LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: April 17, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 23H-068

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario Applicant

• and -

Antonio Caruso Respondent

Before: Murray Walter Chitra (chair), Anna Mascieri-Boudria, John F. Spekkens

Heard: November 18-21, 2025, by videoconference, and by written submissions

Appearances:

Alex Kens, for the applicant Respondent, self-represented

Summary:

CARUSO – Communications – Civility – The Paralegal disagreed with the Law Society as to the scope of practice permitted to paralegals and is outspoken about the issue – The panel found that the Paralegal wrote and shared posts on social media that were deliberately vague and misleading and constituted a disservice to the legal professions – The Paralegal made comments that were sharp, hurtful, abusive, discourteous and deliberately provocative – The panel directed that a hearing be set to deal with penalty and costs.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1Murray Walter Chitra (for the panel):– The Law Society brought an application alleging that Antonio Caruso (the Paralegal) engaged in two allegations of professional misconduct related to his online communications.

2A hearing into these matters was held on four consecutive days starting November 18, 2025. Alex Kens appeared for the Law Society. The Paralegal was self-represented.

3We heard the evidence of seven witnesses, including the Paralegal. We received affidavits, documents and other material exceeding 3,000 pages.

4At the conclusion of evidence on November 21, 2025, the parties agreed they would make their final submissions in writing. Deadlines were set and submissions received as directed.

5The Paralegal subsequently wrote to us about what he described as new material. Given the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the proceeding, he was directed to stop sending further unsolicited material or communicating with us directly.

6Based on the evidence and submissions before us, for the reasons set out below, we find that the two allegations have been established. We direct that a hearing be scheduled to address penalty and costs.

BACKGROUND

7On February 2, 2022, the Law Society received a complaint about the Paralegal from Cathy Corsetti, who was at that time a paralegal bencher. She expressed concern about confusion arising from the Paralegal’s numerous online posts telling paralegals that the rules on their authorized scope of immigration practice had changed.

8By way of context, for several years the Law Society has taken the position that paralegals in Ontario were entitled to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) but not to prepare immigration applications. Going back as far as 2017, paralegals who engaged in the latter were liable to sanction.¹

9The Paralegal disagreed with the Law Society’s position. He was vocal about it. Ms. Corsetti believed some of his communications were misleading.

10As well, she complained the Paralegal’s posts about her position on this matter were disparaging and personal. A subsequent Law Society investigation disclosed similar comments by the Paralegal directed at other licensees.

PARTICULARS

11On June 6, 2023, the Law Society filed a notice of application with the Tribunal asserting that the Paralegal engaged in professional misconduct. Specifically, that:

1. Between approximately December of 2021 and June of 2022 the [Paralegal] engaged in professional misconduct by:

a. publishing misleading statements addressed to fellow licensees in social media posts, contrary to Rule 2.01 and 6.01 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct (PROC), in which he asserted falsely that one of more changes had taken place, the effect of which was that paralegals, through P1 licences issued by the Law Society of Ontario, became authorized to provide legal services in the immigration field beyond services in connection with proceedings and intended proceeding before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada; and

b. encouraging and/or inducing other licensees to violate or attempt to violate the PROC, the Law Society Act, or By-Law 4.

2. Between approximately May of 2019 and August of 2022, the [Paralegal] failed to communicate with the requisite civility, respectfulness, and professionalism in his social media posts in relation to fellow licensees, contrary to Rules 2.01(3), 2.03, 6.01, and 7.01 of the PROC.

12On the face of it, these allegations appeared to be capable of determination within the scope of a reasonably simple adjudicative process. Subsequent developments have demonstrated that this has not been the case.

MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS

13The history of this matter is lengthy. It includes multiple court applications, collateral proceedings, and a blizzard of motions. Some of the more relevant are summarized below.

Divisional Court

14In late 2020, the Paralegal and two other individuals filed an application in Superior Court alleging that the Law Society of Ontario was incorrectly restricting paralegals from practising the full scope of immigration law, i.e. preparing immigration applications.

15On November 29, 2023, the Divisional Court ruled for the Law Society.² It found that the Paralegal had failed to demonstrate that Law Society By-Laws deprived him of life, liberty or security of the person, contrary to any principle of fundamental justice, or infringed his rights under Charter s 7.

16In its conclusion at para 134 the Court stated:

It is not the role of this Court to determine whether, as a matter of policy, the scope of practice for paralegals should be expanded to include the processing and filing of immigration applications on behalf of clients. The policy issue has been delegated by the Ontario Legislature to the LSO, the body responsible for the regulation of paralegals. The Parliament of Canada has referentially incorporated the LSO’s regulatory requirements by requiring paralegals to be “members in good standing” of the provincial law society.

Stay

17In July 2024, the Paralegal brought a motion before the Tribunal for a stay of this regulatory proceeding pending an application to the courts for a permanent stay under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act. The panel found it had no authority to make such an order.³

Leave to appeal

18On September 4, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted the Paralegal leave to appeal. That order read:

The Law Society of Ontario has determined that, under its By-Law 4: “Drafting of documents or other legal services practices that are not related to an IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board] hearing remain outside of the paralegal’s scope of practice”. The issue on which leave to appeal is granted is this: Whether the Divisional Court erred in finding that this LSO policy is reasonable and correct interpretation and application of the applicable law, including sections 2 and 30(12) of the Canada Evidence Act, section 91 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act; sections 166, 167(1),170, 171, 173, and 175 of the Immigrations Refugee Protection Act; and the legislative history and purposes of the Law Society Act and LSO By-Law 4.⁴

19As of the date of writing the Ontario Court of Appeal hearing is set for May 6, 2026.

Abuse of process #1 and #2

20In October 2024, the Paralegal filed an application with the Superior Court asking that the regulatory proceedings against him be stayed as an abuse of process. This was denied.⁵

21The Court told him that these were matters either properly for Divisional Court or the Tribunal. It concluded at para 18: “Allowing the matter to proceed is so clearly vexatious that it would be an ‘utter waste of time and resources for all involved.’”

