Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 92/16 Date: 2016-05-10 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Todd Speck, Applicant And: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Respondent

Before: Justice A. K. Mitchell

Counsel: Applicant, self-represented J. Parnega-Welch, Counsel for the Respondent

Heard: May 9, 2016

Endorsement

[1] On this application, the applicant seeks an order in the nature of mandamus directing of the Law Society of Upper Canada to issue to him a class L1 licensed to practice law in the province of Ontario.

[2] In his application for licensing, Mr. Speck identified his termination for cause by the Ministry of Health, his former employer, as potentially impacting on his ability to meet the prerequisite of good character.

[3] Mr. Speck feels aggrieved by the length of time the respondent has taken to process his application. He argues the Law Society was in a position to make a determination as to whether the prerequisites to obtaining a license had been met by January 2015, some 16 months ago. Since that time, Mr. Speck alleges the Law Society has taken no steps to investigate the issues relating to his character claiming it was only once the notice of application with respect to the within application was issued in January 2016 did the Law Society engage in an active investigation into whether he met the good character prerequisite.

[4] Mr. Speck says his right to due process has been violated and the remedy he seeks, for what he alleges is bad faith and duplicitous conduct on the part of the Law Society, is an order of this Court directing the Law Society to issue to him a license to practise law in Ontario.

[5] The applicant points to section 27(3) and (4) of the Law Society Act which mandates the Law Society to issue licenses to practise law in the province of Ontario. These sections obligate the Law Society to issue a license to practise law to every person “who meets the qualifications and other requirements for that class of license.”

[6] One of these qualifications is that such person be of good character.

[7] The respondent’s Investigations Department has held its recommendation to the Proceedings Authorization Committee of the Law Society (“PAC“) in abeyance as it awaits a decision of the Grievances Settlement Board. This board is dealing with a grievance filed by the union representing Mr. Speck with respect to the Ministry’s termination of his employment for cause.

[8] In April 2014, the applicant took the position that it was incumbent upon the Law Society to await the outcome of the grievance proceedings before making an assessment of his character.

[9] The grievance proceedings continue to drag on through no fault of the parties to this application. It is not expected that a final resolution of the issues before the Grievances Settlement Board will be reached until sometime in 2017.

[10] Mr. Speck no longer wishes for the Law Society to delay any further in its assessment. He says he has wanted a decision made long ago by the Law Society. Mr. Speck takes the position that the Law Society’s delay post-January 2015 cannot be cured and entitles him, without an assessment of his character, to a license to practice law.

[11] Mr. Speck was unable to refer me to any authority where such relief had been granted by the courts. Licensing of individuals to practise law in Ontario is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Law Society. I find that I am without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by Mr. Speck.

[12] However, I do have jurisdiction to require the Law Society to conduct its mandate in a timely manner. To that end, I am advised by counsel for the Law Society that the Investigations Department has made its recommendation to PAC and that PAC is meeting on May 19, 2016 to make a determination whether an admission hearing will proceed on the issue of Mr. Speck’s character or whether the process will be terminated and a license to practise law issued to Mr. Speck.

[13] Ms. Parnega-Welch has personally undertaken to advise Mr. Speck forthwith of the decision of PAC.

[14] If a hearing is ordered by PAC, I am confident Mr. Speck’s right to due process will be respected, failing which, Mr. Speck has his remedies at law which are wholly unaffected by the disposition of this application.

[15] Accordingly, this application is dismissed and, as such, it is not necessary to address the issue of leave pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.

[16] The respondent was successful on the application and seeks costs of $500. As the successful party, the respondent is presumptively entitled to its costs. The Law Society has spent far in excess of the amount claimed for costs. Accordingly, the Law Society is awarded its costs of this application in the amount of $500 as requested.

Justice A. K. Mitchell Date: May 10, 2016