LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Tribunal File No.: 25H-111
BETWEEN:
Loretta Gourlie
Applicant
- and -
Law Society of Ontario
Respondent
Before: Karen Hulan (chair), Paula Callaghan, John F. Spekkens
Heard: March 18, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances:
Jason Bogle, for the applicant
Kristin Bailey, for the respondent
Summary:
GOURLIE – Re-Licensing – Prior Revocation - The Applicant sought re-licensing following previous revocation for admitted professional misconduct of failing to act with integrity and practicing while suspended – The panel was not satisfied that Applicant fully understood the gravity of her misconduct and its impact on the profession and the administration of justice – The panel did not find the Applicant of good character – Application dismissed – Costs submissions to follow.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON LICENSING
1Karen Hulan (for the panel):– The applicant, Loretta Gourlie, was a paralegal whose licence was suspended on January 31, 2017 on an interlocutory basis, and then revoked on January 16, 2018. In November 2024 she applied to be re-licensed.
2The Law Society conducted an investigation and disputes that Ms. Gourlie meets the good character licensing requirement. It referred the application to the Tribunal for a determination of whether the applicant is presently of good character: s 27(4) Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8 (the Act).
3The parties filed an agreed statement of facts and an agreed document book which included character reference letters. Ms. Gourlie testified at the hearing and medical records were filed.
4We conclude that Ms. Gourlie has not established that she is presently of good character as is required under s 27(4) of the Act. These are our reasons.
THE EVIDENCE
Background
5Ms. Gourlie was born August 2, 1965. She started practising as a paralegal in 2002. The Law Society began regulating the paralegal profession in 2007 and Ms. Gourlie was then licensed on March 31, 2008 under the grandparenting provisions of the Law Society’s By-Laws.
6Although Ms. Gourlie was grandparented into the paralegal profession, she was still required to pass paralegal licensing exams. She testified that those exams included testing her knowledge of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct (the Rules). She also swore an oath to uphold ethical standards of the profession.
7Within a year or two of becoming licensed, she applied to become a Commissioner of Oaths, which involved administering oaths and affirmations. She then regularly commissioned documents as part of her practice.
8Ms. Gourlie provided legal services as a sole practitioner, primarily in the area of provincial offences matters. She did not advertise her services, but rather, relied on referrals to build her practice.
Criminal and professional misconduct
9The following chronology highlights the previous professional misconduct as well as Tribunal and criminal proceedings.
10Ms. Gourlie’s licence was suspended on an interlocutory basis at the conclusion of a Tribunal motion hearing on January 31, 2017. It was not in dispute that Ms. Gourlie had completed and commissioned affidavits without knowledge of, or instructions from, the purported affiant. She filed those documents with the Court.1
11More specifically, Ms. Gourlie inserted evidence into signed, but otherwise blank affidavits. She then “commissioned” the affidavit without individuals present, without confirmation of their signature, and without the individuals’ knowledge. She also filed Notices of Appeal unbeknownst to these people. She denied commissioning documents without clients present other than those times which resulted in criminal charges. This is described further below.
12She was aware that she was required to first administer the oath or affirmation and was required to be in the physical presence of the person signing the document (this can now be performed remotely). She was required to witness the person’s signature. She understood that failure to take those steps, and to file a document where she had not taken those steps, were offences. She did not take the required steps. The motion panel was persuaded that her actions warranted an interlocutory suspension of her licence in order to protect the public from harm and to maintain the public’s interest in the administration of justice.
13The Law Society continued to receive complaints from court staff that Ms. Gourlie was providing legal services or was holding herself out as being able to do so after the suspension and until April 2017.
14On April 12, 2017, Ms. Gourlie was charged with two counts of knowingly using a forged document and one count of obstructing justice by filing forged documents (the Orangeville charges).