22The Paralegal also brought a motion before the Tribunal to have the proceedings against him struck as an abuse of process. Prior to that hearing, the Law Society brought a successful motion to quash 16 summons and the admission of three affidavits that the Paralegal proposed to rely on.⁶

23The Paralegal’s motion to dismiss the regulatory proceeding against him for abuse of process was denied. The panel’s lengthy reasons addressed a wide range issues including the investigation, qualifications of the investigator, disclosure, conduct of the complainant, privacy and s 7 of the Charter.⁷ However, this dismissal was subsequently set aside as described below.

Costs

24A written hearing was scheduled to consider costs for the two motions. The Tribunal Chair (who had participated in both motions) had withdrawn from the pending merits hearing but reserved the right to sit on the costs proceeding. The Paralegal unsuccessfully challenged this.⁸

25Costs in the amount of $14,300 were ordered against the Paralegal. The panel noted that at para 22 of its reasons for decision: “To date, Mr. Caruso’s approach has been to aggressively litigate a range of collateral issues rather than to address the allegations of misconduct.”⁹ This costs order was also subsequently set aside as described below.

Merits hearing #1

26As noted earlier, in September 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted the Paralegal leave to appeal from the November 29, 2023 Divisional Court decision. The Paralegal requested that his regulatory proceeding be adjourned pending this. The Law Society objected.

27In a case conference on September 11, 2024, the panel directed that the merits hearing would proceed only with respect to particular two (incivility).

28That merits hearing took place on September 13 and 17-20, 2024, with a new panel chair. The panel reserved.

29In mid-October 2024 a concern arose. It related to the fact that one member of the merits panel (Mr. Whist) had also recently sat on a panel with Ms. Corsetti (the complainant) in an unrelated costs matter. The parties agreed that the circumstances presented a reasonable apprehension of bias and Mr. Whist agreed to withdraw.

30A merits decision was released by the two remaining panel members on December 27, 2024.¹⁰ In these reasons the two panel members explained that they had concluded it was acceptable for them to proceed without Mr. Whist given the logic of Wewaykum Indian Band v Canada, 2003 SCC 45.

31However, while waiting for the hearing on penalty and costs, on February 4, 2025, the Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision in Vento Motorcycles, Inc v Mexico, 2025 ONCA 82. Vento specifically rejected the general application of Wewaykum.

32Given this change in the law, the two remaining panel members concluded that their merits decision should be set aside and the matter reheard in its entirety by a freshly constituted panel.¹¹ That is us.

33For the same reasons, the dismissal of the Paralegal’s 2024 abuse of motion and the related costs order were also set aside.

Recusal

34Prior to the first proceeding management conference for the new merits hearing, the Paralegal brought a motion asking that the Tribunal Chair recuse himself from any matters in which the Paralegal was a party. He asserted a reasonable apprehension of bias. This motion was denied July 9, 2025.¹²

35The Paralegal also sought an order that the conduct application against him be dismissed because his motion was denied. The panel found that given its ruling, it was unnecessary to address this.

Abuse of process #3

36The Paralegal then brought another motion for the dismissal of his regulatory proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process. In support of this, he requested summonses for seven witnesses. The request was contested by the Law Society.

37In a written decision dated September 18, 2025, adjudicator Natalia Rodriguez determined that none of the proposed witnesses were in a position to offer material or relevant evidence for the abuse of process motion. She denied the request to issue the summonses.¹³

38A new panel, chaired by Ms. Rodriguez, then considered the third abuse of process motion over two days in September and issued lengthy reasons for decision on October 22, 2025.¹⁴

39This decision addressed a number of concerns raised by the Paralegal including asserted infringements of ss 2(b) and 7 of the Charter, delay and at para 59, “more and different issues during the course of the hearing”.

40The panel found at para 61 that many of the latter “were generally undeveloped, lacked foundation and were stated in passing in a throw-everything-at-the-wall-and see-what-sticks kind of fashion.”

41It concluded at para 163:

Mr. Caruso’s assertions are numerous, but they are unsupported by the evidence. Viewed objectively, none of the allegations put forward by Mr. Caruso, individually or collectively, give rise to an abuse of process. There is nothing that he complains of that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or that is “manifestly unfair”, as required by the governing case law.

Scheduling and summonses

42In advance of this hearing, the parties were canvassed about whether, given the outstanding appeal, the issues for this hearing should be limited to the second particular, as it was in the first hearing.

43The parties insisted that this hearing proceed on both particulars. The July 21, 2025 PMC endorsement reads:

Both parties responded advising that the merits hearing for both particulars should proceed without awaiting the appeal decision. Mr. Caruso was emphatically stating:

I am demanding that a hearing be scheduled without further delay. Your ongoing deferrals have already caused undue prejudice.¹⁵

The date of this proceeding was set on July 25, 2025, upon consent.

44Prior to this proceeding being heard, the Paralegal issued five summonses to Law Society employees and former or current Treasurers. This was opposed by the Law Society, and a motion was scheduled before adjudicator Lubomir Poliacik.

45The Paralegal requested that Mr. Poliacik recuse himself for reasonable apprehension of bias. Both the recusal and summonses were denied November 5, 2025.¹⁶

Constitutional question

46On November 10, 2025, the Paralegal filed a notice of motion for a constitutional question in this proceeding based on numerous alleged violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

47The Law Society sought summary dismissal of the motion, asserting that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Further, responding to it at this late date could delay or derail the proceeding.

48I directed the Paralegal provide a written response to the issues raised by November 14, 2025. The parties were told to continue to prepare for the hearing as scheduled and that our expectation was that they be ready and able to proceed.

49The parties were also directed to be prepared to make brief oral submissions at the commencement of our hearing on November 18, 2025. This was to focus on whether or not the motion would move forward, and if so when and in what manner.

