Law Society of Ontario v. Caruso, 2026 ONLSTH 40

LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: February 23, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 25H-049

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario Applicant

• and -

Antonio Caruso Respondent

Before: Lubomir Poliacik Heard: October 10, 2025, by videoconference

Appearances: Alex Kens, for the applicant Respondent, self-represented

Summary: CARUSO – Motion for Disclosure – In the context of two motions in a conduct proceeding, the Respondent Paralegal brought a motion for further disclosure relating to information and documents, including material not in the possession of the Law Society, such as information relating to the Landlord and Tenant Board and their staff ‒ Third parties in possession of the information were not served with the motion as required by Rule 10.4 ‒ The panel found that the Respondent Paralegal did not establish any link between the issues in the conduct application and the disclosure requests ‒ Other information/documents were already received by the Respondent Paralegal or did not exist ‒ The motion was dismissed ‒ The parties were invited to make written submissions on costs.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE

1Lubomir Poliacik:– Antonio Caruso brought a motion for further disclosure. On October 10, 2025, I dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

OVERVIEW

2The Law Society alleges in this conduct application that between February 2021 and November 2024, Mr. Caruso, a paralegal, failed to communicate with civility with staff at Tribunals Ontario and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

3Mr. Caruso brought a motion, scheduled to be heard on October 15 and 16, 2025, to have the conduct application dismissed without a hearing due to lack of procedural fairness, apprehension of bias, lack of jurisdiction, lack of reasonableness by the Law Society and as an abuse of process (“the motion to dismiss”). Mr. Caruso submits that the disclosure sought in this motion relates to both his motion to dismiss and to the merits of this conduct application.

The Motion to Dismiss

4In his motion to dismiss the conduct application without a hearing Mr. Caruso alleges lack of procedural fairness due to the notice of application lacking sufficient particularity to enable him to prepare an adequate response.

5Mr. Caruso further alleges that the Law Society’s Proceedings Authorization Committee (PAC) was tainted due to an apprehension of bias in relation to two members of PAC, whom he had previously publicly criticized.

6Mr. Caruso alleges that the Law Society was improperly pursuing this conduct application despite the fact that he was acting in a capacity of “a private self-litigant at Superior Court.”

7Mr. Caruso further alleges that the complaint that gave rise to this conduct application is being advanced by a party with a personal interest in his Court of Appeal litigation concerning paralegal scope of practice in immigration.

8Mr. Caruso also alleges that the Law Society was unreasonable in ignoring the fact that his client’s urgent circumstances necessitated his “heightened resolute advocacy.”

9Finally, Mr. Caruso submits that the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process due to: (i) the Law Society having engaged in a pattern of procedural misconduct, including abusing the Tribunal process by relying on findings from unrelated proceedings to gain an unfair advantage and undermine his Charter right to make full answer and defence; (ii) the Law Society bringing meritless motions to increase his legal costs and obstruct his ability to respond effectively; (iii) acting in bad faith by misrepresenting unrelated matters as relevant; and (iv) engaging in sharp practices by refusing to make reasonable concessions in relation to decisions made by this tribunal in a prior proceeding and by refusing to make concessions regarding decisions made by this Tribunal in prior proceedings.

Notice of Motion

10In the notice of motion for further disclosure Mr. Caruso seeks the following:

1. An order directing the Respondent to produce forthwith, the following documents and information relevant to the fair and full adjudication of the matter:

a. The full names and titles of all Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) staff involved in this matter, including but not limited to any individuals put forward as witnesses, or any individual I may wish to call as a witness.

b. All internal and external communications, including emails and memos, authored by or involving LTB staff, which allege or imply that the Moving Party’s tone was inappropriate, threatening, or otherwise objectionable. This includes any direct cautions, directives, or warnings issued to the Moving Party regarding tone, language, or conduct.

c. All correspondence between Mr. Sean Weier and Mr. Eli Freeman that pertains to the initiation, drafting, or authorization of the complaint made against the Moving Party, including emails and attachments.

d. Documentary proof that Mr. Felman submitted emails to the Law Society the day following his complaint, including full, unredacted copies of the original or forwarded emails, showing date, time, recipient, and message history.

e. A complete and unaltered copy of the LTB’s policy and procedures governing the filing and investigation of complaints, including those concerning legal representatives or parties to proceedings.

f. A full copy of the Statement of Claim filed under Court File No. CV-22-74-CP, concerning the landlords’ civil action against the LTB, in which Mr. Felman is alleged to be a party or material witness.

g. Copies of the Moving Party’s prior reply and evidence confirming Mr. Felman's role as a panel member of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC), or any similar regulatory body, which is a relevant and material fact to this matter.

h. Copies of any prior warnings issued by the Law Society of Ontario to the Moving Party, as referenced in Mr. Dingwall’s report.