15On April 20, 2017, the Law Society investigator was at the Newmarket court to speak with staff about the complaints that Ms. Gourlie was holding herself out as a paralegal while suspended when he observed Ms. Gourlie filing documents with the court.
16The investigator then interviewed Ms. Gourlie on June 21, 2017 and she confirmed that since her licence was suspended, she had requested disclosure and completed forms and filed appeal packages for other paralegals. Ms. Gourlie considered these tasks to be secretarial rather than paralegal. Ms. Gourlie agreed in cross-examination in this hearing that the work she performed following her suspension included requesting disclosure on her letterhead, submitting documents to courts as the purported legal representative for people (some of whom she had never met or spoken to), using her Law Society number, and filing appeals without instructions from individuals.
17During the interview, Ms. Gourlie was asked to provide her phone and laptop because the investigator wanted to understand if Ms. Gourlie was involved in a provincial offences ticketing scheme (filing of false material with courts for appeals in Provincial Offences matters). He was concerned that Ms. Gourlie would delete information if she left the meeting with those devices. The request was permitted under the s 49.9(1) of the Act. She was aware of her obligation to co-operate in this way with the Law Society’s investigation but she declined, stating that her criminal law counsel advised her to refuse the request.
18Ms. Gourlie testified in this hearing that she performed work for 11 people after her licence was suspended. Again, she had understood this to be secretarial work but once she was told by the investigator on April 20, 2017 that she was not permitted to perform that work, she stopped. She testified that she has not performed paralegal work since that time, other than dealing with parking tickets for herself and her family. Although there was no evidence to the contrary before us, we note that this is inconsistent with the findings of the panel that revoked her licence. It found that while suspended, Ms. Gourlie portrayed herself as open for business “on numerous occasions, to multiple people at several courthouses, and in various ways.”2
19On September 19, 2017 she pled guilty to two of the Orangeville charges, specifically, two counts of knowingly using a forged document.
20On December 4, 2017, Ms. Gourlie was charged with two counts of knowingly using a forged document, two counts of obstructing justice, and two counts of falsely commissioning a document (“the Brampton charges”).
21Ms. Gourlie’s licence was revoked on January 16, 2018 as a result of admitted professional misconduct as follows: inserting false information in affidavits and court forms and then filing those documents with the court without the knowledge or instructions of individuals named in the documents; knowingly using forged documents; failing to respond promptly and completely to Law Society requests; and continuing to provide legal services after her licence was suspended. She was found to have failed to act with integrity and practising while suspended, in breach of Rules 2.01, 4.01(1), 4.01(5)(c) and 6.01(7).3
22On January 18, 2018, the Law Society provided Ms. Gourlie with the Guidelines for Former Paralegals Whose Licences have been Revoked or who have been Permitted to Surrender their Licences. The guidelines included reference to ensuring that she did not advertise herself as a licensed paralegal. Ms. Gourlie testified at this hearing that she read the guidelines.
23On February 22, 2018, she was sentenced to six months’ incarceration for the Orangeville charges. She was released after approximately two months due to a family member’s poor health. The third charge (obstructing justice by filing forged documents) was withdrawn.
24On April 11, 2019, Ms. Gourlie pled guilty to two of the Brampton charges, specifically, commissioning a forged document and for using a forged document. She received a six-month conditional sentence and 12 months’ probation. Time was served under house arrest.
Subsequent employment
25Ms. Gourlie was permitted to work while under house arrest. She started to work with a lighting and sound company. That employer allowed her to work at the office and at home.
26Ms. Gourlie started to work at a paintball facility once her criminal sentences were complete. She initially managed two facilities and that later expanded to managing other facilities.
27On November 18, 2024, Ms. Gourlie applied to be relicensed as a paralegal. The Good Character Questionnaire asks: “Have you ever been found guilty of, or convicted of, any offence under any statute in Canada or elsewhere? If so, provide details of the offence and any resulting order or reasons for decision.” She wrote:
Knowingly use a fraudulent document 2 in Orangeville and received 6 months in custody fine of $200.00 1 in Brampton and received 1 year house arrest and probation that ended on October 10, 2020.