Vexatious litigant designation

50On October 16, 2025, a different panel heard arguments on a Law Society motion asking that the Paralegal be found to be a vexatious litigant. On November 17, 2025, that panel declared the Paralegal a vexatious litigant.¹⁷

51Their decision was largely based on the history of this application. The Paralegal’s actions were determined to have crossed the line into abuse of process.

52That panel found at para 54:

• The [Paralegal] has sought to relitigate issues already determined.

• Several motions and applications were brought without jurisdiction or merit, as confirmed by Superior Court and Divisional Court decisions.

• His conduct demonstrates an improper purpose such as collateral attacks – his belief that he is entitled to use Tribunal’s process to challenge what he views as institutional misconduct.

• The history of proceeding shows a pattern of rolling forward issues and supplementing them with new allegation, often against individuals involved in prior decisions.

• His propensity to threaten, disparage and berate members of the legal profession and the Tribunal with unsustainable allegations and gratuitous complaints undermines the administration of justice.

HEARING

53At the start of our hearing, the Paralegal announced that he would not be proceeding with his constitutional question motion. Rather, he would raise his concerns as part of his concluding submissions.

54We then heard the Law Society’s evidence. It consisted of the affidavits and testimony of Deanne O’Brien, team manager, Investigative Services; Stephen Ellwood, retained by the Law Society to gather publicly available electronic evidence; and Cathy Corsetti, the complainant.

55They were cross-examined by the Paralegal. He challenged their qualifications, motivation, reliability, diligence, honesty, independence, understanding, and character. At times, it was necessary to remind him of the rule in Brown v Dunn (1893) R. 67 (H.L) when putting questions to witnesses.

56We were also obliged to issue directions to him under Rule 11.9 when the Paralegal’s cross-examination became repetitive or inappropriate. Ultimately, we directed a time limitation of his cross-examination of Ms. Corsetti.

57At the conclusion of the Law Society’s evidence, the Paralegal asked that we strike the witnesses’ affidavits, testimony, and all allegations against him. We declined to do so and explained that we would receive his submissions concerning the weight or relevance of their evidence as part of his final submissions.

58For the balance of the hearing, we received the testimony of three witnesses: Scott McEachern, a former paralegal; Tigran Sandukhcyan, a paralegal; and Victoria Marr, a paralegal; before the testimony of the Paralegal himself.

59Mr. McEachern described himself as a quasi-professional whistleblower. The Law Society took issue with the voluminous material in his affidavit which he stated reflected alleged ongoing Law Society malfeasance. The Law Society asserted that this material did not touch on matters at hand, was frivolous, vexatious, and a collateral attack on prior Tribunal decisions.

60We ruled that we were prepared to hear limited testimony from Mr. McEachern, not exceeding 20 minutes. We directed the Paralegal to focus his questions solely on matters that directly concerned the allegations made in this proceeding. We made it clear, that we would decide what weight, if any, to give to that evidence.

61Mr. Sandukhcyan gave his perspective on the ongoing debate over the interpretation of By-Law 4. He stated that he preferred the opinion of the Paralegal over that of Ms. Corsetti. He testified that he found some of her posts to be offensive.

62When he learned that the Paralegal was facing regulatory proceedings for his online comments, he felt discouraged about participating in professional debates and this had adversely affected his professional development.

63Ms. Marr’s evidence was similar. She described an exchange that she had with Ms. Corsetti during an online discussion on December 5, 2022. She indicated that she felt that her legitimate questions were ignored and the responses given were patronizing and dismissive.

64The Paralegal then testified. He had not made pre-hearing disclosure of his anticipated evidence as required by Rule 10.5(1)(c). We spent much time reviewing a list of documents that the Paralegal wished to have marked as exhibits. Many were not relevant.

65After the cross-examination of the Paralegal, the evidentiary portion of the hearing was concluded. Neither party felt that there was sufficient time to complete final oral submissions. Both indicated that they would benefit from the opportunity to review the voluminous material submitted.

66The Law Society and Paralegal were agreeable to making their final submissions in writing. Given this, we exercised our authority under Rule 9.3 to convert that portion of the proceeding to an appearance in writing. A schedule was agreed upon. As noted earlier, we received this material as directed.

Second mistrial “posture”

67As part of his written submissions, the Paralegal asserted that these proceedings had entered a “second mistrial posture”. In this written material the Paralegal made inflammatory allegations against the complainant, Law Society representatives, Tribunal members, licensees, and other professionals.

68The Paralegal asked us to revisit the numerous rulings against him outlined earlier. This included his failed motions for dismissal for abuse of process, recusal of panel members, and denials of summonses. One demand was for the immediate return of “punitive” costs he had been ordered to pay, with interest. Others related to matters not in evidence before us or at issue in these proceedings.

69Collectively, he argued that these rulings represented a violation of the Charter s 7 (fundamental justice) and s 11(d) (right to a fair and public hearing). The Paralegal asserted that these ongoing and cumulative defects have now rendered it impossible for him to receive a fair hearing.

70As a result, he was seeking:

• a declaration of mistrial;

• a dismissal or, on the alternative, a permanent stay of proceedings as an abuse of process;

• an order setting aside the vexatious litigant designation; and

• appropriate remedies pursuant to ss 24(1) and 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

71We decline to revisit the matters raised by the Paralegal. We are not an appellate body. What the Paralegal requests is not within our authority or remit. Even if that were not so, the Paralegal is not entitled to use every hearing in which he is a party to redo or endlessly relitigate prior rulings.

72The Paralegal may not agree with certain prior findings, but for the purposes of this hearing they stand. Our role in this matter is to assess the evidence before us within the framework of the allegations of professional misconduct that have been filed.

73Further, we note that the Paralegal sought to invoke s 11 of the Charter, which applies to persons charged with an offence that may result in penal consequences.¹⁸ That is clearly not the situation here.

74Finally, the Paralegal asserted in his written submissions that given that the interpretation of By-Law 4 is actively under appellate court review “it would be abusive and unfair to discipline a licensee for advancing a legal position that is the subject of a live appeal.”

75As noted earlier the parties both agreed to proceed with both allegations notwithstanding the unresolved appeal. The Paralegal was most emphatic about this: para 43 above.

