Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-09-22 Docket: M48269 (M47242) Before: Brown J.A. (In Chambers)

Between

Matthew Riddell Responding Party/Moving Party

and

The Law Society of Upper Canada Responding Party/Respondent

Counsel

Lisa Mallia, for the moving party, The Law Society Tribunal

Matthew Riddell, for the responding party, acting in person

Suzanne Jarvie, for the responding party, The Law Society of Upper Canada

Heard: September 20, 2017

Endorsement

[1] The Law Society Hearing Panel and the Law Society Appeal Panel ordered costs against the applicant, Matthew Riddell, following his abandonment of an application for a paralegal licence. Mr. Riddell applied before the Divisional Court for judicial review of the Appeal Panel's decision. The Divisional Court dismissed his application: Riddell v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONSC 6631. Mr. Riddell has brought a motion for leave to appeal to this court.

[2] In April 2017, the Law Society Tribunal ("Tribunal") wrote the Deputy Registrar of this court advising that Mr. Riddell had not served his motion for leave to appeal on it. The Tribunal took the position that since it had exercised its right under s. 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1 to participate in the judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court, it was entitled to participate as of right as a party in the appeal proceedings before this court. Mr. Riddell had taken the position that the Rules of Civil Procedure did not require him to serve his leave motion materials on the Tribunal. The Tribunal asked the Deputy Registrar how to proceed. In July 2017, the Deputy Registrar advised the Tribunal to bring a motion for directions.

[3] The Tribunal filed its motion for directions on September 6, 2017, which came before me. I posed several questions to Tribunal counsel:

(i) Which statutory provision or rule of civil procedure entitled the Tribunal to automatic party status on an appeal before this court?

(ii) How was automatic party status for a tribunal conducting adversarial hearings, such as those conducted by the Tribunal, consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 147?

(iii) Did the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 provide for automatic participation rights for the Tribunal on statutory appeals from the Appeal Panel? If it did not, what effect did that have on the Tribunal's position that it enjoyed automatic party rights on an appeal of a Divisional Court judicial review decision to this court?

(iv) As a practical matter, what assistance could the Tribunal provide on an appeal in this case given it did not file materials or make submissions before the Divisional Court?

[4] Tribunal counsel asked for an adjournment to another day to respond to these questions.

[5] I demurred.

[6] Mr. Riddell's leave motion was filed on December 1, 2016. It needs to be dealt with on its merits. At the same time, I am alive to the limits of a single Chambers judge deciding questions such as these on an incomplete record.

[7] This is a motion for directions. Accordingly, I direct that Mr. Riddell's motion for leave to appeal proceed without the participation of the Tribunal. Given the Tribunal's lack of substantive participation before the Divisional Court and the lengthy discussion of the jurisdiction to award costs issue in the reasons of the Hearing Panel and the Appeal Panel, I strongly doubt the Tribunal can assist this court on the leave motion. No doubt the responding party, the Law Society of Upper Canada, will make vigorous submissions on the issue.

[8] In the event leave to appeal is granted, these directions do not foreclose the Tribunal from seeking further directions from this court, including through a motion for leave to intervene.

[9] The parties agree there shall be no costs of this motion.

"David Brown J.A."