Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Representation - Paralegal and Lay Representatives - General

. Kiani et al v. Rivera et al.

In Kiani et al v. Rivera et al. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a landlord's RTA s.210 appeal, here brought against LTB findings "that the respondents’ tenancy in a rooming house was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”) and awarded damages to each of the tenants are after being locked out from the rooming house".

Here the court considered the landlord's argument that the LTB erred in allowing them to be represented by a person not LSO-licensed:

Issue #1: Did the Board err in permitting David Anton to represent the Landlord?

[15] This issue was raised in the Notice of Appeal as follows:

[The LTB] erred in law in the issuance of it October 7th, 2024 Orders ... when Member Nikitin incorrectly decided to allow a non-licensee to act as a legal practitioner for the landlords, despite no objections by the parties. By doing so, the landlords received ineffective representation brought on by inadequate direct and cross-examination, resulting a denial of procedural justice.

[16] This issue was not addressed in the Appellants’ Factum.

[17] Each Order addressed the Landlord’s representation as follows:

The Landlord was represented by David Anton, who is not a licensee with the Law Society. He and [Mr. Charmchi] assured the board that his representation complied with the “Practice Direction on Representation before the Landlord and Tenant Board, Unlicensed Representatives”. David Anton appeared as the Landlord’s friend and was not being compensated. Neither the Landlord nor the Applicants objected to David Anton representing the Landlord. I noticed Mr. Anton referred to [Mr. Charmchi] as “Mr. Charmchi” and as “my client” at times during the hearings. These are unusual ways to address one’s friend but I didn’t invite parties submissions on this issue at the hearing and will therefore not address this matter any further.

[18] The transcript also shows that both Ms. Kiani and Mr. Charmchi expressed their agreement when asked by Member Nikitin whether they were content with being represented by Mr. Anton.

[19] A complaint of ineffective representation at the Landlord and Tenant Board was also raised in Ricketts v. Veerisingnam, 2025 ONSC 841. I agree with the views expressed by Corbett J. at paras. 4-7:

[4] I would find that the [Appellant] may not raise the “ineffective assistance” in this court because (i) she failed to raise it at first instance before the LTB when she had about ten weeks to do so between the end of the hearing and the release of the LTB’s decision; and (ii) she failed to raise it before the LTB during Reconsideration proceedings. Had I concluded that the Appellant should be permitted to raise this issue for the first time in this court, I would have dismissed the appeal because “ineffective assistance” is not a basis for interfering with a civil judgment: the Appellant’s remedy for alleged ineffective assistance lies in civil proceedings against her representative and/or a complaint to his professional regulator, and not a setting aside of a decision that discloses no reversible error on the basis of the evidence and arguments made below.

[5] Had I concluded that it was arguable that “ineffective assistance” could be a basis for interfering with the result below, I would not see this court adjudicate the “ineffective assistance” argument at first instance, but rather, I would quash the LTB’s Reconsideration decision and direct that the Reconsideration process be run anew, with the Appellant able to raise the “ineffective assistance” argument there. In my view the LTB, and not this court, should (i) rule on whether ineffective assistance is available in proceedings before the LTB; and (ii) if the answer to (i) is yes, establish the test(s) and process(es) to be followed to raise such arguments before the LTB.

[6] ... residential tenancy disputes arise in real time, in a real context, and there are important interests of both landlords and tenants that require a conflict resolution process that is reasonably fast, efficient, and inexpensive. Proceedings before the LTB often involved parties who are represented by non-licensed agents, friends, family members, and many parties who self-represent. Why should these persons have less entitlement than those who have retained licensed professionals to a “do over” when their representatives fail to do a good job, or they themselves fail to approach their own case in the most effective way?

[7] Unlike in the criminal context, in civil proceedings the other side has an important interest in the principles that (i) parties are responsible for the manner in which their own case is presented; and (ii) decisions reached after following the prescribed process should have final effect.

[20] The LTB’s decision to permit David Anton to represent the Landlord is entitled to deference. The LTB is a high-volume tribunal that it is statutorily mandated to adopt the most expeditious method of determining questions arising in a proceeding that all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard on the matter: RTA, at s. 183. The Member raised the issue of Mr. Anton’s representation given that he was not licensed with the Law Society of Ontario. He also addressed the requirements of the LTB’s Procedural Direction on Representation before the Landlord and Tenant Board. Both Mr. Anton and Mr. Charmchi advised the Board Member that Mr. Anton was a friend and that he was not being compensated. Both Ms. Kiani and Mr. Charmchi told the Board Member that they wished for Mr. Anton to represent them. They are now dissatisfied with the outcome of the LTB hearing and Mr. Anton’s representation. However, it was open to them to retain counsel – as the Tenants did – or a paralegal, but instead chose to rely on Mr. Anton’s assistance. Ms. Kiani and Mr. Charmchi bear the responsibility for their choices, not the Member or the Tenants. Further, it appears that they did not raise their concerns about Mr. Anton’s representation with the Member nor did they seek a review of the LTB Orders on this basis or at all. At this point, more than one year after the LTB Orders were issued, it would be contrary to the interests of justice to send this matter back to the LTB for another hearing on the merits.

. Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 2004424 Ontario Inc.

In Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 2004424 Ontario Inc. (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal denied a R15.01(2) motion for permission to allow a corporation to be represented by a non-lawyer.

Here the moving party had in past filed facta:

... with the court that are replete with fabricated legal citations. They reference non-existent cases and miscite genuine cases for propositions that those cases do not even address. They provide notional hyperlinks to authorities that link instead to wholly irrelevant documents. They reference provisions of statutes that do not exist. Quoted text from case law and statutes are completely fabricated.

.....

[4] Rule 15.01(2) provides:

A party to a proceeding that is a corporation shall be represented by a lawyer, except with leave of the court.

The starting point is that corporations must be represented by counsel. The grant of leave is exceptional. As Huscroft J.A. noted in GlycoBioSciences Inc. (Glyco) v. Industria Farmaceutica Andromaco, S.A., de C.V. (Andromaco), 2024 ONCA 481, aff’d 2024 ONCA 760, at para. 6, although judges have a discretion to grant leave, that discretion must not be exercised in a way that normalizes the practice and undermines the rule.

[5] The effective operation of the legal system is premised on the participation of a well-trained and regulated body of professionals. A critical question, from the perspective of maintaining the integrity of the justice system, is whether a proposed representative is not only reasonably capable of comprehending the issues and setting out the position of the corporation, but also of advocating in a manner that meets the professional ethical standards expected of solicitors.

[6] Furthering access to justice can be a reason to grant leave: Stayside Corporation Inc. v. Cyndric Group Inc., 2024 ONCA 630, at para. 11. But as Glyco explains, at para. 7, it is not the only relevant consideration:

A non-lawyer who is closely tied to the corporation granted leave under r. 15.01(2) is akin to a self-represented party, but the separate legal personhood of the corporation means, in effect, that the non-lawyer is providing legal services to another person, contrary to s. 26.1(1) of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8. Moreover, non-lawyers are not bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, nor are they subject to the personal financial consequences associated with cost orders that self-represented litigants face: Leisure Farm Construction Limited v. Dalew Farms Inc. et.al., 2021 ONSC 105at paras. 12-15. Permitting a non-lawyer to act also risks creating an undue burden on the respondents and the court.

[7] The concerns articulated in Glyco of non-lawyers imposing an undue burden are abundantly displayed in this case.

[8] It is not disputed that Mr. Paraskevopoulos has a sophisticated understanding of commercial property leases. But his recent efforts at representing the corporation amply demonstrate that he is unable to do so in a manner that does not impose unacceptable costs on both opposing counsel and the court. He has, on multiple occasions, filed factums with the court that are replete with fabricated legal citations. They reference non-existent cases and miscite genuine cases for propositions that those cases do not even address. They provide notional hyperlinks to authorities that link instead to wholly irrelevant documents. They reference provisions of statutes that do not exist. Quoted text from case law and statutes are completely fabricated.

[9] A solicitor who acted in such a manner – whether out of duplicity or incompetence – would rightly face severe consequences: professional disciplinary proceedings and punishment ranging from a citation to fine or disbarment, in addition to public opprobrium. But a non-lawyer faces none of these sanctions, notwithstanding the costs that such conduct imposes on opposing parties and the court, who are left to identify and expose the fabrications. A rigorous application of r. 15.01(2) is one of the few tools currently available to courts to apply to non‑lawyers to manage this risk.

. Caruso v. The Law Society of Ontario

In Caruso v. The Law Society of Ontario (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered (and dismissed) a JR by an Ontario paralegal challenging the accepted constitutional governage of immigration consultants, specifically whether LSO By-law 4 ['Licensing'] governed the issue as opposed to s.91(2) ['Representation or Advice'] of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In these quotes the court sets out the licensing regime of Ontario paralegals, which is closely related to that for lawyers:

[1] The central issue raised in this application is whether the processing and filing of immigration applications on behalf of clients is within the Applicant’s scope of practice as a paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO).

[2] The Applicant takes the position that he is authorized to provide such legal services pursuant to s. 91(2) of the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA).

[3] The Applicant takes the position that, properly interpreted, there is no LSO by-law that limits the authorization set out in the IRPA. Accordingly, the LSO’s policy that purports to limit his scope of practice in matters relating to immigration to providing legal services in connection with proceedings or intended proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is, therefore, not authorized by the LSO by-laws.

....

Law Society Act

[11] Lawyers and paralegals in Ontario are governed by the LSO. The regulation of lawyers by the LSO (formerly the Law Society of Upper Canada) dates back to 1797: “An Act for the better Regulating the Practice of the Law” 1797 (U.C.) (2nd Sess.), c. 13.

[12] The regulation, licensing and discipline of paralegals by the LSO only began in 2007 pursuant to statutory amendments enacted in 2006 (Access to Justice Act, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C). Ontario was the first province or territory to licence paralegals and remains the only province or territory in which paralegals require a licence.

