Report to the
Attorney General of Ontario
Report of Appointee’s Five-Year Review
of Paralegal Regulation in Ontario
Pursuant to Section 63.1 of the Law Society Act
November 2012
Prepared and Respectfully Submitted by:
David J. Morris, MBA
Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2012
Disponible en français
Executive Summary
In the interest of striking some measure of balance between enhancing public access to justice
and ensuring protection for those receiving legal advice from non-lawyers, on May 1, 2007,
persons providing paralegal services in Ontario joined the province’s lawyers under regulation of
the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Amendments to the Law Society Act that introduced paralegal regulation included the
requirement that two reviews be conducted following its fifth anniversary, one by the Law
Society and the other by an appointee of the Attorney General who is neither a lawyer nor
paralegal. Each review was to consider the manner in which paralegals were regulated during
the first five years, and the effect of regulation on paralegals and on members of the public. The
Law Society delivered the report of its review to the Attorney General on June 28, 2012. This
report presents the findings of the appointee review.
The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based on a review of relevant
documents and commentary that preceded and followed the introduction of regulation, including
the Law Society’s two- and five-year reviews. Additionally, submissions were solicited from
paralegals, lawyers, legal organizations and members of the public.
It is appropriate to view the first five years of regulation as the introduction of regulation – of
getting the mechanics of it firmly established. By any objective measure, the introduction has
been a remarkable success. There is evident consensus in the province’s legal community that
regulation has elevated the reputation and image of the paralegal sector, and that the Law
Society has proven to be the appropriate regulatory authority. Research commissioned by the
Law Society indicates that paralegals are generally satisfied with the regulatory framework and
how it was introduced.
Satisfaction levels are also generally high among members of the public who have consumed
paralegal services. The Law Society acknowledges that, despite its efforts to date, awareness in
the general, non-consuming public has not kept pace with changes in the legal services market.
n fact, in a submission to this review, a veteran lawyer described his challenges in determining
the permissible scope of paralegal practice.
The Paralegal Sector in a Snapshot
As of mid-September 2012, there were 4,301active paralegal licensees in the province, with
another 596 inactive and former licensed practitioners. Remarkably, one-quarter of all licences
issued have been issued since January 1, 2011. This leaves the sector somewhat evenly split
between “old hands” who were licensed through introductory provisions of regulation (e.g.
“grandparenting”), and recent graduates of accredited community college programs. The split
tilts increasingly in favour of the latter.
2|Page
Major areas of paralegal practice include Small Claims Court, Provincial Offences Act matters
before the Ontario Court of Justice, Landlord and Tenant Board cases, and cases before
administrative tribunals such as the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
Forty per cent of paralegals who responded to a Law Society-commissioned survey are in
private practice as sole practitioners. One-quarter are in private legal/paralegal practice as
employees. Another 20 per cent list themselves as “Otherwise employed: Other employment.”
The Changed Role of the Law Society
As the regulator of two complementary professions, the Law Society’s duty to facilitate access
to justice for the people of Ontario does not simply expand upon its role as Ontario’s centuriesold, self-regulating college of lawyers, it profoundly alters it.
It is now incumbent upon the Law Society to drive the provision of legal services to the most
accessible, appropriate level of the professions it regulates. Its challenge is in doing so without
compromising professional standards or protection of the public interest.
With the mechanics of paralegal regulation firmly - and admirably - established, the opportunity
presents itself for the Law Society to more directly address the challenge inherent in its
legislated duties. This observation frames my findings and the recommendations that I offer many of which are offered in support of initiatives that are already underway.
Summary of Key Recommendations





