LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: April 27, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 25H-125
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario Applicant
- and -
Kenneth Ernest Godfrey Heath Respondent
Before: Natalia Rodriguez (chair), Paula Callaghan, Suzanne Clément Heard: January 29, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances: Tomilayo Ojuile, for the applicant Mitchell Worsoff, for the respondent
Summary: HEATH – Professional Misconduct - Agreed Statement of Facts - The Law Society alleged that the Paralegal failed to act with honour and integrity before the Court – The parties provided an agreed statements of facts and the panel found that there was undisputed evidence to substantiate the allegations – The panel ordered a three-month suspension and costs of $4,000.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1Natalia Rodriguez and Paula Callaghan (for the panel):– The Law Society brought an application alleging that Kenneth Ernest Godfrey Heath (the Paralegal) engaged in professional misconduct by:
- fabricating Client A’s signature on an affidavit in support of a motion before the court;
- improperly commissioning an affidavit in Client A’s absence; and
- misleading the court and opposing counsel when he filed and relied on the affidavit before the court.
2We were provided with an agreed statement of facts (ASF), a supporting document book, and several character references on behalf of the Paralegal. The Paralegal admitted to the substance of the allegations.
3Based on the evidence outlined in the ASF and document book, as well as the Paralegal’s admissions, we found the undisputed evidence substantiated the allegations contained in the notice of application and we made a finding of misconduct as alleged.
4The Paralegal testified in the penalty phase and the parties made submissions on penalty and costs. The Law Society sought a six-month suspension while the Paralegal argued that a reprimand was appropriate. For the reasons that follow, we have determined that the appropriate penalty is a three-month suspension.
5The Law Society seeks $6,429 in costs payable immediately. The Paralegal argues that costs should be minimal because he co-operated with the Law Society and admitted to the misconduct.
6In all the circumstances, we have determined that $4,000 in costs is appropriate and we award that amount to the Law Society, payable within six months.
FACTS
7The Paralegal was licensed to provide legal services in 2008. He provides legal services as a sole practitioner and has no prior discipline history.
8On August 15, 2023, Client A attended the Provincial Offences Court in Scarborough, seeking an extension of time to pay a fine of $6,495 imposed following a conviction for driving without insurance.
9The Paralegal approached Client A at the courthouse and inquired whether she was aware of a process that could potentially reduce her fine. Client A indicated that she was not. The Paralegal offered to assist her and invited her to attend his office.
10Approximately one week later, Client A attended the Paralegal’s office for a meeting.
11During the meeting, the Paralegal discussed a proposed motion and took notes. Client A explained her financial hardship, and the Paralegal offered to represent her on a pro bono basis.
12The Paralegal prepared an affidavit based on his notes from the meeting along with other materials in support of a motion to extend the time to file an appeal under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act (the Motion).
13According to the Paralegal, while at the appeal court administration office, preparing to file the documents, he realized that he had forgotten to obtain Client A’s signature on the affidavit.
14The Paralegal then affixed a signature purporting to be Client A’s on the affidavit and signed the jurat in her absence, without administering the required oath or declaration. The Paralegal did not review the contents of the affidavit with Client A or provide her an opportunity to verify its accuracy prior to filing it with the Ontario Court of Justice.
15According to the Paralegal, he normally sends the draft affidavit to his client to review but, in this case, he simply forgot to have Client A review and sign the document.
16The Motion was heard on October 26, 2023, before Justice Silverstein of the Ontario Court of Justice. The Paralegal relied on the affidavit during the hearing. The Crown sought to cross-examine Client A on the affidavit and asked, “Is that your signature at the bottom of the affidavit?" Client A responded, “That is not my signature.”
17The Paralegal admitted to Justice Silverstein that Client A had not seen the affidavit prior to its filing. He acknowledged that he had signed the affidavit on her behalf and commissioned it in her absence.
18During the proceeding it became clear that one fact in the affidavit was incorrect; however, during Client A’s cross-examination, she admitted to giving the Paralegal incorrect information during their meeting. The Paralegal told Justice Silverstein that he believed the information in the affidavit was correct when he filed it, and that all the information in the affidavit came from Client A.
19On January 23, 2024, the Law Society received a letter from Associate Chief Justice Aston Hall raising concerns about the Paralegal’s conduct during his appearance before Justice Silverstein, as well as the accompanying transcript of the proceedings.
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
20The Paralegal fabricated Client A’s signature on the affidavit, and improperly commissioned the affidavit, in contravention of what is required by the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act, RSO 1990, c C.17.
21The Paralegal further misled the court and opposing counsel when he filed and relied on the affidavit before the court.