76The Paralegal cannot, following the conclusion of a hearing that he insisted upon, take issue with the fairness of it having taken place. We decline this request.

PARTICULAR ONE

77The key question for us to address on this allegation is whether or not, between December 2021 and June 2022, the Paralegal made misleading or false statements to paralegals concerning their authority to engage in immigration practices.

Evidence

78We were provided with communications and social media posts made by the Paralegal during the time in question. They had been gathered by Mr. Ellwood. The Paralegal took issues with his qualifications and authority to gather this material. As well, he raised concerns of unlawful violations of privacy.

79The Paralegal’s arguments with respect to these matters have previously been dealt with. We do not propose to revisit those conclusions.¹⁹

80However, we do conclude that there is no credible evidence in any material before us of inappropriate investigation or the unlawful collection of information posted on public forums or otherwise available. Nothing before us supports the notion of unreasonable search and seizure in violation of s 8 of the Charter. The information gathered by Mr. Ellwood was publicly available and collected lawfully. No judicial authorization was required.

Communications

81Shortly after filing his initial application in Superior Court regarding the paralegal scope of practice, the Paralegal began asserting in various online forums that it was now possible for paralegals to not only appear before the IRB but also file immigration applications.

82These forums included the Paralegal’s website, his LinkedIn account, and in Facebook groups (Ontario Paralegal Central and Paralegal Bencher Watchdog). The Facebook groups are social media platforms created for paralegal licensees, students, and graduates.

83On December 9, 2021, the Paralegal posted that he had been approved as an “IRCC”. That refers to enrollment for access to the Authorized Paid Representative Portal of Immigration, Refugee & Citizenship Canada (IRCC). It is a site where immigration applications can be uploaded.

84The Paralegal wrote: “I now can provide legal services in immigration and am now registered as a federal representative a paralegal to provide immigration services. In order to practice immigration, you must register as an IRCC, submit your application and be approved by the feds.”

85That same day he provided a link to the portal stating, “This will need to be done to before you can practice immigration.” [sic]

86The Paralegal went on to explain, “I am not breaking any bylaws as I am following BYLAW 4 section 6 D which clearly states our area of scope and it says by [an] ‘act of parliament’ which IRPA is!!!”

87On January 21, 2022, the Paralegal posted an image on his LinkedIn page (12,000 followers) and Facebook group (400 members) of what appeared to be an advertisement. Under the question: “How does this look to everyone?” there was a document headed: “Caruso Legal Services Expands to Immigration.”

88It listed various services offered by Caruso Legal Services including:

Visas for Visitors, Students;

Work Permits; Permanent Resident Applications;

Express Entry;

Electronic Travel Authorizations;

International Experience Canada; and

So Much More!

Call or Email us today

89In small print at the bottom of the form, it read: “in accordance to [sic] Bylaw 4 section 6(d) before a tribunal established under an Act of the Legislature of Ontario or under an Act of Parliament. IRPA is an act of Parliament.”

90In another post that same day by the Paralegal Ontario (another Facebook group) the Paralegal posted: “I am officially declaring a Victory!!!!!!!!” and “PARALEGALS GO PRACTICE IMMIGRATION!!!!!!”

91The next day he posted on LinkedIn:” VICTORY!!!!!!!!! The feds officially make [sic] a stand in support of paralegals!!!!!!!!” Various comments were made by members of the Paralegal Community. These included:

• If you don’t mind, could you please explain what this means for Paralegals?

• It means we paralegals can work with immigration matters with FULL SCOPE!

• Great stuff!!!! It can’t be any clearer … As long as paralegals are members of the Law Society we are authorized to represent… Done!!!!

• Thank you, well done

• Great Work. Thank you Antonio!

The Paralegal responded to one of the latter posts: “Took me 5 years but we did it.”

92His evidence before us was that the Canadian Bar Association was “shocked” by the fact that he was able to be registered as an IRCC. The Paralegal provided us with three letters in support of this.

93In the first letter, dated December 21, 2021, the Chair of the CBA Immigration Law Section wrote to the federal Minister of Immigration asking that the IRPA be amended to exclude non-lawyers from authorization to advise and represent immigration applicants.

94A portion of that letter read:

On December 10, 2021, a paralegal publicly reported successfully registering to the IRCC Authorized Paid Representative portal, argued that they were now a registered consultant and suggested they could submit applications on behalf of clients. The paralegal encouraged other paralegals to do the same, despite the fact that LSO restricts the scope of practice for paralegals in immigration matters to matters before the IRB.

The CBA Section is concerned that a paralegal could successfully register to the IRCC Authorized Representative Portal, because they do not fall under the definition of authorized paid representatives. One mechanism that IRCC could implement to vet applications for Authorized Paid Representative Portals would be to screen registration requests for LSO members numbers beginning with P, indicating a paralegal. The CBA Section urges IRCC to establish a rigid screening process for those registering as Authorized Paid Representatives. As a safeguard measure, the CBA Section also recommends that the status of currently Authorized Paid Representatives be vetted to ensure that no paralegals use the portal illegally.

95In the second letter, dated January 24, 2022, Teresa Donnelly, Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario, wrote the Minister of Immigration. She stated that the Law Society did not view the legislative amendments proposed by the CBA as advisable. She noted:

While s. 91 of the IRPA permits licensed paralegals to provide a broad scope of services [sic] the Law Society’s By-Law 4 limits this scope to advising and representing parties in proceedings before the IRB ….

If paralegals want to provide services set out in s. 91 of the IRPA beyond what is permitted in By-Law 4, they are required to be licensed by the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants. Accreditation and licensing with the College requires completion of the same mandatory diploma program in immigration and citizenship law at Queen’s University [sic] that immigration consultants must complete.