i. A full copy of the complaint bearing File No. 2021-260055 made against Lawyer Mr. Jack Michael Blozowski, including any reports, warnings, or decisions issued by the Law Society in response to that complaint.

j. A full copy of the complaint bearing File No. 2021-257724 made against Paralegal Ms. MaryAnn Alice DuRoss, including any reports, warnings, or decisions issued by the Law Society in response to that complaint.

k. The full names (first and last) of all LTB staff members who were present during or involved in the recorded interview between Mr. Dingwall and Mr. Eli Felman, including any individuals later interviewed by Mr. Dingwall in relation to this matter.

l. Copies of any and all communications from staff regarding concerns about the Moving Party’s conduct, tone, or language, particularly those that were conveyed directly to the Moving Party, or which instructed or advised the Moving Party to cease or change behaviour.

m. A full and unredacted copy of the Statement of Claim referenced in subparagraph “f”, with direction to Mr. Felman to produce same, as it contains facts materially relevant to his credibility and involvement in the matter at hand.

n. All internal communications, emails, memos, or references involving Mr. Ian Spears (Vice Chair) that pertain to the present matter, particularly given the unexpected reference to him in the recordings despite the absence of direct interaction with the Moving Party.

o. Any internal memos, emails, or communications involving Bencher and Adjudicator Jonathan Rosenthal that relate to his advising or instructing the LTB to file a complaint with the Law Society, especially where the matter had previously been addressed in his adjudicative capacity at the Board.

p. Confirmation of the total number of Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) applications or complaints involving Investigator Dingwall, along with disclosure of the corresponding HRTO file numbers for each such application or complaint.

11In his factum Mr. Caruso advised that he was no longer seeking an order for the disclosure of the information or documentation listed in sub-paragraphs f, m, and o. At the hearing of the motion Mr. Caruso advised that he is no longer seeking an order for the disclosure of the information or documentation listed in sub-paragraph p.

APPLICABLE LAW

12Rule 10 of the Law Society Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that:

10.1 The Law Society must disclose to the licensee or licence applicant, within a reasonable period of time following the filing of the application, all potentially relevant documents in its possession, except for those it is not disclosing due to privilege.

10.4 Where a party seeks production of documents from a third party, the party seeking the documents must obtain a motion date, and serve on the third party a summons to witness requiring the third party to attend on the motion date, attendance money and a Notice of Motion. The Notice of Motion must set out the relevance of the documents requested from the third party.

Relevance

13The Tribunal’s jurisprudence regarding the Law Society’s disclosure obligations was reviewed by Chair Mercer in Law Society of Ontario v Mazo, 2024 ONLSTH 59:

13In [Law Society of Ontario v Mazo, 2023 ONLSTH 119], I wrote…:

The Law Society has a duty to disclose not only all of the material that it proposes to use at the hearing of a conduct application, but also evidence that might assist the licensee, whether or not the Law Society proposed to adduce it, subject to the rules of privilege. While the Law Society must err on the side of inclusion, it need not disclose what is clearly irrelevant: Law Society of Upper Canada v. James, 2017 ONLSTA 16 at para. 32. Information is disclosable where there is a reasonable possibility that the information could be used in meeting the case by the Law Society, used in advancing a defence or otherwise making a decision which could affect the conduct of the defence: James at para. 33.

The Law Society is required to disclose the “information” gathered in an investigation but ordinarily not the analysis, comments, and opinions of investigators or counsel. It is sometimes said that the “fruits of the feet” must be disclosed but that the “fruits of the mind” need not be disclosed: James at para. 48.

14Relevance is ordinarily determined by reference to the allegations in the notice of application. However, relevance may also be shown based on what is in issue in a motion within a conduct application.

15Where relevance is sought to be established for the purpose of seeking disclosure on the basis of an alleged abuse of process or other motion, the moving party is required to show a legally and factually tenable allegation so that the motion for disclosure is not seen as being a “fishing expedition” and the proceeding does not become unduly prolix: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Natale, 2011 ONLSHP 192 at paras. 7‑10.

ANALYSIS

Mr. Caruso’s own documents

14In sub-paragraph 1g, Mr. Caruso seeks “copies of the Moving Party’s prior reply and evidence confirming Mr. Felman's (sic) role as a panel member of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC), or any similar regulatory body, which is a relevant and material fact to this matter”. During his submissions on this point Mr. Caruso stated that this sub-paragraph is referring to the documentation Mr. Caruso gave to the investigator regarding Mr. Fellman’s role with the CICC. Mr. Caruso was not able to provide an explanation why an order should issue for the Law Society to disclose Mr. Caruso’s own evidence to him.

