Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-25-00000106-0000 Date: 2025-12-01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

BUSHRA, Mehnaz

MALIK, Parveen, for the Applicant

Applicant

- and -

IQBAL, Mirza Javed

ZAKIR, Rida, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: November 26, 2025

Case Conference Endorsement

McGEE J.

[1] This is the first of two endorsements issued on today's Case Conference. This endorsement deals with the applicant's legal representative pursuant to Rule 4 of the Family Law Rules. The second endorsement is for the Case Conference that was conducted following my ruling that Mr. Syed Safdar is not permitted to represent the Applicant.

[2] Below are my reasons for not allowing Mr. Safdar to represent the Applicant. A copy of this endorsement, with a recording of the hearing is to be forwarded to the Chief Executive Office of the Superior Court of Justice.

Representation of a Party in a Case Conference

[3] Rule 4 of the Family Law Rules (the Rules") provides that a party may act in person, be represented by a lawyer, or for certain cases and matters -- not relevant to this decision - be represented by a family legal serves provider in accordance with the Law Society Act, unless the court rules otherwise.

[4] The court must provide permission in advance for a non-lawyer to provide representation, see Rule 4(1) (d.) For example, in Bassi v Gibson 2024 ONSC 5462 Justice Sah considered a party's request in a 14B Motion to permit a family legal services provider (a paralegal) to act as her agent in an upcoming family law proceeding. In extensive and thoughtful reasons, Justice Sah set out the legal principles and considerations for non-lawyer representation, ultimately exercising her discretion not to permit the legal services provider to act as the party's representative.

[5] Non-lawyers who are not family legal services providers cannot act as representatives but for one, narrow exception. The Family Law Pilot Project allows for qualifying candidates defined as articling students, LPP/PPD students, and students enrolled in an IPC program are allowed to appear in court for specific family law matters without the advance permission of the court provided that they are within their work placement term and that they are under active supervision agreements.

[6] If the candidate is within the defined class, in their work placement term and under supervision they are Permitted Candidates ("PCs") and may appear in certain family law matters before Ontario courts without the advance permission of the Court.

[7] The list of matters for which advance permission is not required includes Judicial and Dispute Resolution Case Conferences, provided the supervising lawyer is on stand-by.

[8] Otherwise, as set out by the Law Society in their Rights of Appearance Framework, articling students, LPP/PPD students, and students enrolled in an IPC program are prohibited from appearing before Ontario courts as a party's legal representative.

[9] The Family Law Pilot Project relies heavily on the good faith supervision of a PC's articling principal and/or supervising lawyer. The supervisor must ensure that the PC is adequately supervised, with ongoing extensive training and monitoring with respect to substantive and procedural law.

[10] The supervisor must be certain that the matter is appropriate for the PC to conduct, that the student is properly prepared, familiar with the file and that the representation is within the scope of permitted activities. The supervising lawyer must at all times be the counsel of record, ultimately responsible for the conduct of the file and available to speak to the Judge as required.

[11] When appearing pursuant to the Family Law Pilot Project, PC students are deemed to be subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct in the same way as a lawyer licensing process candidate is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Presentation to the Court

[12] PCs appearing before the court must indicate to the court that they are appearing under the Family Law Pilot Project and are within the rights of appearance before they can proceed. The presiding judge retains the discretion to permit or refuse a PC's representation of a party.

Mr. Safdar is Not a Permitted Candidate

[13] Today's conference began with introductions in which Ms. Malik, who is the applicant's counsel of record, and who was present in the courtroom, advising that she was on medical leave and therefore would not be speaking to the matter. Mr. Safdar then rose to speak on behalf of Ms. Bushra, as if by right. He appears to have had carriage of the file throughout, having appeared as Ms. Bushra's representative on the two prior DRO appearances.

[14] Mr. Safdar did not indicate that he was appearing under the Family Law Pilot Project and that he was within the rights of appearance; specifically, he did not state that he was a Permitted Candidate.

[15] I inquired as to his status and was informed that he represented the client as a student-at-law. He did not appear to appreciate that anything further was required. He did not demonstrate any knowledge of the requirements for qualification as a PC. As a result, I called a lengthy recess to learn more about the permitted scope of representation and to provide an opportunity to Mr. Safdar and to Mr. Malik to organize their submissions on the issue of Mr. Safdar representing Ms. Bushra.

[16] I can summarize Mr. Safdar and Ms. Malik's submissions when court resumed as follows:

a. Ms. Malik is on medical leave so needs Mr. Safdar to do the hearing.

b. It is good experience for Mr. Safdar.

c. The client consents to this, and

d. Mr. Safdar has been permitted to do so by other courts.

[17] I did not conduct a formal voir dire as first indicated because the respondent did not wish to participate in the inquiry as to Mr. Safdar's standing to act as a legal representative. Moreover, it quickly became apparent that there was little evidentiary foundation to test within a formal inquiry. Mr. Safdar offered no documentation confirming that he was a PC and offered only that there was information on the Law Society website. He could provide no information on the Family Law Pilot Project, and instead, repeated that he was a student-at-law with the Law Society.

[18] I asked whether he had anything from the Law Society to confirm his status as a student-at-law. He was able to produce a card that I reviewed and marked it as an exhibit to the Conference.

[19] The card is a laminated Law Society of Ontario identification with his picture, showing him to be Licensing Process-Lawyer Candidate ("IPC") #286766. The card was issued on May 1, 2023 and it expired July 1, 2024.

[20] The card demonstrates that Mr. Safdar is not currently a Permitted Candidate because his enrollment in the IPC program has expired. He is neither a lawyer nor a family legal serves provider.

[21] I find that Mr. Safdar is not permitted to represent the Application in this proceeding.

McGee J.

Released: December 1, 2025