96In the third letter, the Minister wrote in reply to Treasurer Jacqueline Horvat:

… section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection act (IRPA) states that members in good standing with their law societies – including paralegals where applicable – are authorized to provide immigration advice and representation. You have asked for further clarification on whether licensed paralegals in Ontario can only act within the scope of practice defined by the Law Society of Ontario’s bylaws, under which they are restricted to representing parties before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Section 91 of the IRPA does not limit paralegals in good standing with a law society to representing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, but rather enables them to provide advice and representation for consideration more broadly: “in connection with the submissions of an expression of interest under subsection 10.1(3) or a proceeding or application under this Act.” However, if a lawyer or paralegal is “in good standing” but is not authorized to practice law or provide legal services in certain areas by virtue of their authorization within their law society, this is a matter to be regulated by the law society and not Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

I would further note that if a paralegal violates their professional obligations or restrictions on their license, the law society is the authoritative body to discipline the member, including removing their status of “good standing”, where appropriate. Subsequently, a paralegal no longer in good standing would not be able to provide advice or representation under section 91 of IRPA.

… I am reconfirming that the Department does not intend to expand the scope of paralegal activities, nor does the IRCC intend to amend the legislation to reflect the scope of paralegal activities at this time.

97On May 12, 2022, the Paralegal posted: “The current bylaw does allow paralegals to practice immigration have a read at bylaw 4 6 D.”

98Then on June 27, 2022, he posted: “I want to declare out Victory against the LSO and a slap to the face of the Canadian Bar Association for their conduct unbecoming, and denigration of Paralegals in Ontario publicly.” He went on to assert that “as state before we have the right to practice immigration.” [sic]

99Later that same month the Paralegal posted on LinkedIn:

The Law Society, still however, seeks to maintain their grip and restrict the practice of paralegals, contrary to federal intent, and contrary to general rule of paramountcy. Caruso Legal Services, however, is not backing down, and has written, demanding that the Law Society prosecute him for providing immigration services, to this date, the Law Society has refused to prosecute Mr. Caruso, and has closed all immigration related investigations against him.

100In subsequent communications to the Law Society, the Paralegal’s counsel reported that was he was not providing immigration services and stated that “In general … Mr. Caruso has no plans to break any law.”

Testimony

101In his evidence the Paralegal described himself as a political and professional advocate focused on resolving a policy dispute about the scope of paralegal practice.

102He did not deny that he made the posts attributed to him. Rather, he asserted that they must be viewed in context of robust advocacy necessary to bring attention to this issue.

103In his testimony the Paralegal explained that he kept his posts “vague”. At no point did the Paralegal feel the need or take steps to clarify, correct or discourage possible misinterpretations.

104The Paralegal’s evidence was that he had not personally engaged in any expanded scope of immigration practice. He did not intend to do so until after there was a ruling from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

105He asserted that he had never urged fellow paralegals to engage in “full” immigration practice, as that would be misleading. They were all professionals who could do their own due diligence and make their “own judgment”.

106The Paralegal testified that he was surprised when he was able to register for access to the IRCC portal. His evidence was that he never used the portal to file immigration documents.

107He explained that he was simply providing practical information to fellow paralegals. He described this as mentoring and a public service, given that the Law Society was not telling the paralegal profession about the IRCC portal.

108Further, he argued that the Law Society had failed to provide evidence of any paralegal that was misled by his calls to “GO PRACTICE IMMIGRATION”.

109His witness Victoria Marr stated that she had understood from the Paralegal’s postings that he “had reasonably proved” that paralegals could practise immigration “like any other field of legal service.” She testified that at the time she had believed that the Paralegal was actively practising in that field of immigration without restriction. She now sees this as her misconception. During cross-examination, she characterized this as providing additional information that everybody in the group was aware of.

110In his evidence, the Paralegal explained he saw gaining access to the IRCC portal as a “victory”. As well, he saw “victory” in the fact that the Minister of Immigration had ignored the CBA request to amend s 91 of IRPA. There was now finally something in writing saying that the “feds” were not going to “get rid of us”.

111The Paralegal suggested that he should be getting the paralegal medal for this. However, when pressed he said he was claiming victory on behalf of the profession and anyone who supports paralegals and believes in access to justice.

112The Paralegal’s evidence was that he never advertised he was doing IRCC applications. The “advertisement” he posted on January 21, 2022 under “How does this look” was something he had mocked up and was circulated for comments. Nowhere did he actually say he was advertising for such business.

Analysis

113Rule 9.01(13) defines professional misconduct as, “…knowingly assisting or inducing another licensee to violate or attempt to violate the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, a requirement of the Law Society Act or its regulations or by-laws…”.

114Rule 2.01 provides:

(1) A paralegal has a duty to provide legal services and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the legal professions honourably and with integrity.

(2) A paralegal has a duty to uphold the standards and reputation of the paralegal profession and to assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations and institutions.

115Rule 6.01 states:

(1) A paralegal shall encourage public respect for, and try to improve, the administration of justice.

(2) A paralegal shall take care not to weaken or destroy public confidence in legal institutions or authorities by making irresponsible comments particularly when commenting on judges or members of a tribunal.

116The evidence before us established that the Paralegal has had ongoing disagreements with the Law Society about the scope of authorized paralegal immigration practice. In November 2020, he was one of three individuals who brought an application with Superior Court formally asserting this.

117That was their right. Indeed, the courts are the proper forum to resolve disputes about the application and interpretation of the law.

118However, a few months after this application the Paralegal appears to have ramped up his advocacy. That is reflected in multiple postings on different forums used by paralegals, students and paralegal candidates to share information and discuss matters of common professional concern.

119The Law Society asserts that a number of these postings were misleading or attempts to induce paralegals to violate existing practice restrictions.

120Ultimately, the Court of Appeal will resolve the ongoing challenge to the Law Society’s authority to impose such restrictions. However, until such a ruling, paralegals are subject to the existing restrictions and liable to regulatory proceedings if they work beyond the established authorized scope.

121We find that a number of the Paralegal’s posts were deliberately misleading. They exhort paralegals to engage in practices that are currently said by the Law Society and found by Tribunal decisions to be unauthorized with no acknowledgement of the serious professional risks inherent in such a decision.