22As admitted by the Paralegal, he failed to act with integrity and honesty, which undermines the public’s confidence in the trustworthiness of the professions. As stated in Law Society of Ontario v Manilla, 2021 ONLSTA 25 at para 59, “[F]ailures of integrity are important. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Law Society of Upper Canada v Abbott, 2017 ONCA 525] at para. 78, public confidence in the legal professions depends on confidence in the integrity of lawyers and paralegals.”1
23The panel in Law Society of Upper Canada v Spiegel, 2018 ONLSTH 57, further emphasized the importance of honesty and the impact of a licensee knowingly breaching their obligations:
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.2
24If it was the case that he forgot to commission the affidavit prior to filing, the Paralegal had other options: he could have filed the affidavit unsworn or he could have simply relied on Client A’s oral evidence. He also could have commissioned the affidavit remotely. The Paralegal did not explore these options.
25Licensees have non-negotiable duties as officers of the court; candor and honesty being two of them. In this case, the Paralegal knowingly misled the court. But for the diligence of opposing counsel during cross-examination, he would have not been found out.
26It is critical that licensees send draft affidavits to affiants ahead of time, and that they administer the oath so that affiants understand the serious consequences of lying or misleading the court. In this case, the Paralegal was remiss in that gatekeeping role, which undermines the administration of justice and erodes public confidence in the legal professions.
27We find professional misconduct as alleged.
PENALTY
Positions of the parties
Law Society
28The Law Society seeks an immediate six-month suspension of the Paralegal’s licence. It submits such a penalty is warranted for both specific and general deterrence and necessary to maintain the public confidence in the legal professions.
29The Law Society submits that the misconduct in this case falls within the mid to higher end of the spectrum, as the Paralegal breached his duty as an officer of the court by knowingly signing the jurat. His conduct put the administration of justice and the reputation of the legal professions at risk.
30The Tribunal’s jurisprudence has consistently established the overriding principle in determining penalty is the preservation of public confidence in the legal professions and the administration of justice. The misconduct in this case is serious and impugns the collective honesty and integrity of the legal professions.
31The Law Society relies on Law Society of Ontario v Spiegel, 2018 ONLSTH 57, in which revocation was ordered, and Law Society of Ontario v Twizell, 2024 ONLSTH 38, in which a four-month suspension was ordered.
32With respect to the penalty factors outlined in Law Society of Upper Canada v Aguirre, 2007 ONLSHP 46, the Law Society submits that, while the Paralegal has no discipline history, has accepted responsibility for the misconduct and has expressed remorse, the impact of his misconduct is profound. The Law Society argues that while the misconduct appears to have been an isolated event, there is no evidence of any extraneous circumstances and no evidence as to whether the misconduct is out of character or likely to recur.
33The Law Society urges us to put limited weight on the nine character reference letters filed by the Paralegal because they do not show the misconduct will not recur and they attempt to minimize the seriousness of the misconduct. The Law Society submits that the letters speak to the Paralegal’s pro bono practice as a mitigating factor and, while pro bono work is commendable, it does not excuse the misconduct or relieve the Paralegal of his professional duties.
The Paralegal
34The Paralegal testified at the penalty phase. He admits the misconduct and states that he took responsibility from the outset. He did not try to skirt the issue. He apologized to the court and to the profession.
35The Paralegal testified that he was not trying to mislead anyone and that the misconduct was a product of a “breakdown” in his process. He stated that any period of suspension would be devastating to him, as he is the main supporter of his family.
36Through his counsel, the Paralegal submits that a reprimand is the appropriate penalty in this case. He points to para 57 of Manilla, above: “While all dishonesty is important, some dishonesty is more blameworthy than other dishonesty.”
37In this case, the Paralegal submits there was no harm done and no negative impact on Client A. He submits there was no impact at all, beyond the judge being displeased with a member of the Law Society. The Paralegal believed what Client A was telling him was true. He derived no personal benefit from tendering this affidavit.
38The Paralegal submits that he has no discipline history, has accepted full responsibility for the misconduct, and has expressed remorse. According to his counsel, the Paralegal is a man of integrity who made an error in judgement.
39The Paralegal relies on the following “false documents” cases:
Law Society of Upper Canada v Archambault, 2017 ONLSTH 86: the licensee received a two-month suspension.
Law Society of Upper Canada v Knowles, 2008 ONLSAP 3: the licensee received a three-month suspension from a panel of the Hearing Division. A panel of the Appeal Division replaced that with a one-month suspension.
Law Society of Ontario v Mobberley, 2024 ONLSTH 15: the licensee received a one-month suspension.
Law Society of Ontario v Sharma, 2025 ONLSTH 150: the licensee received a one-month suspension.
40The Paralegal urges us to consider the nine character reference letters submitted on his behalf. In his submission, they are evidence that his misconduct is out of character and unlikely to recur.