[13] Section 26.1(1) of the Law Society Act contains a broad prohibition that “no person, other than a licensee whose licence is not suspended, shall practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario”.

[14] Only lawyers are licensed to practice law. Paralegals are licensed to “provide legal services”. The Law Society Act defines “the provision of legal services” in ss. 1(5)-(7):

Provision of legal services

(5) For the purposes of this Act, a person provides legal services if the person engages in conduct that involves the application of legal principles and legal judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person.

Same

(6) Without limiting the generality of subsection (5), a person provides legal services if the person does any of the following:

1. Gives a person advice with respect to the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of the person or of another person.

2. Selects, drafts, completes or revises, on behalf of a person,

i. a document that affects a person’s interests in or rights to or in real or personal property,

ii. a testamentary document, trust document, power of attorney or other document that relates to the estate of a person or the guardianship of a person,

iii. a document that relates to the structure of a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership or other entity, such as a document that relates to the formation, organization, reorganization, registration, dissolution or winding-up of the entity,

iv. a document that relates to a matter under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada),

v. a document that relates to the custody of or access to children,

vi. a document that affects the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person, other than the legal interests, rights or responsibilities referred to in subparagraphs i to v, or

vii. a document for use in a proceeding before an adjudicative body.

3. Represents a person in a proceeding before an adjudicative body.

4. Negotiates the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person.

Representation in a proceeding

(7) Without limiting the generality of paragraph 3 of subsection (6), doing any of the following shall be considered to be representing a person in a proceeding:

1. Determining what documents to serve or file in relation to the proceeding, determining on or with whom to serve or file a document, or determining when, where or how to serve or file a document.

2. Conducting an examination for discovery.

3. Engaging in any other conduct necessary to the conduct of the proceeding.

[15] Also relevant is subs. 1(8), which exempts specified persons conducting specified activities from the definition of “practicing law or providing legal services”. Of relevance to this case is subs. 1(8)1, which provides:

(8) For the purposes of this Act, the following persons shall be deemed not to be practising law or providing legal services:

1. A person who is acting in the normal course of carrying on a profession or occupation governed by another Act of the Legislature, or an Act of Parliament, that regulates specifically the activities of persons engaged in that profession or occupation.

[16] Section 27(1) of the Law Society Act provides for classes of licences to be prescribed by the LSO in its by-laws:

Classes of licence

27 (1) The classes of licence that may be issued under this Act, the scope of activities authorized under each class of licence and any terms, conditions, limitations or restrictions imposed on each class of licence shall be as set out in the by-laws.

[17] Finally, s. 62(0.1) 4 of the Law Society Act gives the LSO broad authority to make by-laws governing the classes of licences that may be issued, including the scope of activities authorized under each class of licence:

62(0.1) Convocation may make by-laws,

4. prescribing the classes of licence that may be issued under this Act, the scope of activities authorized under each class of licence and the terms, conditions, limitations or restrictions imposed on each class of licence;

[18] Pursuant to its authority under s. 62(0.1) 4 of the Law Society Act, the LSO enacted By-Law 4, in 2007. That provision is at the heart of this legal dispute.

[19] Paralegals hold a Class P1 licence. Section 6(2) of By-Law 4 prescribes the scope of practice for paralegals:

Activities authorized

(2) Subject to any terms, conditions, limitations or restrictions imposed on the class of licence or on the licensee and subject to any order made under the Act, a licensee who holds a Class P1 licence is authorized to do any of the following:

1. Give a party advice on his, her or its legal interests, rights or responsibilities with respect to a proceeding or the subject matter of a proceeding.

2. Represent a party before,

i. in the case of a proceeding in the Small Claims Court, before the Small Claims Court,

ii. in the case of a proceeding under the Provincial Offences Act, before the Ontario Court of Justice,

iii. in the case of a proceeding under the Criminal Code, before a summary conviction court,

iv. in the case of a proceeding before a tribunal established under an Act of the Legislature of Ontario or under an Act of Parliament, before the tribunal, and

v. in the case of a proceeding before a person dealing with a claim or a matter related to a claim, before the person.

3. Anything mentioned in subsection 1 (7) of the Act, provided the activity is required by the rules of procedure governing a proceeding.

4. Select, draft, complete or revise, or assist in the selection, drafting, completion or revision of, a document for use in a proceeding.

5. Negotiate a party’s legal interests, rights or responsibilities with respect to a proceeding or the subject matter of a proceeding.

6. Select, draft, complete or revise, or assist in the selection, drafting, completion or revision of, a document that affects a party’s legal interests, rights or responsibilities with respect to a proceeding or the subject matter of a proceeding.

[20] By-Law 4 defines “proceeding” as a “proceeding or intended proceeding” before certain bodies, including “a tribunal established under an Act of the Legislature of Ontario or under an Act of Parliament”.

[21] If a legal service does not fall within a paralegal’s scope of practice under By-Law 4, it is proscribed by s. 26.1(1) of the Law Society Act.