|
Representation - Paralegals and Lay Representatives - Immigration Consultants. 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 paras 33-40 and 48-80 the court considers (and decides against) whether Ontario paralegals can act as immigration consultants [which means '(d)rafting of documents or other legal services practices that are not related to an IRB hearing'], particularly in light of LSO Bylaw 4 ['Licensing']:Final Conclusion
[133] The Applicant and Intervenor, the Ontario Paralegal Association, advanced several policy arguments in support of the expansion of the scope of practice of paralegals in the immigration field. The Intervenor, the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, made policy arguments in opposition to such expansion.
[134] It is not the role of this Court to determine whether, as a matter of policy, the scope of practice for paralegals should be expanded to include the processing and filing of immigration applications on behalf of clients. The policy issue has been delegated by the Ontario Legislature to the LSO, the body responsible for the regulation of paralegals. The Parliament of Canada has referentially incorporated the LSO’s regulatory requirements by requiring paralegals to be “members in good standing” of the provincial law society.
|