28There are separate questions about whether the applicant had ever surrendered or withdrawn from licensing as a result of allegations, and whether the applicant has ever been suspended, disqualified, censured or otherwise disciplined by a regulatory body. She provided the same response to both questions: “I have surrendered by (sic) LSO license in January 2018.” At the hearing, her counsel referred to her surrendered licence but when asked, Ms. Gourlie clarified that her licence was revoked, not surrendered.
29She also provided a Personal Statement dated April 16, 2025 in which she stated that in 2017 she was charged and convicted of two counts of knowingly using false documents. She received a six-month jail sentence in Orangeville and one year house arrest in Brampton.
30In June 2025, the Law Society investigator contacted Ms. Gourlie about an online search that revealed three sites listing her as paralegal: LinkedIn, Facebook, and Contact Out.
31She testified that she was not aware that she was listed as paralegal on Facebook. She only used her Facebook account in connection with her employment at the paintball company. She had no explanation why the reference was not removed when she accessed her account in relation to the paintball company other than to say that she either mistakenly thought she removed reference to herself as paralegal, or forgot to do so.
32She corrected the online information while she remained on the phone with the investigator that day. She does not know how her name was used on the other two sites but contacted those companies to request that her name be removed. She denied ever creating a LinkedIn account.
Medical issues
33Ms. Gourlie testified that she started to have serious migraines in 2015 which were eventually somewhat controlled with medication beginning in 2017. Even with medication, she continued to feel fatigued and had decreased focus and concentration. Migraines flared when she used a computer for more than 5-10 minutes. If she leaned forward then she could lose consciousness. She was sensitive to light and noise. She was eventually referred to specialists and was diagnosed with Chiari malformation. Since surgery in October 2025, concentration and noise sensitivity improved.
34Ms. Gourlie worked at the paintball facility beginning October 2019 and during that time she experienced the symptoms described above. Her job duties involved working on computer and she worked in the paint facilities which were loud. Her limitations were accommodated by employer to some extent by adjusting lighting in her office.
The Law Society’s position
35The Law Society submits that Ms. Gourlie has not discharged her onus of proving that she is presently of good character, and more particularly that she has not demonstrated her trustworthiness. Her past professional misconduct was very serious and prolonged. She engaged in criminally dishonest conduct that strikes at the very heart of public confidence in the integrity of the profession. Ms. Gourlie misled the courts, and this undermines the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.
36Although the misconduct occurred some years ago, Ms. Gourlie has not taken ownership for her actions. Despite having the benefit of time to reflect on her past behaviour, show true remorse and engage in meaningful rehabilitation, she has not done so. She admitted the offences but does not fully admit her wrongdoing. She still attempts to minimize her misconduct and in so doing has not shown that she is a different person now than she was in 2016.
37There have been several instances where she has shown a complete disregard of her professional obligations to the courts and her willingness to be governed by the Law Society. For example, she still maintains that she was performing secretarial work while suspended.
38She did not fully co-operate with the Law Society investigation in 2017 when she was asked to provide her cell phone and laptop, claiming first that she did not remember the password and then opening the computer but not providing access to the investigator.
39All of the above is serious misconduct, but it is the Law Society’s position that there is more. It asserts that Ms. Gourlie is not being honest or candid about the extent of her misconduct.
40There is no evidence that Ms. Gourlie’s migraines and associated symptoms impacted her judgment at the various times of professional misconduct (before and after her licence was suspended). In any event, she was able to perform job duties at the paintball facilities at a time when her symptoms were worse than when she committed the offences. The medical evidence is a red herring.
Ms. Gourlie’s position
41Ms. Gourlie states that she is now able to work as a paralegal without risk of re-offending; in short, because she regrets her past behaviour and is no longer burdened by health issues to the same degree as when she engaged in professional misconduct.