122The Paralegal seeks to justify his conduct by asserting wrongdoing on the part of the Law Society, its employees, and elected officials. To this end, he offered the evidence of Mr. McEachern. Mr. McEachern’s 1,669-page affidavit is a monologue of unrelated assertions of systemic corruption, illicit conduct, general malfeasance within the Law Society, and a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the Tribunal.

123We found this to be unhelpful, of no probative value, and not relevant to the matter before us, namely assessing the conduct of the Paralegal.

124The Paralegal asserts he has never specifically called on other paralegals to engage in unauthorized practice but was simply providing helpful information.

125His claims of “VICTORY!!!!!!!” and clarion calls for “PARALEGALS GO PRACTICE IMMIGRATION!!!!!!!!!!” are not exhortations for paralegals to aggressively continue with the status quo with the benefit of his helpful information. Any such suggestion is absurd.

126The Paralegal’s postings were deliberately crafted to give the impression that he was leading the charge to provide “full” immigration services that he believed paralegals were entitled to engage in.

127This included:

• asserting that, having successfully enrolled for IRCC portal access, he was now registered as a federal representative who could provide legal services in immigration;

• posting an “advertisement” announcing that he was expanding to immigration and listing a range of currently unauthorized services to be provided over his work phone number and email address; and

• announcing that he was not backing down and had written to the Law Society demanding that it prosecute him for providing immigration services.

128The truth of the matter is that the Paralegal had not and was not representing any clients in applications before the IRCC. Further, he had no plan or intention to do so until after a final court ruling.

129The Paralegal was neither open nor transparent with the paralegals to whom he was communicating. Instead, he felt it appropriate to be “vague” and leave it up to individual paralegals to make up their own minds.

130He argued that no one was misled by his posts. This is not what is reflected on the record above: the reply posts at para 88, and the testimony of Ms. Marr at para 109.

131Further, the complainant, then a paralegal bencher, had concerns that some paralegals appeared to have been convinced that they could engage in the full scope of immigration practice and believed that the Paralegal had been doing so.²⁰

132Leaving that aside, no such proof is necessary. Neither is evidence of actual harm required for a statement to be “irresponsible”.

133The information the Paralegal posted was incomplete and misleading. In his posts about the letters between the federal Minister of Immigration, CBA, and Law Society Treasurer, he claimed “victory”. He wrote that the Minister had confirmed that “as state [sic] before we have the right to practice immigration.”

134There is no air of reality to the notion that the Paralegal was asserting victory for confirmation of a status quo that he was challenging in court. He is clearly implying more.

135To the point, as reflected in para 96, he did not disclose that the Minister had made it clear that paralegals who violated restrictions on their licences could be subject to discipline by their regulating law society, including removal of their status of good standing.

136We find that the Paralegal’s deliberately vague, misleading, and false assertions in his posts to other paralegals, encouraging them to embark on risky forms of practice (which he himself was not prepared to do) constituted a disservice to the legal professions.

137This was irresponsible. It does not reflect integrity. It does not assist and uphold the standards and reputation of the paralegal profession or assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations and institutions.

138We have expressly considered the Charter value of freedom of expression in determining whether to treat the Paralegal’s assertions as professional misconduct. We have balanced statutory objectives with freedom of expression: Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 at para 55.

139We fully recognize the importance of vigorous public debate as to the appropriate scope of practice of paralegals in immigration. We would have no issue with communicating that the lawful scope of practice was a matter before the courts. However, the Paralegal went far past debating the appropriate scope of practice or communicating with respect to what was before the courts.

140He falsely asserted that the scope of practice, as he saw it, had been established and encouraged other paralegals to embark on risky forms of practice. Ensuring that paralegals practise within the authorized scope of their licences is an important regulatory objective.

141The Paralegal’s assertions were professional misconduct. We so find.

PARTICULAR TWO

142The question for us to address for this allegation is whether or not, between May 2019 and August 2022, the Paralegal failed to communicate with the required civility, respectfulness and professionalism in his social media posts.

143The communications in question were provided to the Law Society by Ms. Corsetti or obtained by Mr. O’Brien in the course of his investigations. This latter included some publicly available data acquired by Mr. Ellwood. They are summarized below.

Communications

144In a post in mid-May 2019 the Paralegal referred to remarks made by Ms. Corsetti on the scope of paralegal practice. He described these as “shameful comments by Bencher Cathy”. That resulted in an exchange between the two where the Paralegal wrote:

• what are you smoking??????

• Get your facts straight. Or RESIGN!!!!!!

• then don’t be stupid (when Ms. Corsetti asked the Paralegal not to be disrespectful)

• This shows you don’t know what is going on at the LSO so put down the joint or leave the butter tarts alone

• She [Ms. Corsetti] has to be the biggest joke as a bencher lol

145In January 2022 the Paralegal addressed a lengthy post to Ms. Corsetti. He referred to her as a “coward Bencher” and “nothing but a liar and a lazy politician”. Other comments directed at her included:

• your [sic] busy in the meetings having discussions about law society butter tarts

• You have remained quiet like the coward that you are

• So before you open your mouth get educated or perhaps go back to paralegal school and learn the education because after all you are grandfathered in and don’t have the same education as I

• So Bencher I know you feel very defeated but suck it up and move on

146In an August 2022 post the Paralegal included a picture of Ms. Corsetti’s 2019 re-election platform and wrote:

• See how she played with each and everyone of you in regards of Immigration

• The old guard will say what ever [sic] but when it comes to action she is the most useless Bencher in the history of the law society in my opinion

• She has done nothing for our professions but abuse her office to go after paralegal to please the lawyers and the old guard.

147The Paralegal then concluded by urging readers to send an email to Ms. Corsetti to demand her resignation and do so using the following hashtags: “#useless, #resign, #disgracedbencher, #buttertarts”.

Other licensees

148In April 2021 the Paralegal posted under the heading “Immigration legal battle update”:

• my legal team is looking at bringing an action against paralegal benchers for not following the law society act in our opinion. More details will follow!!! And no they don’t have immunity.

