Court File and Parties

CITATION: Amendola v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 884

Divisional Court File Nos.: 510/22

Date: 2023-02-03

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Divisional Court

Re: Ersio Amendola v. Law Society of Ontario

Before: D.L. Corbett J.

Counsel: Mr Amendola, self-represented Rhoda Cookhorn, for Law Society of Ontario

Heard: By Zoom, November 16, 2022

Endorsement

[1] At the conclusion of the hearing, I granted Mr Amendola an extension of time in which to bring this appeal and directed him to serve his materials within sixty days. Mr Amendola has confirmed by email that he served his materials on December 23, 2022.

[2] The Law Society shall serve its responding materials by March 10, 2023.

[3] The appeal shall be heard by a panel of the Divisional Court for an estimated 0.5 days on June 12, 2023.

[4] The parties shall provide their appeal materials (including costs materials) to the court by uploading them to CaseLines by March 10, 2023.

[5] The parties are directed to the court's Notice to Profession dated April 19, 2022, as amended October 17, 2022, and are asked to follow the Notice in respect to (a) materials uploaded to CaseLines; (b) "filing" materials with the court; and (c) payment of court fees. The parties are advised that during oral argument, the court expects them to refer to materials by CaseLines page number, and not by reference to the page number or by tabs in the record: use of CaseLines page numbers assists the court to navigate through the record during oral argument.

Reasons for Granting the Extension

[6] The factual matrix in this case is a unusual. Mr Amendola applied for and was granted a license as a paralegal in 2008. He then practiced as a paralegal for the better part of a decade. The Law Society then discovered that Mr Amendola had made a false statement on his original application to become a paralegal – and that the statement in question would have borne materially on his original application for admission.

[7] In addressing these issues, the Law Society concluded that Mr Amendola was inadmissible at the time his license was originally granted. On that basis, he was denied a license, effectively nunc pro tunc. His conduct as a licensee, and his “good character” in the intervening period was not assessed. Mr Amendola was advised that he could apply anew for admission, and if he did so, these matters could be addressed.

[8] Mr Amendola has an arguable appeal that the process followed below – requiring a two-stage process, rather than dealing with the entire problem in one process – was unreasonable. I agree with the Law Society that the primary legal theory of appeal taken by Mr Amendola on this motion is probably without merit (Mr Amendola raises jurisdictional issues which appear to me to have little chance of success), but the underlying substance of his complaint appears to be arguable – that his intervening conduct as a licensee ought to have been taken into account as part of the process, and should not have been relegated to a second process – or, put another way – the entire question of what should be done about Mr Amendola’s status ought to be addressed all at once.

[9] I am satisfied with Mr Amendola’s explanation for his delay, there is no prejudice to the Law Society in granting the extension, and there is sufficient arguable merit to the appeal that the requested extension should be granted.

[10] As indicated to the parties at the conclusion of the hearing, there shall be no costs of this motion.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date of Release: February 3, 2023