Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-659962 DATE: 20210915 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Law Society of Ontario AND: Martin Lazi and Walker Legal Advisers Inc.

BEFORE: W.D. Black J.

COUNSEL: Jordan Katz, for the Applicant Martin Lazi in his personal capacity

HEARD: September 13, 2021

Endorsement

[1] In this Application, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) seeks a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, Martin Lazi (“Lazi”), Walker Legal Advisers Inc. (“WLA”) and any other company or business entity controlled by them from advertising or holding themselves out as a person or persons who may practice law or provide legal services in Ontario, pursuant to sections 26.1 and 26.3(1) of the Law Society Act (the “Act”).

[2] Lazi is the sole officer and director of WLA. He is also the sole officer and director of a company called Lazi Ventures Inc., through which Lazi carries on a plumbing business under the name “Plumber On Demand”.

[3] Lazi is not licensed by the LSO to provide legal services or practice law and WLA is not a professional corporation registered with LSO to provide legal services in Ontario.

[4] Nonetheless, and by way of brief summary of the relevant evidence in the record before me, Lazi had repeatedly threatened legal action against his plumbing customers through demand letters and other correspondence sent on WLA letterhead, or from WLA email addresses. These communications create, and appear designed to create the false impression that Lazi or WLA is licensed to practice law or provide legal services, or that WLA is a law firm. It is apparent that through this use of WLA, Lazi pressures plumbing customers to comply with Lazi’s demands.

[5] Lazi also maintains a website for WLA which is replete with statements offering legal advice and legal services to the public in several different areas of law. Similar statements are reproduced on various social media profiles for WLA, accompanied by various highly laudatory reviews and testimonials for legal services purportedly provided by WLA.

[6] Again, this internet presence seems carefully calculated to, and in fact does, create the impression that WLA is a legitimate law firm.

[7] LSO has received numerous complaints from licensees and members of the public, including customers of Plumber on Demand about these activities.

[8] The LSO argues that the respondents’ actions, both in authoring and disseminating demand letters from WLA, and in making and publishing the representations about WLA on the website and on social media violate section 26.1(2) of the Act, which prohibits non-licensees from holding themselves out as, or representing themselves to be persons who may practice law or provide legal services in Ontario, and seeks a permanent injunction under the Act to restrain the respondents from continuing to breach the Act in order to protect the public.

[9] The summary above describes uncontroverted facts contained in the thoroughgoing record the applicant LSO has put before the Court.

[10] This record includes both the original Application Record dated May 14, 2021, and a Supplementary Application Record dated September 3, 2021. The Supplementary Application Record exhibits ongoing correspondence from April 2021 through to August of 2021 in which, among other things, counsel for the LSO advises Lazi about the upcoming hearing and serves him with the LSO’s materials in connection with the hearing.

[11] It is evident, based on this material, that Lazi has had many months’ notice of the date for the hearing of this Application and ample time to consider and take advice on the LSO’s materials.

[12] Despite this ample notice, Lazi has not responded in writing to the LSO (I gather that there may have been one or more telephone discussions in the early part of the April to September timeframe), has not delivered a Notice of Appearance, has not caused a Notice of Appearance to be delivered by any lawyer on behalf of the respondents or either of them, and has not filed any responding materials.

[13] Lazi did turn up at the (virtual) hearing, however, and asked that the matter be adjourned so that he could speak to a lawyer and respond.

[14] When I questioned him about why he had not responded until now despite having had months to do so, Lazi said, among other things, that he had talked to some lawyers but they wanted “$5,000.00 retainers” which he was not prepared or able to pay and that in any event, he had told the LSO lawyer that he had “no problem” with various aspects of the relief sought. He said that at this stage maybe he would borrow some money and hire a lawyer after all.

[15] I told Lazi that I was not prepared to adjourn the hearing of the Application. I pointed out that he has known about the matter for months, that he clearly understood the need to engage counsel, and that he had not put his request for an adjournment or anything else in relation to this matter in writing, and had not notified counsel for the LSO, let alone the Court of his intention to seek an adjournment before showing up at the time appointed for the hearing. To grant an adjournment in those circumstances would be to encourage this kind of conduct and I see no valid basis at this stage to do so.

[16] However, given Lazi’s statement that he has “no problem” with various aspects of the relief sought, I stood the matter down to allow him to take some time to review closely the draft Order provide by the LSO (and again, sent to Lazi in similar form months ago), and then to make submissions about potential modifications to that draft Order. Lazi did so.

[17] This exercise proved illuminating.

[18] That is, in keeping with his statement that he had “no problem” with much of the relief sought, Lazi confirmed in his comments about the draft Order his understanding of and agreement with much of its substance.

[19] Specifically, he said, in relation to paragraph 1 of the proposed Order, that he has “absolutely no problem” agreeing to its contents. This is revealing, inasmuch as this paragraph - requiring that the respondents be permanently enjoined from representing or holding out, directly or indirectly, to members of the public that they are entitled to provide legal services or to practice law in Ontario contrary to section 26.1 of the Act – is really the essence and operative part of the relief the LSO seeks.

[20] It became apparent that what Lazi really takes issue with is the requirement contemplated by the Order that the respondent WLA be required to be renamed so as not to reference or allude in any manner to legal services. Lazi told me that he believed any such requirement to be “unfair” and “a breach of his rights”. That said, he then went on to seek the advice of the Court and counsel for LSO about an acceptable change. While of course neither the Court nor LSO was prepared to provide this kind of advice other than a general admonition that the new name should not refer to “legal services” or the like, both the Court and counsel for LSO encouraged Lazi to seek proper legal advice in that regard.

[21] Apart from this concern, which arises in relation to paragraph 2 of the proposed Order, Lazi raised no other concerns about its contents.

[22] Accordingly, with some minor revisions discussed during the hearing, I am granting the Order in the form proposed and provided by LSO. I am not prepared to excise the requirement that WLA’s name be changed to something that does not refer to legal services or the like. In my view, as I confirmed to Lazi, the current name is a part of what is misleading members of the public (something which I believe Lazi not only understood but intended).

[23] The other issue about which Lazi raised objection is the provision that the respondents be required to pay LSO’s costs of this Application. While I had contemplated the possibility of ordering costs on a substantial indemnity scale given the flagrant nature of the conduct in issue, I determined in the circumstances that I would instead order costs payable on a partial indemnity scale. In reviewing the LSO’s costs outline, I find that the costs sought by LSO are reasonable given the substantial record the LSO put together and the necessary investigations LSO undertook in order to assemble the evidence. As such, I order costs and disbursements payable by the respondents in the amount set out by LSO on a partial indemnity basis, being $6,779.95, which costs are to be paid within 30 days of the date hereof.

W.D Black J.

Date: September 15, 2021