• our benchers are useless and a bunch of liars. They are not follow [sic] the law society act when it comes to the public.

149In April 2022 the Paralegal published the following:

• Breaking News Theresa Donnelly the coward Tresaure [sic] puts a stop to the motion to allow Paralegals to break away from the Law Society

• Under her leadership she has brought disrepute to our profession; shame on her. She needs to resign once and for all

• She is abusing her position in my opinion

• As your true Defacto Bencher for the past 3 years I will continue to my fight to make sure we are heard and that we will not be accepting leftovers

• I have instructed my legal team to file my lawsuits against each paralegal bencher as well

150In June 2022, the Paralegal posted a meme image that stated, “BYE FELICIA”. Above that he wrote: “Great news in the history of the law society of Ontario Teresa Donnelly is no more Treasurer!!!!!!!” He then listed points of dissatisfaction with her and concluded: “as she leaves the LSO today I hope the door doesn’t hit her on the way out.”

151In July 2022 the Paralegal posted the following comments about another licensee who did not fully support his position on By-Law 4:

• Harry Fine is another paralegal part of the old boys club and supporter of paralegal benchers loyal to lawyers in my opinion.

• Harry, you chose [sic] retirement about 2 years ago, do us all a favour and remain retired. You have become irrelevant anyways, make way for the new generation of Paralegals.

152The Paralegal’s grievance with Mr. Fine appears to have arisen from what the Paralegal perceived as disrespectful comments made about him and being blocked on social media chat groups.

Testimony

153Mr. Corsetti’s evidence was that her complaints about the Paralegal did not relate to his litigation with the Law Society. Rather, she had concerns that he was misleading other paralegals and about his uncivil and disparaging comments aimed at discrediting her and others.

154Ms. Corsetti felt that she was being bullied. She believed that no one deserves to be treated like this for years.

155She was blocked from his social media. She felt that in some part this was due to the fact that the Paralegal was running to become a bencher. She believed that he was targeting her, twisting her comments, and attempting to discredit her reputation.

156Ms. Corsetti testified that she had never been disrespectful to the Paralegal. She had hoped that her complaint would modify his behaviour. It did not. He continued his offensive posts. She felt his abuse escalated.

157He filed two complaints against her with the Law Society and one with the Ontario Paralegal Association. The Paralegal sent emails to the Law Society asserting that her complaint against him was an abuse of power and process.

158He copied these communications and others relating to the Law Society’s investigation to a wide range of individuals. They included the Premier of Ontario, Prime Minister of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, the Law Society Treasurer, members of the media, and other licensees.

159Further, the Paralegal made repeated threats to sue individuals with whom he disagreed, including her, a former Treasurer, the Law Society investigator, Mr. Elwood, and the assigned Law Society counsel. Ms. Corsetti considered retaining a libel and slander lawyer.

160Other evidence before us confirmed that the Paralegal had commenced a legal action against Mr. Ellwood and sued a bencher who participated in the Proceedings Authorization Committee that authorized this proceeding for “misfeasance in public office” and “tortious false light.”

161The Paralegal did not dispute making the posted comments. His concerns were largely with context and what he sees as its lack of completeness.

162He testified that he has been an advocate for the expanded scope of paralegal practice to ensure access to justice for many years. Both he and Ms. Corsetti were candidates in the 2019 paralegal bencher elections. He felt that during the campaign they developed a consensus on scope of immigration practice.

163According to him, she did not follow through, and he lost all respect for her. Beginning in 2020 he started to be “extremely vocal” against her.

164This gave rise to her complaint against him, which in turn resulted in regulatory proceedings where he believes he had been stigmatized, persecuted, and had his rights violated.

165The Paralegal made the point that political debate must be robust for accountability and democracy. Expressing disagreement that may cause discomfort is not grounds for an allegation of professional misconduct.

166He stated that his personal reputation is his most valuable asset. Ms. Corsetti defamed him. He had a right to respond, even with harsh language. That strong language, if any, arose in direct response to personal attacks upon his competence, integrity, honesty and professional credibility. It would be “unjust” to require licensees “to take it like a sitting duck when attacked.”

167During his cross-examination, the Paralegal testified he understood that Ms. Corsetti did not have a thick skin, so he apologized to her for that. However, this did not alter the fact that she was “incompetent”.

168Furthermore, he had other things to worry about and did not care about her anymore. She is no longer a bencher so did not matter to him anymore. He explained that he was now “going after” current benchers.

169He noted that his witnesses expressed concerns about Ms. Corsetti’s inability or unwillingness to answer their questions on the scope of practice and her being rude and condescending.

Analysis

170It is asserted that the Paralegal’s conduct contravenes four Rules:

• Rule 2.01(3): A paralegal shall be courteous and civil, and shall act in good faith with all persons with whom he or she has dealings in the course of his or her practice.

• Rule 2.03(3): A paralegal shall not engage in sexual or other forms of harassment of a colleague, a staff member, a client or any other person on the ground of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

• Rule 6.01(2): A paralegal shall take care not to weaken or destroy public confidence in legal institutions or authorities by making irresponsible allegations or comments particularly when commenting on judges or members of a tribunal.

• Rule 7.01(4): A paralegal shall not engage in ill-considered or uninformed criticism of the competence, conduct, advice or charges of other licensees, but shall be prepared, when requested, to represent a client in a complaint involving another licensee.

171Paralegals are free to express their views and opinions. However, in the course of their professional dealings, they are required to act with civility. The latter requires paralegals to communicate respectfully, and in a manner that does not cause harm to others. It extends to their dealings with other paralegals, lawyers, adjudicators, tribunal officers, staff, and representatives of the Law Society.

172The Paralegal’s communications in question did not arise in the course of legal proceedings. Rather, they occurred during the course of discussions between licensees on professional forums. The Paralegal was communicating with other paralegals as a paralegal about the scope of paralegal practice.

173As such, the Paralegal’s communications were not outside the scope of the Rules and his duty to conduct himself with civility towards other licensees.

