Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-2119 DATE: 2018-04-13 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Marty Gobin, Applicant and Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of Durham, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice D. Salmers

COUNSEL: M. Gobin, the Applicant, in person, without counsel Heather Burnett, for the Respondent

HEARD: February 20, 2018

ENDORSEMENT

Nature of the Application

[1] Mr. Gobin applies for a declaration that: a) paralegals licensed by the Law Society of Ontario are “officers of a court of justice” as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6) of the Juries Act, RSO 1990, c J.3; and b) he is ineligible to serve as a juror because he is such a licensed paralegal.

Analysis

[2] Mr. Gobin referred to dictionary definitions, the duties imposed on licensed paralegals, and other reasons as support for his application. However, for the following reasons, his application fails.

[3] Section 3(1)(4) of the Juries Act specifically states that barristers, solicitors, and students-at-law are ineligible to serve as jurors.

[4] Section 29 of the Law Society Act states, “Every person who is licensed to practise law in Ontario as a barrister and solicitor is an officer of every court of record in Ontario.”

[5] S. 3(1)(6) of the Juries Act states that “Every person engaged in the enforcement of law” is ineligible to serve as a juror. The subsection contains a non-exhaustive list of such ineligible persons. That list includes “officers of a court of justice”.

[6] While licensed paralegals must follow a code of conduct imposed by the Law Society, and while they must report some security risks, I am not satisfied that those factors are sufficient to find that licensed paralegals are “officers of a court of justice” or that they are otherwise “engaged in the enforcement of law” as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6).

[7] Cases of this court have addressed the issue of who is an “officer of a court of justice” as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6) of the Juries Act. In Page (Re)[^1], the court found that trustees in bankruptcy and receivers were officers of a court of justice as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6) of the Juries Act. In Moss (Re)[^2], the court found that a board member of the Health Services Review and Appeal Board was not an officer of a court of justice as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6). In Sosa (Re)[^3], the court found that a non-lawyer mediator and law office employee was not an officer of a court of justice as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6). In obiter, R. v. Lippa[^4] merely stated that “Licensed paralegals are not included in s. 29” of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c L.8. From these cases, I was unable to glean any consistent principled reasoning that persuaded me that licensed paralegals are “officers of a court of justice” as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6) of the Juries Act.

[8] The legislature approved of the Law Society’s licensing of paralegals in 2006, effective in 2007. The Law Society Act has been amended several times since then. That act specifically refers to barristers, solicitors, and students-at-law as being officers of the court. It has never been amended to include licensed paralegals as officers of the court. The Juries Act has been amended since 2007. In 2009 – 2010, substantive changes were made to that Act, including changes to s. 3, the section that states who is ineligible to serve as a juror. Section 3(1)(6) was the subject of French language amendments in 2017. Although there has been ample opportunity, the legislature has not specifically addressed the eligibility or not of licensed paralegals.

Conclusion

[9] It may be that licensed paralegals on juries might unduly affect the proper deliberation of a jury by their knowledge of the law and the fact that they might be perceived as having a professional relationship with counsel. However, that does not render licensed paralegals as officers of a court of justice. Also, while licensed paralegals must follow a code of conduct imposed by the Law Society and while they must report some security risks, I am not satisfied that those factors are sufficient to find that licensed paralegals are “officers of a court of justice” or that they are otherwise “engaged in the enforcement of law” as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6) of the Juries Act.

[10] The exemptions in s. 3(1) of the Juries Act were intentionally made less specific than the previous legislation. Licensed paralegals are not specifically designated as ineligible to serve as jurors. As stated above, the case law does not provide persuasive reasoning that that licensed paralegals are “officers of a court of justice” as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6) of the Juries Act. Finally, although there has been ample opportunity, the legislature has not specifically addressed the jury eligibility of licensed paralegals or whether they are to be considered as officers of the court. In these circumstances, for all of these reasons, while there may be good arguments as to why licensed paralegals should not serve as jurors, the applicant has not satisfied me that licensed paralegals are “officers of a court of justice” or persons otherwise “engaged in the enforcement of law” as contemplated in s. 3(1)(6) of the Juries Act.

[11] Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed. It is for the legislature to determine if policy considerations warrant legislation clarifying whether licensed paralegals are officers of the court.

[12] If the parties cannot agree on costs, they are to contact the Oshawa trial coordinator to schedule a costs hearing before me.

Justice D. Salmers

Released: April 13, 2018

[^1]: [2002] O.J. No. 4345. [^2]: [2002] O.J. No. 4509. [^3]: [2000] O.J. No. 1138. [^4]: [2013] O.J. No. 3003.