42She served a significant penalty for her crimes. She has engaged in a different occupation and has reinvented herself. She is no longer dealing with migraines and associated symptoms, and she has a clearer mind and is now able to focus on her responsibility to the profession. Character reference letters demonstrate community support for re-licensing. She has now demonstrated that she is governable, that she can excel in employment, and her licence should be reinstated with or without restrictions. If her licence were reinstated then she might be able to work with, or for, a particular paralegal elsewhere in Ontario.
43Ms. Gourlie’s counsel submitted that the poor health and death of Ms. Gourlie’s mother in 2019 was also an extenuating circumstance to explain the misconduct. Finally, there is a sharp contrast between the Ms. Gourlie of 2017 and the Ms. Gourlie of today.
ANALYSIS
Good character
44Section 27(2) of the Act provides that in order to be licensed as a paralegal or lawyer in Ontario an applicant must be of good character. The Act does not define good character. Tribunal case law is replete with statements that good character includes an appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, having the moral fibre to do that which is right, and avoid doing that which is wrong despite consequences to oneself. Those who are of good character act with integrity, candour, empathy and honesty.
45The overarching purpose of the good character requirement is to protect the public interest, maintain high ethical standards, maintain public confidence in the ability of the legal professions to self-regulate and to deal fairly with those who apply to become licensed lawyers and paralegals: Law Society of Ontario v AA, 2026 ONCA 47 at paras 77-78.
46The onus rests with the applicant to prove that she is presently of good character.
47Several factors are considered when deciding whether an applicant is presently of good character: the nature and duration of the misconduct; the amount of time that has elapsed since that time and the applicant’s conduct during that period; whether the applicant is remorseful; and whether there have been efforts to rehabilitate and the result of any efforts. These are commonly referred to in Tribunal cases as the Armstrong factors: Armstrong v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 ONLSHP 29.
48Although we consider each of these factors, we must ultimately determine whether Ms. Gourlie is of good character, with a view to the broader objectives of the Act. In considering good character, an applicant’s trustworthiness and maintaining the public’s trust and confidence in the legal professions and their ability to self-regulate are paramount considerations: AA at para 78. With that in mind, we turn to the Armstrong factors.
Factors in this matter
Nature and duration of the misconduct, passage of time and subsequent conduct
49The underlying offences occurred quite some time ago, in 2016. There were repeated instances of knowingly falsifying documents and filing them with the court. Filing false affidavits that are attributed to individuals who are not aware of the documents and then filing the material with the Court is an affront to the administration of justice. The misconduct in 2016 was very serious, but it did not end there. Ms. Gourlie also flouted the suspension order when she continued to work as a paralegal in 2017 and refused to fully co-operate with the subsequent Law Society investigation later that year. Her repeated dishonest behaviour resulted in the loss of her licence.
50Ms. Gourlie’s actions undermined the profession’s reputation and the justice system, but also had serious consequences for at least one individual who had not met Ms. Gourlie and was not aware of her actions. That person’s driver’s licence was suspended and his vehicle was impounded: 2018 ONLSTH 37 at paras 8-9.
51Ten years has passed. That could be a reasonable passage of time provided that there is sufficient evidence of remorse and rehabilitation. But as set out below, we are not persuaded that Ms. Gourlie is truly remorseful for her actions or that she has gained real insight into the gravity of her actions. She has not expressed or demonstrated an understanding of the impact her actions had on individuals involved or to public’s perception of the profession and the administration of justice more generally.
52As of 2025, Ms. Gourlie had still failed to update Facebook and LinkedIn accounts to remove reference to herself as paralegal despite knowing that this was prohibited. This omission demonstrates a lack of diligence to comply with Guidelines for Former Paralegals Whose Licences have been Revoked or who have been Permitted to Surrender their Licences, which she said she read. We are not persuaded that, on its own, this was dishonest behaviour.
