Panel noted that Bolton “emphasizes that penalties are designed to address not only specific and general deterrence, but to maintain the reputation of the profession and to sustain public confidence in its integrity.”

125In Law Society of Ontario v Spiegel, 2018 ONLSTH 57, the panel addressed the importance of honesty for licensees, at paras 10-11:

Honesty is critical for every licensee of the Law Society, paralegal or lawyer. Clients, courts and tribunals, other licensees and those opposed in interest rely on the fact that a licensee must not knowingly misrepresent the truth.

The importance of the duty to be honest, and why knowingly breaching that obligation almost inevitably leads to revocation of licence, was expressed in Bolton v. Law Society, [1994] 1WLR 512 (C.A.), [1993] EWCA Civ 32 (BAILII) at paras. 13 and 14, in comments that apply equally to paralegals and lawyers.

It is required of lawyers practising in this country that they should discharge their professional duties with integrity, probity and complete trustworthiness – That requirement applies as much to barristers as it does to solicitors…

Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Lapses from the required high standard may, of course, take different forms and be of varying degrees. The most serious involves proven dishonesty, whether or not leading to criminal proceedings and criminal penalties. In such cases the Tribunal has almost invariably, no matter how strong the mitigation advanced for the solicitor, ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

126The effect of intentional dishonesty in assessing penalty was also discussed in Law Society of Ontario v Marusic, 2023 ONLSTH 63 at para 39:

The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is clear that acts of intentional dishonesty and lack of candour, not limited to mortgage fraud and misappropriation, may result in revocation after properly weighing the context and facts: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Jazsi, 2015 ONLSTH 211, Law Society of Ontario v. Bahimanga, 2019 ONLSTA 25, Law Society of Ontario v. Fuhgeh, 2021 ONLSTH 61, and Law Society of Ontario v. Manilla, 2021 ONLSTA 25. Failures of integrity undermine public confidence in the legal professions.

127However, at para 40, the panel in Marusic was also clear that not all dishonesty is as blameworthy or as serious:

Yet, as the appeal panel noted in Manilla at para 57, “… there are greater and lesser failures of integrity. While all dishonesty is important, some dishonesty is more blameworthy than other dishonesty.” In our view the Lawyer’s repeated acts of dishonesty, and in particular her decision to mislead the Tribunal while under oath, fall at the far end of the spectrum of blameworthiness. They are particularly egregious. They were conscious, repeated and deliberate. They were driven by self-interest.

128The panel in Marusic went on to order revocation, as there was only “limited evidence of extenuating circumstances” that could have been mitigating: para 41. It concluded, at para 43,

Given the limited mitigating factors and in the absence of any evidence of remorse, acceptance of responsibility or understanding of the effect of her misconduct, we find that the only penalty for the Lawyer’s serious and intentional misconduct which satisfies the primary goal of maintaining confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice is revocation.

129Likewise, in this case, the hearing panel considered that Mr. Bari’s conduct was serious and intentional and that there were limited extenuating circumstances: Mr. Bari’s family and financial situation. While that may have explained some of the misconduct, the hearing panel considered it insufficient to overcome the seriousness of the misconduct and the assessment that revocation was appropriate.

130Given the Tribunal jurisprudence on proven dishonesty, we cannot say that the hearing panel’s penalty of revocation in this case was “clearly unfit.” It was not. It was in line with the goals of specific and general deterrence and it is what a reasonably informed member of the public would have expected, given the findings of dishonesty and lack of integrity.

Costs

131Mr. Bari did not address his costs appeal in his factum other than to ask that we “award costs of the appeal and below.” At the hearing of the appeal, he asked us to set aside the costs award.

132The Law Society’s position is that there is no basis on which to interfere with a discretionary costs award.

133We agree with the Law Society. Mr. Bari has not provided any basis on which to interfere with the costs award. It is within the range of costs for proceedings of this complexity in which there are multiple days of hearings, several witnesses and facts in dispute: for example Law Society of Ontario v Mazinani, 2021 ONLSTH 72 at paras 60 and 67.

134This ground of appeal is dismissed.

Conclusion and costs

135The appeal is dismissed. The costs appeal is dismissed.

136If the Law Society seeks costs, and if the parties cannot agree on quantum, the Law Society may make written submissions within 14 days of this order to which Mr. Bari may respond in writing within 28 days of this order. The parties are limited to five pages, double-spaced, not including a bill of costs.