COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00664584
DATE: 2022-01-24
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Law Society of Ontario
- and -
Shiva Zareian Jahromi aka Shiva Zarian Jahromi cob as Zareian Legal Services aka Zareian Paralegal Services
HEARD: January 21, 2022
BEFORE: Newton J.
COUNSEL: Mr. Jordan Katz, for the Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondent
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) seeks a permanent injunction against the respondents (“Jahromi”).
[2] By order dated October 5, 2021 the LSO was permitted to serve the respondents by email and service was effected on the same day. The respondents have not delivered a Notice of Appearance or otherwise responded to this application. The respondents did not appear at this hearing notwithstanding standing down fifteen minutes as required by Rule 3.03(2).
[3] After hearing submissions from counsel for LSO, I made the following endorsement:
For reasons to follow, LSO’s application for a permanent injunction and related relief granted. Draft order to issue. Respondent to pay LSO’s costs fixed at $6,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST within 30 days of this order.
[4] These are my reasons.
The Facts
[5] The respondent was formerly a paralegal whose P1 licence to provide legal services in Ontario was revoked by an Order of the Hearing Panel of the LSO’s Tribunal on September 18, 2020 for conduct that included the misappropriation of trust funds.
[6] The respondent unsuccessfully sought to appeal the revocation order and the appeal was deemed withdrawn on April 5, 2021. Accordingly, the respondent has not been licensed to provide legal services in Ontario since September 18, 2020.
[7] Following the revocation order, the LSO received information from licensees that the respondent continued to hold herself out as a licensed paralegal and continued to provide legal services to the public. The LSO investigated and verified this information. Additionally, the LSO also determined that the respondent had Facebook and LinkedIn profiles as late as March 2021 holding herself out as offering legal services.
[8] The LSO attempted to contact the respondent with respect to these investigations. The respondent did not respond to the LSO’s correspondence. The LSO commenced this application in June 2021 and, as noted, the respondent was served substitutionally but has not appeared.
The Law
[9] The Law Society Act, RSO 1990, C. L.8 prohibits the unauthorized practice of law and provision of legal services and the unauthorized “holding out” as authorized to provide legal services:
Prohibitions and Offences
Prohibitions
Non-licensee practising law or providing legal services
26.1 (1) Subject to subsection (5), no person, other than a licensee whose licence is not suspended, shall practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 22.
Non-licensee holding out, etc.
(2) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), no person, other than a licensee whose licence is not suspended, shall hold themself out as, or represent themself to be, a person who may practise law in Ontario or a person who may provide legal services in Ontario. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 22.
[10] The Act also provides that the LSO may apply to this court for a permanent injunction as follows:
26.3 (1) On the application of the Society, the Superior Court of Justice may,
(a) make an order prohibiting a person from contravening section 26.1, if the court is satisfied that the person is contravening or has contravened section 26.1;
(b) make an order prohibiting a person from giving legal advice respecting the law of a jurisdiction outside Canada in contravention of the by-laws, if the court is satisfied that the person is giving or has given legal advice respecting the law of a jurisdiction outside Canada in contravention of the by-laws. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 22.
No prosecution or conviction required
(2) An order may be made,
(a) under clause (1) (a), whether or not the person has been prosecuted for or convicted of the offence of contravening section 26.1;
(b) under clause (1) (b), whether or not the person has been prosecuted for or convicted of the offence of giving legal advice respecting the law of a jurisdiction outside Canada in contravention of the by-laws. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 22.
Order to vary or discharge
(3) Any person may apply to the Superior Court of Justice for an order varying or discharging an order made under subsection (1). 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 22.
[11] The test to be employed is as set out in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Augier, 2013 ONSC 451 and Law Society of Upper Canada v. Dzelme, 2014 ONSC 4652 at paragraph 14:
Justice Goldstein then considered the test that governs the issue of whether to grant an injunction under the Act. At paragraph 11 of Augier, supra, Goldstein J. adopted the test set out by Dawson J. in R. v. IPSCO Recycling Inc., 2003 FC 1518, 2003 FCJ No. 1950,
[51] On the basis of the authorities cited by the parties I am satisfied that where a statute provides a remedy by way of injunction, different considerations govern the exercise of the court’s discretion than apply when an attorney general sues at common law to enforce public rights. The following general principles apply when an injunction is authorized by statute:
(i) The court’s discretion is more fettered. The factors considered by a court when considering equitable relief will have a more limited application. See: Prince Edward Island (Minister of Community and Cultural Affairs) v. Island Farm and Fish Meal Ltd. 1989 CanLII 276 (PE SCAD), 1989 CanLII 276 (PE SCAD), (1989), 79 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 228 (P.E.I. S.C. (A.D.)); Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. 1998 CanLII 6446 (BC CA), 1998 CanLII 6446 (BC CA), (1998), 162 D.L.R. (4th) 203 (B.C.C.A.).
(ii) Specifically, an applicant will not have to prove that damages are inadequate or that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is refused. See: Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners’ Association v. Northup (1958), 1958 CanLII 289 (BC SC), 12 D.L.R. (2d) 760 (B.C.S.C.); Manitoba Dental Association v. Byman and Halstead (1962), 1962 CanLII 392 (MB CA), 34 D.L.R. (2d) 602 (Man. C.A.); Canada (Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board) v. Canadian Press, [2000] N.S.J. No. 139 (S.C.) (QL).
(iii) There is no need for other enforcement remedies to have been pursued. See: Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment) v. Redberry Development Corp., 1987 CanLII 4588 (SK QB), [1987] 4 W.W.R. 654 (Sask. Q.B.).
(iv) The court retains a discretion as to whether to grant injunctive relief. Hardship from the imposition and enforcement of an injunction will generally not outweigh the public interest in having the law obeyed. However, an injunction will not issue where it would be of questionable utility or inequitable. See: Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment) v. Redberry Development Corp., supra; Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd., supra; Capital Regional District v. Smith 1998 CanLII 6490 (BC CA), 1998 CanLII 6490 (BC CA), (1998), 168 D.L.R. (4th) 52 (B.C.C.A.).
(v) It remains more difficult to obtain a mandatory injunction. See: Canada (Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board) v. Canadian Press, supra.
Analysis
[12] Is not disputed that, subsequent to the revocation order the respondent, has provided legal services contrary to s.26.1(1) and has continued to hold herself as a person who may provide legal services contrary to s. 26.1(2). As such the grounds for an injunction under s. 26.3 are satisfied and the order sought shall issue.
[13] The Bill of Costs submitted by counsel for LSO support a partial indemnity cost award of $6,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST which is payable by the respondent within 30 days of the order.
“Original signed by”
The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
DATE: January 24, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00664584
DATE: 2022-01-24
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Law Society of Ontario
- and -
Shiva Zareian Jahromi aka Shiva Zarian Jahromi cob as Zareian Legal Services aka Zareian Paralegal Services
HEARD: January 21, 2022
BEFORE: Newton J.
COUNSEL: Mr. Jordan Katz, for the Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Newton J.
DATE: January 24, 2022