Remorse
53Ms. Gourlie expressed regret for the impact her misconduct had on her and her family. She stated that she is now aware that it is a privilege to work as a paralegal. She apologizes for her past misconduct. The apology is a mitigating factor.
54Ms. Gourlie admits the criminal offences but maintains that at the time she was not aware of the wrongdoing until it was brought to her attention. We simply do not accept this statement. Her testimony was inconsistent. She continues to claim that she was unaware of her wrongdoing at the time of the offences and yet acknowledges the steps required for commissioning documents and being aware of her professional responsibilities as a paralegal and as a Commissioner of Oaths. We do not accept that Ms. Gourlie did not understand the inappropriateness and illegality of her actions at the time she committed those offences. An acknowledgement of the offences without a forthright acknowledgement of the wrongdoing demonstrates that Ms. Gourlie has no meaningful insight into the significance of her past behaviour.
55Ms. Gourlie testified to migraines and associated symptoms that were present in 2016 and which progressed during the time her license was suspended, her incarceration, revocation, and employment with two subsequent employers. Medical records were filed to demonstrate the condition. She testified that surgery in late 2025 alleviated her symptoms.
56The introduction of this evidence asks us to infer that migraines previously affected her judgment and caused or contributed to professional misconduct and criminal offences. But Ms. Gourlie did not testify that this was the case nor was there any medical evidence or opinion to support that conclusion. Evidence about migraines, without medical evidence to establish a causal connection between the symptoms and the misconduct, is irrelevant to an assessment of Ms. Gourlie’s good character.
Rehabilitation
57Ms. Gourlie provided six character reference letters as evidence of her changed character. On the whole, the letters describe Ms. Gourlie as a team player with a strong work ethic, positive attitude, and commitment to delivering outstanding customer service. She is said to be reliable and self-motivated. A longtime friend described her as honest, trustworthy, dependable, responsible and courteous. Another describes her as a good-natured person, a loyal friend and employee; and another describes her as kind, empathetic and respectful.
58We were told by Ms. Gourlie’s counsel that only two of the references were aware that Ms. Gourlie’s license was previously revoked. That detracts from the weight we are prepared to extend to the other references. We would afford more weight to a reference letter proffered in a good character hearing where the writer is aware of the underlying good character issues. This is particularly so in a case such as this where the witness speaks to the applicant’s honesty and trustworthiness and where the applicant’s licence was previously revoked for dishonest behaviour.
59The letters are indications of the success that Ms. Gourlie has enjoyed in her personal life and new employment and we regard those which were authored by two people aware of the underlying misconduct, as some indication of rehabilitation.
60We also consider steps that Ms. Gourlie has taken to keep apprised of the law related to her intended area of paralegal practice.
61A paralegal shall perform any services undertaken on a client's behalf to the standard of a competent paralegal. (Rule 3.01(1)) It is therefore important to understand whether Ms. Gourlie has remained current in the areas in which she intends to practice, namely, provincial offences: Nijhawan v Law Society of Ontario, 2024 ONLSTH 134 at paras 61-64.
62Ms. Gourlie testified that she has tried to stay current with topics relevant to paralegal practice. She has taken six or seven courses which the Law Society offers free of charge. Little description was provided of the courses and no documents were provided as evidence to demonstrate that these courses were sufficient to establish that she is competent to return to paralegal practice.
63In April 2025 she completed a six-week certificate program at George Brown College about paralegals’ ethics and responsibilities. Completion of an ethics and responsibilities course is a positive factor. Ms. Gourlie did not provide any evidence (testimony or documentary) of the substance of that program, her participation or results. In circumstances where a license has been found guilty of criminal offenses implicating trustworthiness, and of dishonest professional misconduct, supporting documentation to corroborate testimony would be more persuasive evidence of rehabilitative efforts.
