SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-00469034
DATE: 20130424
RE: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Plaintiff
AND:
Chantal Coulson, Defendant
BEFORE: Carole J. Brown J.
COUNSEL:
E. Pleet and J. Camp, for the Plaintiff
No one appearing for the Respondent, Chantal Coulson, although properly served
HEARD: April 24, 2013
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Law Society of Upper Canada ("LSUC") seeks a permanent statutory injunction restraining the respondent, Chantal Coulson ("Coulson"), or any company or business entity controlled by her, from practicing law or providing legal services in Ontario in contravention of Section 26.1 of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. L.8, as amended (the "Act") and a permanent statutory injunction restraining the Respondent, Coulson, or any company or business entity controlled by her, from holding herself out as, or representing herself to be, a person who may practice law or provide legal services in Ontario in contravention of Section 26.1 of the Act.
The Evidence
[2] The evidence indicates that Coulson is not licensed by the LSUC to provide legal services or to practice law. The evidence further establishes that Coulson held herself out as being entitled to provide legal services, advertising on www.kijiji.com and on http://www.legalservices. 2010.webs.com. She further distributed business cards offering "Paralegal & Law Clerk Services". The evidence establishes that she advertised her services broadly, that she was based in the Hamilton area and had provided legal services in Belleville, the Greater Toronto Area and in Thunder Bay. The evidence includes seven affidavits from various individuals, including those who had lodged complaints against her with the LSUC, as well as an affidavit from the LSUC investigator who undertook the investigation of this matter. The affidavit evidence establishes that she attempted to recruit classmates from her law clerk program to assist her in providing legal services. She obtained retainers on behalf of individuals who saw her advertisements on the Internet and retained her. In the case of two of the affiants, Ms. Stirton, who provided her with a retainer fee of $800 and Ms. Leobrera who paid her $250 as a down payment for a $500 retainer fee, no services were rendered by Coulson, nor were their retainer fees refunded, despite their requests. The evidence further indicates that she acted or attempted to act on behalf of individuals in Superior Court proceedings, a criminal matter before the Ontario Court of Justice, in Small Claims Court matters and before the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”).
[3] In the matter of Coulson's attempted appearance before the LTB on behalf of the landlord, who had paid her a retainer fee, she was asked by the LTB whether she was licensed. She advised the Board that she was not licensed, was not a paralegal, but was a law clerk and that her "education is above a paralegal". She further advised the Board that she had been representing landlords previously before the LTB. The Board refused to permit her to represent the Landlord, as she was not licensed. In their reasons released December 30, 2011, the Board found as follows:
“The Landlords' representative, Chantal Coulson, attended on November 15, 2011, but was not allowed to represent them because she is in the business of providing legal assistance but is not licensed under the Law Society Act. The Landlords testified that they had paid a fee for Ms. Coulson's legal assistance".
[4] In her advertisements online, Coulson advertised her services as including representation, preparation of documents and advice relating to the Small Claims Court, the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal, Criminal Court matters, Provincial Offences Court, civil litigation in the Superior Court of Justice, completion or drafting of all legal and court documents and mediation and negotiation services.
Issue
[5] The issue raised by this application is whether a statutory injunction should issue pursuant to Section 26.3 of the Act to permanently restrain Coulson and any business with which she is affiliated from practicing law, providing legal services, or holding herself out as a person who is entitled to practice law or provide legal services.
The Law and Analysis
[6] The applicable test in determining whether a statutory injunction should issue is different from the test applicable to common law injunctions set forth in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.C. 199. The applicable test is as set forth at R. v IPSCO Recycling Inc., 2003 FC 1518, [2003] F.C.J. No 1950 at paragraph 51. Among the applicable legal principles in determining whether to grant a statutory injunction, the Court observed in R. v. IPSCO, supra., that “the Court retains a discretion as to whether to grant conjunctive relief. Hardship from the imposition and enforcement of an injunction will generally not outweigh the public interest in having the law obeyed.”
[7] The importance of the public interest and the importance of the LSUC's role in protecting the public from the activities of unlicensed and unregulated persons holding themselves out as lawyers and paralegals in the determination of this matter are paramount, as recognized in LSUC v. Chiarelli, 2013 ONSC 1428. It is clear from the evidence before me that members of the public, including several of the affiants, have been harmed or taken advantage of by Coulson's actions. The LSUC licensing regime is designed to protect the public from actions and practices such as those undertaken by Coulson.
[8] I am satisfied, based on all of the materials before me, that Ms. Coulson has been engaging in the provision of legal services in contravention of Sections 1 (5)-(7) of the Act, as well as holding herself out as a person who practices law or provides legal services. I am satisfied that, in the public interest in preventing the unauthorized practice of law so as to protect the public, a statutory injunction permanently restraining Coulson and any company or business entity controlled by her from engaging in the practice of law or in the provision of legal services in Ontario and from advertising or holding herself out as a person who may practice law or provide legal services in Ontario, contrary to Section 26.1 of the Act, should issue.
Order
[9] I Order as follows:
Chantal Coulson or any company or business entity controlled by her is terminally enjoined from engaging in the practice of law or in the provision of legal services in Ontario in contravention of Section 26.1 of the Act;
Chantal Coulson or any company or business entity controlled by her, is permanently enjoined from advertising or holder herself out as a person who may practice law or provide legal services in Ontario, contrary to Section 26.1 of the Act.
This includes, but is not limited to:
(a) stating that she is entitled to provide:
(i) paralegal services: or
(ii) legal services;
(b) stating that she is entitled to represent a person in preceding the foreign adjudicative body, including:
(i) Traffic Court;
(ii) Small Claims Court;
(iii) Provincial Offenses Court;
(iv) the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal; or
(v) Criminal Court;
(c) stating that she is entitled to draft any document that affects the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person, including:
(i) court documents;
(ii) government documents;
(iii) contract; or
(iv) leases;
(d) publishing an advertisement in any media, including in print or online, advertising any of the above; or
(e) maintaining any website advertising in the above.
- Coulson shall forthwith remove the website at http://www. legalservices2011. webs. com.
Costs
[10] The Applicant has provided its bill of costs. Having consideration for the factors set forth in Rule 57.01 the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the decision of the Divisional Court in Geographic Resources Integrated Data Solutions Limited v Peterson, 2013 ONSC 1041, referred to by the Applicant, I award the Applicant its partial indemnity costs in the amount of $17,850.94 all inclusive.
Carole J. Brown J.
Date: April 24, 2013