Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-04-30
Docket: COA-24-CV-1214
Coram: Paul Rouleau, K. van Rensburg, S. Gomery JJ.A.

Between:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant (Appellant)

and

Stephanie Colangelo
Respondent (Respondent)

Appearances:
Amanda M. Pinto and Andrea Luey, for the appellant
James Melnick, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: April 28, 2025

On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Regional Senior Justice Mark L. Edwards, Justices Harriet E. Sachs and Breese Davies), dated May 31, 2024.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant, Law Society of Ontario, essentially advances three grounds of appeal.

[2] First, the appellant contends that the tribunals below were required to consider not only the respondent’s criminal offence but her professional misconduct as a teacher. It argues that their failure to do so demonstrates a lack of consideration for the public interest, and that this is an error meriting this court’s intervention.

[3] We do not agree. The tribunals repeatedly referenced the revocation of the respondent’s teacher’s license. The Hearing Division further noted that the respondent committed a breach of trust, in addition to a criminal offence, and that she acknowledged that her conduct had harmed the teaching profession. In its reasons, the Appeal Division adverted to the appellant’s argument that not enough time had passed since the respondent’s “misconduct, conviction and sentence, and since she was disciplined by another regulator”. It found no error in the Hearing Division’s determination that sufficient time had passed since the respondent’s misconduct and the revocation of her teaching certificate, during which time the respondent had been rehabilitated.

[4] Second, the appellant argues that the tribunals erred in failing to refer to the comments on the respondent’s character in the decision revoking her teaching license and to reconcile those comments with the determination that the respondent met the criteria for licensure as a paralegal. The tribunals’ reasons show that they were keenly aware of the record. The question before them was whether the respondent had proved that she was of good character at the time her application for licensure as a paralegal was assessed. This question was fully addressed in their reasons after referring to and applying the relevant criteria.

[5] Third, the appellant criticizes the weight that the tribunals gave to various factors relevant to good character; in particular, they understated the gravity of the respondent’s criminal offence. We disagree. Read as a whole, the tribunals’ reasons show that they fully appreciated the gravity of the respondent’s misconduct and their gatekeeper role. There is no indication that the tribunals misapprehended the relevant principles or applied the wrong criteria. It is not this court’s role to reweigh the evidence and substitute its own decision.

[6] As the Hearing Division found, there is no absolute timeline for rehabilitation. Each case must proceed on its own facts. The appellant has not established that the tribunals below committed any reversible error justifying this court’s intervention.

[7] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed, with agreed-upon costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

Paul Rouleau J.A.
K. van Rensburg J.A.
S. Gomery J.A.