Ms. Gourlie’s position
64Ms. Gourlie’s counsel repeatedly urged us to approach our decision-making “wholistically”. We have done so, applying the Armstrong factors as a means of assessing whether Ms. Gourlie currently meets the good character requirement. Counsel submitted that there were extenuating circumstances that might explain in whole or in part Ms. Gourlie’s previous misconduct: her naiveté in dealing with others in provincial offences fraud, the loss of her mother in 2019, and migraines and associated symptoms.
65Those submissions were not supported by evidence.
66A good character hearing is an opportunity for applicants to introduce evidence to demonstrate that they reflected and developed insight into their past wrongdoing. Ms. Gourlie did not present sufficient evidence of this. Ms. Gourlie did not testify to being naïve. In fact, she testified to just the opposite: she knew that she was breaching her professional obligations, and that she was committing an offence, when she falsified documents. We are sympathetic to the loss of her mother and her health issues she experienced in recent years but they do not explain the earlier underlying misconduct.
CONCLUSION
67Ms. Gourlie invites us to reinstate her licence with or without terms. We do neither.
68Ms. Gourlie engaged in very serious professional misconduct and criminal offences. The misconduct occurred between eight to ten years ago and she has experienced serious consequences for her actions including incarceration and the loss of her paralegal licence. However, in order to be successful in this application, Ms. Gourlie needed to demonstrate that she fully understands the gravity of her misconduct and its impact on the individuals involved, as well as the public’s perception of the paralegal profession and the justice system. She has not provided that evidence. We conclude that Ms. Gourlie does not presently meet the good character requirement. On that basis alone, her licence cannot be reinstated at this time.
69We agree with the Law Society’s submission that this good character matter is different in at least one important way compared to many which the Tribunal decides.4 Ms. Gourlie is not seeking licensing for the first time. She is not an applicant who committed past crimes and now seeks admission to the profession. She was licensed and had already taken an oath to uphold her responsibilities to the profession. She did not honour that oath. We agree with the panel in Nijhawan when it stated at para 43 that, “essential to a successful application for relicensing is evidence of rehabilitation and a change of character. If an individual’s licence has been revoked, regaining the licence will be more difficult than if the misconduct had occurred under different circumstances.” As in Nijhawan, Ms. Gourlie previously made a commitment to “abide by the ethical standards of the profession.” While the burden of proof remains that of a balance of probabilities, someone who seeks relicensing has a greater challenge because they previously breached their ethical duties as a licensee: Nijhawan, para 44. To use the language of AA, the hole is deeper when the misconduct was contrary to professional obligations as a licensee.
70Even if we were satisfied that the good character requirement is met, there was no evidence that Ms. Gourlie had taken appropriate or sufficient steps to make supervision arrangements. She testified that if her licence were reinstated then she might be able to work with or for a particular paralegal elsewhere in Ontario, but she was not able to provide details about whether she would assume an employee status, would work in association with that individual, or essentially work as a sole practitioner. There was no evidence about whether work would be provided to her or if she would have to generate her own business. There was no clear indication that the proposed supervisory paralegal agreed to employ her or supervise her. We know nothing of that person’s regulatory history or suitability for that role. We address this issue only because it was raised by her counsel. Even if the above evidence had been made available, it would not have altered our decision. To suggest that she could be relicensed with supervision would be inconsistent with our conclusion that she is currently of good character.
COSTS
71If the Law Society seeks costs, then it is to serve and file brief written submissions by 14 days from the date of this order. Ms. Gourlie’s response will be served and filed by 28 days from the date of this order.
Footnotes
- Law Society of Upper Canada v Gourlie, 2017 ONLSTH 74.
- Law Society of Upper Canada v Gourlie, 2018 ONLSTH 37 at para 26.
- 2018 ONLSTH 37 at para 1.
- Examples cited by the Law Society: Gaya v Law Society of Ontario, 2022 ONLSTH 53, and Yeager v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONLSTH 42.