|
Representation - LSO Tribunals - Appeals. Aujla v. Law Society of Ontario
In Aujla v. Law Society of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court considers the JRPA s.5(2) test for extending time to commence a JR.
Here the court considers the appeal that can be made from Law Society Tribunal - Hearing Division orders under the LSA:[3] Mr. Aujla has not appealed the Decision to the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal (“Appeal Division”). A party to a proceeding before the Hearing Division may appeal a final decision or order of the Hearing Division to the Appeal Decision on any grounds. An appeal to the Appeal Division must be commenced within 30 days. After the 30-day period, an appeal may only be started with the written consent of the respondent to the appeal or with leave. See sections 49.32(1), 49.33(1) and 49.34 of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 (“LSA”), and Rule 17.2(1) of the Law Society Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.
....
[14] The Appeal Division has broad powers on appeal, including making any order or decision that ought to or could have been made by the Hearing Division: see subsection 49.35(2) of the LSA. Moreover, I accept the LSO’s submission that proceeding before the Appeal Division would be less costly than the court process. Judicial economy is also a legitimate concern. See Yatar at para. 65.
[15] An appeal to the Appeal Division has already been recognized by this Court as being an adequate alternative remedy: see Foster v. The Law Society Tribunal, 2017 ONSC 3430 at paras. 5 and 10. Further, both the Hearing Division and the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal have been recognized as expert tribunals. Not proceeding with an appeal deprives this Court from the experience and assistance of the Appeal Division in dealing with the issues. See The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Cengarle, 2018 ONSC 1033 at paras. 7-8. This is particularly significant in this case given that Mr. Aujla appears to be raising new arguments and/or arguments that were not addressed by the Hearing Division in the Decision.
[16] Mr. Aujla raises issues regarding the independence of the Appeal Division and suggests that an appeal to the Appeal Division would be useless given the errors made by the Hearing Division. A similar argument was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada in Harelkin v. University of Regina, 1979 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561 at 589. Further, a claim of bias or lack of institutional independence is not a sufficient basis to find that there are extraordinary circumstances that justify hearing an application for judicial review where the applicant has not availed themself of available alternative remedies. The claim for bias and/or lack of independence should be raised with the tribunal first. See Obouhov v. Lunn, 2018 ONSC 772 at para. 15 and Khan v. The Law Society of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 5800 at para. 5.1
[17] In light of the foregoing, after balancing the various relevant considerations, I conclude that an appeal (with leave) to the Appeal Division constitutes an adequate alternative remedy and would be more appropriate than an application for judicial review (with leave) in the circumstances of this case. . Deokaran v. Law Society of Ontario [appeal route]
In Deokaran v. Law Society of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an appeal, here brought against two orders, the first by the Hearing Division of the Law Society Tribunal revoking a license to practice law, and the second by the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal dismissing an appeal to it for delay.
Here the court considered the appeal route in this matter:[5] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to s. 49.38(a) of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990. C.L.8.
|