Documents and information not in the possession or control of the Law Society

15The information and documents enumerated in sub-paragraphs 1 a, b, c, d, e, i, and n are in possession of third parties - the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB); Sean Weir, Executive Chair, Tribunals Ontario and LTB member; Eli Fellman, Legal Counsel, Tribunals Ontario; and Ian Spears, Associate Chair and member of LTB (the third parties).

16None of the third parties from whom disclosure is sought were served with notice of this motion and they have not been provided an opportunity to contest Mr. Caruso’s request, whether on relevance, privilege, or any other grounds.

17At a Proceedings Management Conference held before me in this matter on October 1, 2025, Mr. Caruso was advised that as it appears that much of the documentation and information sought in his motion is in the possession and control of parties other than the Law Society, service of the motion on such third parties would be required to enable the Tribunal to make a disclosure order against the third parties. I was prepared to make an order that the third parties be served with Mr. Caruso’s motion materials and a copy of my endorsement directing the third parties to deliver their materials in response to Mr. Caruso’s motion by a certain date. Mr. Caruso declined to proceed with the service of the motion materials on the third parties unless he received assurances from me that he would not be subject to any costs consequences if he proceeded with the service on the third parties, which assurance I declined to provide. Mr. Caruso stated that in the circumstances he would not proceed with seeking a disclosure order from this Tribunal against the third parties and will seek the formal admission or finding by the panel hearing his disclosure motion that the Law Society is not in possession of the documents and information sought.

18At the hearing of this motion Mr. Kens, on behalf of the Law Society, confirmed that the Law Society has no information or documentation in its possession referred to in sub-paragraphs 1 a, b, c, d, e, i, and n of the notice of motion that has not already been disclosed to Mr. Caruso.

19I now review the disclosure sought in Mr. Caruso’s motion applying the relevance criteria above to the remaining four items listed in the notice of motion.

Copies of any prior warnings issued by the Law Society of Ontario to Mr. Caruso

20In sub-paragraph 1h of the notice of motion, Mr. Caruso seeks “Copies of any prior warnings issued by the Law Society of Ontario to the Moving Party, as referenced in Mr. Dingwall’s report.”

21Tom Dingwall is the Law Society investigator assigned to this matter. While this request is not clear, Mr. Dingwall’s investigation report references two complaints about Mr. Caruso. The first complaint, made by lawyer Peter Regan, was closed with a caution in the Intake and Resolution department in November 2020. The second, made by lawyer Jack Blozowski, was closed with regulatory guidance by Investigation Services in February 2023. In both cases, Law Society staff sent letters to Mr. Caruso notifying him that the complaints had been closed. Mr. Kens provided these letters again to Mr. Caruso on September 18, 2025.

22Mr. Caruso has not established any link between these complaints and the issues in this conduct application or his motion, which deals with Mr. Caruso’s communications with staff at the LTB and the court. In any case, Mr. Caruso received these documents when the two complaints were closed and again after he served his notice of motion.

Complaints made by Mr. Caruso about Mr. Blozowski and Ms. DuRoss

23Items 1 i and j of the notice of motion seek the Law Society’s complete files regarding complaints Mr. Caruso made in 2021 about Mr. Blozowski, a lawyer, and Ms. DuRoss, a paralegal. In February 2022 his complaint against Mr. Blozowski was closed with regulatory guidance and the DuRoss complaint was closed as unsupported. Mr. Caruso does not deny that he received notification of these outcomes of his complaints at the time.

24In his oral argument Mr. Caruso submits that the complete files regarding his 2021 complaints against Mr. Blozowski and Ms. DuRoss are relevant because Mr. Blozowski only received a warning and neither Mr. Blozowski nor Ms. DuRoss was fined or otherwise penalized.

25The Law Society’s files regarding Mr. Caruso’s complaints about other licensees have no discernable relevance to the allegations contained in the notice of application in this conduct proceeding or the issues in the motion to dismiss.

The names of LTB staff present during the interview between of Mr. Fellman

26In sub-paragraph k Mr. Caruso seeks “the full names (first and last) of all LTB staff members who were present during or involved in the recorded interview between Mr. Dingwall and Mr. Eli Felman (sic), including any individuals later interviewed by Mr. Dingwall in relation to this matter”.

27The transcript of Mr. Fellman’s interview was provided to Mr. Caruso as part of the disclosure. It would disclose the names of all persons present. There is no evidence that any LTB staff not named in the transcript were present during the interview. The Law Society is not aware of any other persons being present. Mr. Kens advises there were no individuals later interviewed by Mr. Dingwall in relation to this matter.

CONCLUSION AND COSTS

28For these reasons, this motion is dismissed.

29The Law Society may make written costs submissions in respect of this motion by March 9, 2026. Mr. Caruso may make written reply submissions by March 23, 2026.