Analysis
41“False documents” cases such as this one vary in seriousness and in penalty. False representation alone covers a broad spectrum of misconduct. Therefore we must carefully consider the surrounding circumstances to determine the severity of the misconduct in this case, including whether the contents of the document were known to be false.
42While serious, the nature of the misconduct is not of the most serious kind. The Paralegal did not include information in the affidavit that he knew to be false. There is no evidence he intended to mislead the Court with respect to the substance of the affidavit. He also did not derive any personal benefit from the filing of the affidavit. Indeed, he was working for Client A on a pro bono basis. All the evidence indicates he filed the misleading affidavit only for Client A’s benefit.
43That said, the Paralegal knew that filing an affidavit that had not been reviewed by his client and that he had not properly commissioned was a breach of his professional obligations. He forged Client A’s signature. He had options that he did not consider before doing so. While he testified that he did not intend to mislead anyone, that is exactly what he did.
44We assess the nature of the misconduct to be at the mid-point of the “false documents” gravity spectrum.
45There are mitigating factors in this case: the Paralegal has no discipline history, he co-operated with the Law Society, he admitted to the misconduct, and has shown remorse.
46We put some weight on the nine reference letters filed on his behalf. However, the weight is limited as these individuals did not testify. In some cases, we do not know how long they have known the Paralegal or in what capacity, although most appear to be former clients. It is also not clear to what extent they are aware of the details of the allegations against the Paralegal. The Law Society chose not to request any of them to appear at the hearing for cross-examination.
47By and large, the letters emphasize the Paralegal’s pro bono practice, his commitment to helping others, and his faith. We consider these letters as some evidence that the misconduct is out of character and unlikely to recur.
48We agree with the Law Society that any breaches of integrity by a licensee are serious and are aggravating to penalty. Therefore, despite some significant mitigating factors, we were unable to accept that a reprimand is appropriate; we find a suspension must be ordered. In any event, the Paralegal did not take us to any “false documents” cases in which a reprimand was assessed as the appropriate penalty.
49Despite there being no negative impact to Client A in this case, we do not agree that the misconduct had no impact. The impact is to the administration of justice and to the public’s confidence in the legal professions. For the purpose of general deterrence, it is important that licensees are aware that this type of misconduct will be dealt with seriously.
50With respect to the appropriate range of penalties in “false documents” cases, the panel in Manilla, above, stated:
In Mackenzie and Clarke, hearing panels indicated that the applicable penalty range included “short to moderate suspensions” and suggested that a suspension of up to six months was in the range.
In any event, we conclude that the penalty range reflected in Iglar and Knowles and the cases that followed them has changed such that a three-month suspension should now be seen to be clearly in the range for the creation, service and submission of affidavits that are substantively accurate but bear forged signatures and false jurats.3
51We conclude that, in this case, the appropriate penalty range is three to six months. Given the mitigating factors, such as a lack of prior disciplinary record, the Paralegal’s cooperation with the Law Society, and his expressions of remorse, we assess that the appropriate penalty is at the lower end of this range. We therefore order a three-month suspension.
COSTS
52The Law Society submitted a bill of costs for $6,429, including $2,204 in investigation costs. It seeks these costs payable immediately. It submits these are within the range of costs ordered in similar cases. It points to Law Society of Ontario v Velalagan, 2024 ONLSTH 6, in which $10,000 in costs was ordered, and Law Society of Ontario v Dolgonos, 2019 ONLSTH 4, in which $2,500 in costs was ordered.
53The Paralegal argues that costs should be reduced to reflect the fact that he co‑operated fully and immediately. While the ASF did have to be prepared, it was focused as a result of the Paralegal’s co-operation.
54We have reviewed and rely on the principles set out in Law Society of Ontario v Perrelli, 2018 ONLSTH 80. The costs awards in Tribunal matters are varied, even between similar cases. Some of the factors to consider when determining costs include the following:
a. the amount involved in the proceeding; b. the complexity of the proceeding; c. the importance of the issues; d. the duration of the hearing; e. the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding; f. whether any step in the proceeding was improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or taken through mistake or excessive caution; g. the ability of the party to pay a costs award; h. reasonable expectations of the parties; i. the costs awarded in other cases; j. the principle of proportionality; and k. the circumstances of the proceeding.
55In our view, the majority of these factors favour a lower cost award. The duration of the hearing was one day. The Paralegal admitted to the misconduct which resulted in a three-page ASF. The issues in dispute were limited to the appropriate penalty and costs.
56In all of the circumstances, we consider the appropriate costs award to be $4,000, payable within six months.
ORDER
57We therefore order:
- The respondent’s licence to practise law is suspended for three months, starting on June 1, 2026.
- The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Paralegals Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Provide Legal Services while suspended pursuant to this order.
- The respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $4,000 by October 27, 2026, following which interest shall accrue on any unpaid balance at a rate of 4% per year.