LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Date: May 21, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 25H-049

BETWEEN:

Law Society of Ontario

Applicant

• and -

Antonio Caruso

Respondent

Before: Lubomir Poliacik

Heard: March 4, 2026, by videoconference

Appearances:

Alex Kens, for the applicant

Respondent, self-represented

Summary:

CARUSO – Summonses to Witness – The Paralegal sought summonses for ten proposed witnesses – The panel found that the witnesses were not in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the allegations – Leave to issue the summonses was denied and the summonses were quashed.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON SUMMARY MOTION

1Lubomir Poliacik:– Mr. Caruso proposed to summons ten witnesses, in addition to the two witnesses proposed by the Law Society, to attend the hearing on the merits in relation to the Law Society’s notice of application in this proceeding. During the Proceeding Management Conference (PMC) held on February 27, 2026, the parties agreed that the issue of the ten summonses would be addressed summarily at the next PMC on March 4, 2026.

2Upon reading the written submissions and hearing the parties’ oral submissions on March 4, 2026, I found that the 10 witnesses proposed by Mr. Caruso are not in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the hearing of this conduct application. The leave to issue those summonses was denied and the summonses were quashed. These are the reasons for that decision.

THE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS

3Prior to this summary motion, various disputes between the parties regarding preliminary issues have been heard and decided in 6 motions, including an abuse of process motion and a disclosure motion, both brought by Mr. Caruso.

4The proposed summonses that are the subject of this motion are sought by Mr. Caruso for the merits hearing of this application. The allegations of misconduct in the notice of application (NOA) are brief:

1. Between approximately February of 2021 and November of 2024, the respondent failed to communicate with requisite civility, respectfulness, and professionalism in his communications with and social media posts in relation to employees and members of Tribunals Ontario, contrary to his professional obligation as an officer of the court and contrary to Rules 2.01, 3.02(9), 4.01, 6.01, and 7.01 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

2. Between approximately July and October of 2024, the respondent failed to communicate with requisite civility, respectfulness, and professionalism in his communications with employees of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, contrary to his professional obligation as an officer of the court and contrary to Rules 2.01, 3.02(9), 4.01, 6.01, and 7.01 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

5The basic applicable principles of the test to quash summonses to examine witnesses, applied in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, was summarized by Justice Perell in Airport Taxicab (Pearson Airport) Association v City of Toronto¹ as follows:

26… the party seeking to conduct the examination must show on a reasonable evidentiary basis that the examination would be conducted on an issue relevant to the application and that the proposed witness is in a position to offer relevant evidence: [citations omitted].

27An opposing party may move to quash a summons to examine a witness on the grounds that the evidence sought is not relevant to the application or that the examination or the underlying proceeding would amount to an abuse of process: [citations omitted].

6The issue to be determined by the merits panel is whether Mr. Caruso engaged in professional misconduct – “failed to communicate with requisite civility, respectfulness, and professionalism” – as alleged in the NOA.

7The question before me in this motion is whether the ten witnesses Mr. Caruso proposes to summons to the merits hearing are in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the determination of that issue; that is, whether Mr. Caruso engaged in professional misconduct in that he was uncivil in his emails and social media posts. The onus to establish the relevance of the proposed testimony is on Mr. Caruso.

8After reviewing each of the proposed summonses and the parties’ submissions, I conclude that none of the proposed witnesses is in a position to offer relevant evidence as to whether Mr. Caruso’s communications were uncivil and in breach of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

Sharon Greene, former intake and resolution counsel

9Mr. Caruso seeks to summons Sharon Greene, former intake and resolution counsel (who is no longer employed by the Law Society). He wants her to give evidence and produce documents regarding intake history and steps in four complaints unrelated to the current proceeding: two complaints made by other licensees against Mr. Caruso, and two complaints made by Mr. Caruso against the same licensees.