174The Supreme Court of Canada has defined incivility as “…‘potential displays of disrespect for the participants in the justice system beyond mere rudeness or discourtesy’”. It has acknowledged a “duty to encourage civility ‘both inside and outside the courtroom’”.²¹

175The Court made it clear that “in dealing with appropriate boundaries of civility, the severity of the conduct must be interpreted in light of the expressive rights guaranteed by [s 2(b) of] the Charter, and, in particular, the public benefit in ensuring the right of lawyers to express themselves about the justice system in general and judges in particular.”²²

176Professional debate can at times be robust. In such cases, the Court acknowledged that proper respect for expressive rights may involve disciplinary bodies tolerating a degree of discordant criticisms. However, this does not mean there is an unlimited right on the part of legal professionals to breach legitimate public expectations that they will conduct themselves with civility. It is a matter of balance.²³

177Striking the balance can be complicated. As the Court noted:

Lawyers potentially face criticisms and pressures on a daily basis. They are expected by the public, on whose behalf they serve, to endure them with civility and dignity. This is not always easy when the lawyer feels he or she has been unfairly provoked, as in this case. But it is precisely when a lawyer’s equilibrium is unduly tested that he or she is particularly called upon to behave with transcendent civility. On the other hand, lawyers should not be expected to behave like verbal eunuchs. They not only have a right to speak their minds freely, they arguably have a duty to do so. But they are constrained to do so with dignified restraint.²⁴

178In Doré the Supreme Court agreed that the Disciplinary Council of the Barreau du Québec was entitled to reprimand a lawyer for written comments about a judge in a letter that was found to overstep generally accepted norms of moderation and dignity.²⁵

179The Court accepted that “In light of the excessive degree of vituperation in the letter’s context and tone, this conclusion cannot be said to represent an unreasonable balance of Mr. Doré’s expressive rights with the statutory objectives.”²⁶

180In this case the Paralegal asserts that he had the right to criticize elected officials. Further, he contends that his remarks were either personal and made outside the scope of practice or during the course of heated debate during a bencher election campaign.

181The Law Society noted that while the Paralegal ran for election as a paralegal bencher in 2019, voting in that election closed on April 30, 2019. That is prior to the May 2019 starting timeframe set out in particular two.

182Further, the Law Society points out that ending date for that particular was August 2022. The nomination period for the 2023 bencher election did not start until October 17, 2022.

183Even given a generous view of the length the campaign period, it is evident that the vast majority of the comments before us were made well outside the normal bencher election cycle.

184Even if that were not so, participating in the democratic aspects of self-regulation is a professional undertaking. It does not create a bubble of exclusion from normal constraints of courtesy and civility or allow ill-considered, uninformed criticisms of the competence and conduct of other legal professionals.

185The Paralegal’s remarks set out earlier speak for themselves. They do not reflect dignified restraint. Rather, they are sharp, hurtful, abusive, discourteous, and deliberately provocative. They are broadly directed at multiple individuals in the legal professions, including the complainant, other benchers, and licensees.

186With respect to Ms. Corsetti, he asserted that she lied; mislead; brought disrepute to the paralegal profession; never did her duty as a bencher; did not understand immigration law or the functions of committees on which she served; failed to disclose conflicts; misused Law Society resources; violated the Bencher Code of Conduct; and will be remembered as the most useless bencher in Law Society history.

187This was not a singular lapse of judgment in a heated moment. This was ongoing, unrestrained, and unfiltered incivility over years. The passage of time does not appear to have resulted in reflection, insight, or moderation on the part of the Paralegal.

188Of particular concern to us is the tone of his remarks. They are contemptuous, demeaning, and mocking. This not only permeated his social media comments but was evident in his written submissions, evidence, and cross-examinations. At times this was palpable.

189We have again balanced statutory objectives with freedom of expression: Doré at para 55. We accept that the Paralegal was entitled to speak freely about Ms. Corsetti, a paralegal bencher, and her conduct. But, to paraphrase Rappaport, the issue is how he chooses to do so.²⁷

190The Paralegal’s contemptuous, demeaning, and mocking personal attacks lay far from the core values that underpin the expressive rights of lawyers and paralegals. His attacks did not advance the objectives of transparency and accountability in the regulation of legal professionals.

191The Paralegal’s conduct does not meet acceptable norms of professional moderation and dignity that underpin public confidence in the legal professions. We find that particular two has been established.

192We direct that a hearing be set to deal with penalty and costs.

Footnotes

1. 1Law Society of Upper Canada v Ghaneshirazi, 2017 ONLSTH 208, Law Society of Ontario v Pashangpour, 2023 ONLSTH 146, Law Society of Ontario v Roman, 2023 ONLSTH 68, Law Society of Ontario v Kheir, 2023 ONLSTH 3, Law Society of Ontario v Belovari, 2023 ONLSTH 33, and Law Society of Ontario v Rahimi, 2024 ONLSTH 36.
2. 2Caruso v The Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 6744.
3. 3Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 74.
4. 4Caruso v Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 270 at para 4.
5. 5Caruso v Law Society of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 6049.
6. 6Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 85.
7. 7Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 104.
8. 8Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 128.
9. 9Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 129.
10. 10Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2024 ONLSTH 152.
11. 11Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 26.
12. 12Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 87.
13. 13Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 130.
14. 14Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 154.
15. 15PMC endorsement, July 21, 2025.
16. 16Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2026 ONLSTH 38.
17. 17Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 169.
18. 18R. v Wigglesworth, 1987 CanLII 41.
19. 19Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 154 at paras 89-96.
20. 20Paragraph 18 of affidavit of Cathy Corsetti, dated August 21, 2024.
21. 21Doré at para 61.
22. 22Doré at para 63.
23. 23Doré at paras 65 and 66.
24. 24Doré at para 68.
25. 25Doré at para 70.
26. 26Doré at para 71.
27. 27Rappaport v Law Society of Ontario, 2024 ONLSTA 13, at para 33, affirmed in 2025 ONSC 431 at para 14.