10I repeat the previous finding in my decision pertaining to Mr. Caruso’s disclosure motion in this matter, “[t]he Law Society’s files regarding Mr. Caruso’s complaints about other licensees have no discernable relevance to the allegations contained in the notice of application in this conduct proceeding or the issues in the motion to dismiss.”²

Leon Presner, former representative of Mr. Caruso

11Mr. Caruso seeks to summons Leon Presner, a paralegal who represented him in another Law Society Tribunal proceeding. Mr. Caruso proposes to summons Mr. Presner to give evidence regarding unspecified communications between him and the Law Society’s investigator, Tom Dingwall, and to testify about when Mr. Dingwall retained his firm and whether the retainer was paid in full.

12There is nothing in the evidence sought from Mr. Presner that relates to the issues that will be before the merits panel in this proceeding.

Tom Dingwall, the Law Society’s investigator

13Mr. Caruso proposes to examine the Law Society’s investigator, Tom Dingwall, about the investigative steps taken and states that such evidence is “material to procedural fairness and the reliability of the investigative record.” This is an attempt to relitigate the issues already decided in Mr. Caruso’s abuse of process and disclosure motions. Some of the documentation sought through the summons is already in his possession (such as emails from the Law Society to Mr. Caruso), while other documents are in possession of third parties (such as correspondence between the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and the Ontario Ombudsman).

14The Law Society advised that the relevant fruits of its investigation will be tendered at the merits hearing through Deanne O’Brien, Team Manager, Investigation Services, because Mr. Dingwall is no longer employed by the Law Society. At the relevant time, Ms. O’Brien was Mr. Dingwall’s supervisor and has direct knowledge of the investigative process in this matter. Mr. Caruso will have a full opportunity to cross-examine Ms. O’Brien on her evidence during the merits hearing.

15Mr. Dingwall’s testimony could not assist the merits hearing panel’s determination of the issue whether Mr. Caruso’s emails and his social media posts were uncivil or unprofessional.

Unidentified Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) staff members

16In his draft summonses to two unidentified LTB staff members, Mr. Caruso mischaracterizes the allegations contained in the NOA by stating that “The allegations in this proceeding include assertions that the Respondent harassed LTB staff.” He proposes to call these individuals to testify regarding “the factual basis of the alleged harassment.”

17The allegation in particular no. 1 of the NOA is that Mr. Caruso failed to communicate with civility and professionalism, not that he harassed LTB employees. The communications relied on by the Law Society are limited to emails. It will be for the merits panel to determine whether Mr. Caruso’s emails were uncivil.

18The Law Society has provided Mr. Caruso with the affidavit of Kevin de Haan, an LTB employee, on which it intends to rely with respect to the allegations in particular no. 1 of the NOA. Mr. de Haan’s affidavit evidence and testimony, if required, should be sufficient to address the issues raised by Mr. Caruso in his proposed summonses to the LTB staff.

Eli Fellman, senior legal counsel at Tribunals Ontario

19Mr. Caruso proposes to summons Eli Fellman, senior counsel at Tribunals Ontario, to authenticate unspecified communications between them and to question him in relation to the complaint process. Mr. Fellman is the person who authored the complaint against Mr. Caruso that resulted in particular no. 1 of the NOA.

20Mr. Caruso had previously attempted to summons Mr. Fellman as a witness for the hearing of his abuse of process motion. In my decision quashing that summons, I found that the complainant’s motivations were irrelevant, that Mr. Caruso was attempting to circumvent the requirement to bring a proper third‑party disclosure motion, that he was seeking information that was potentially confidential and subject to solicitor‑client privilege, and that Mr. Fellman was not in a position to provide evidence of any possible relevance.³

21Through the draft summons to Mr. Fellman, Mr. Caruso is seeking to re-litigate the issues as to the origin of the complaint already raised by him in his abuse of process motion, which has been decided and dismissed by the Tribunal.⁴

22My findings as to the relevance and admissibility of Mr. Fellman’s testimony to the abuse of process motion are equally applicable, if not more so, to their relevance to the issues in the merits hearing.

Sean Weir, Executive Chair of Tribunals Ontario

23Mr. Caruso seeks to summons the Executive Chair of Tribunals Ontario to testify about “administrative and provenance issues” in relation to the complaint, asserting that such evidence is “directly relevant to the credibility and integrity of the complaint process.”

24As with Mr. Fellman, Mr. Caruso had previously attempted to summons Mr. Weir as a witness for the hearing of his abuse of process motion. In my decision quashing that summons, I found that the documents sought were irrelevant, likely confidential or subject to solicitor‑client privilege, that Mr. Caruso was attempting to avoid bringing a proper third‑party disclosure motion, and that Mr. Weir could not offer any relevant evidence.⁵ Those findings regarding the relevance of Mr. Weir’s testimony are equally applicable to the merits hearing.

Summons to Harry Gousopolos, Executive Director of Tribunals Ontario

25Mr. Caruso seeks to summons the Executive Director of Tribunals Ontario to explain an investigation report concerning Mr. Fellman and “to confirm what internal steps were taken in response to complaints relevant to this proceeding.”

26Mr. Caruso has not indicated how Mr. Gousopolos’ testimony could possibly assist the merits hearing panel’s determination of the issue whether Mr. Caruso’s communications with the LTB and his social media posts were uncivil or unprofessional.

Eric Barniske, employee of Ontario Superior Court of Justice

27The communications on which particular no. 2 of the NOA is based are emails sent by Mr. Caruso to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) in the course of his anti-SLAPP application in Caruso v Law Society of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 6049. Mr. Caruso copied the Law Society counsel in that application, Ms. Kala, on those emails.

28Mr. Caruso has not demonstrated how any evidence from Mr. Barniske would assist the merits hearing panel in determining whether Mr. Caruso’s emails to the court were uncivil or unprofessional.

Jasmeet Kala, LSO discipline counsel

29As stated above, Ms. Kala was assigned carriage of Mr. Caruso’s SCJ matter and was copied on Mr. Caruso’s emails with SCJ. She is in a solicitor-client relationship with the Law Society, and any evidence she could provide may be protected by solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege.

30In his draft summons Mr. Caruso seeks to compel Ms. Kala to attend the hearing so he may “test the reliability and context” of the relevant information in her possession through cross-examination, asserting that this is necessary “to ensure evidentiary integrity and procedural fairness.”

31The Law Society submits that Ms. Kala cannot provide any additional information in relation to the emails that Mr. Caruso authored and already possesses and that to the extent Mr. Caruso seeks information about her communications with other Law Society employees, any such information would be protected by solicitor‑client privilege and is not disclosable. The Law Society confirms that no further relevant disclosure exists that is not confidential or privileged.

32Mr. Caruso has not shown that Ms. Kala is in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the determination of the issues before the merits panel.

CONCLUSION

33None of the evidence sought in the summonses have any connection to the sole issue before the merits panel – whether Mr. Caruso engaged in professional misconduct in his own communications; that is, whether his emails and social media posts were uncivil or unprofessional. He has not shown that any of the proposed witnesses are in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence on the determination of that issue. On this basis alone leave to issue the proposed summonses must be refused and the summonses quashed.

34To the extent that the summonses attempt to relitigate issues decided in previous interlocutory motions and compel privileged information, they constitute an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.

35For these reasons leave to issue the proposed summonses to the ten witnesses is refused and the summonses are quashed.

36If the Law Society seeks its costs of this motion, it will deliver its costs submissions, not to exceed 10 pages (not including the bill of costs), by June 5, 2026. Mr. Caruso will deliver his costs submissions by June 22, 2026, also not to exceed 10 pages.

Footnotes

1. 12009 CanLII 25973 (ON SC), at para 27.
2. 2Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2026 ONLSTH 40 at para 25.
3. 3Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2026 ONLSTH 39 at paras 75-86.
4. 4Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2025 ONLSTH 174 at paras 30-32.
5. 5Law Society of Ontario v Caruso, 2026 ONLSTH 39 at paras 63-74.