That exemptions to Law Society regulation for those providing legal services be
minimized;
That the governance structure of the Law Society be amended to reflect its requisite
impartiality to the professions it regulates;
That exclusionary language in the statutory environment that serves to impede the policy
objectives of regulation be amended;
That initiatives be undertaken to improve the standard of learning, professional
competence and professional conduct of the paralegal sector, as well as public
awareness of the sector; and
That the scope of permissible paralegal practice remain as it is pending improvements in
the standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct of the
paralegal sector.
3|Page
4|Page
Contents
1.
Requirement for this Report ................................................................................................ 6
2.
Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.
Background to Regulation ................................................................................................... 8
4.
Key Findings and Observations .........................................................................................10
The Paralegal Sector at Year Five .....................................................................................10
The Changed Role of the Law Society ...............................................................................13
Exemptions from Regulation ..............................................................................................14
Law Society Governance ...................................................................................................14
Exclusionary Language in Statutes ....................................................................................15
Paralegal Education and Training ......................................................................................16
Professional Conduct .........................................................................................................17
Scope of Practice...............................................................................................................18
5.
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................19
6.
Summary of Recommendations .........................................................................................20
Appendix A – Submissions Received ........................................................................................22
5|Page
1.0
Requirement for this Report
On October 19, 2006, the Province of Ontario’s Access to Justice Act, 2006 received Royal
Assent. In part, the legislation amended the Law Society Act so as to broaden the role of the
Law Society of Upper Canada (“Law Society”) to include regulation of all legal services in the
province. While the term does not appear in statute, the amendments are often characterized as
the introduction of the regulation of “paralegals.”
Amendments to the Act required the Law Society to twice review and report on regulation.
Pursuant to section 63.0.1 (2), the first review was required following the second anniversary of
Royal Assent being given to the Access to Justice Act. Pursuant to section 63.1, the second
review was required following the fifth anniversary of regulation coming into effect on May 1,
2007. The report of the Law Society’s five-year review was delivered to the Attorney General on
June 28, 2012.
Section 63.1 required that an additional five-year review be conducted by an appointee of the
Attorney General of Ontario who is neither a lawyer nor a paralegal. The findings of the
appointee review are presented in this report.
Each of the five-year reviews was to consider the manner in which paralegals in Ontario were
regulated under the Law Society Act during the review period (May1, 2007 – April 30, 2012) and
the effect that such regulation had on paralegals and on members of the public.
The scope of the review reported upon in this document was further clarified in the Terms of
Reference accompanying the reviewer’s appointment by the Attorney General, the Honourable
John Gerretsen:

Assessment of the status of paralegal integration and regulation in Ontario.

Consider the Law Society of Upper Canada’s five year report on paralegal regulation.

Stakeholder feedback: analyze the perceptions and experiences of key stakeholders and
the public. This should include meetings with the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ministry
of the Attorney General, the Paralegal Society of Ontario, the Ontario Bar Association and
The Advocates Society.

Recommendations to the Ministry of the Attorney General and/or the Law Society of Upper
Canada on options for enhancing the effectiveness of paralegal regulation in Ontario.
6|Page
Applicable sections of the Law Society Act follow:
Reports after five years
Definition
63.1 (1) In this section, “review period” means the period beginning on the day on which
all of the amendments to this Act made by Schedule C to the Access to Justice Act,
2006 have come into force and ending on the fifth anniversary of that day. 2006, c. 21,
Sched. C, s. 98.
Review and report by Society
(2) The Society shall,
(a) review the manner in which persons who provide legal services in Ontario have been
regulated under this Act during the review period and the effect that such regulation
has had on those persons and on members of the public;
(b) prepare a report of the review, ensuring that a portion of the report is authored by the
Paralegal Standing Committee; and
(c) give the report to the Attorney General for Ontario within three months after the end
of the review period. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 98.
Appointment by Attorney General
(3) The Attorney General for Ontario shall appoint a person, other than a person who is
authorized to practise law in Ontario or a person who is authorized to provide legal
services in Ontario, to review the manner in which persons who provide legal services in
Ontario have been regulated under this Act during the review period and the effect that
such regulation has had on those persons and on members of the public. 2006, c. 21,
Sched. C, s. 98.
Review and report by appointee
(4) The person appointed under subsection (3) shall,
(a) review the manner in which persons who provide legal services in Ontario have been
regulated under this Act during the review period and the effect that such regulation has
had on those persons and on members of the public; and
(b) prepare a report of the review and give the report to the Attorney General for Ontario
within six months after the end of the review period. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 98.
Application
(5) This section does not require a review respecting persons who are licensed to
practise law in Ontario as barristers and solicitors or persons who are permitted by the
by-laws to practise law in Ontario as barristers and solicitors without a licence. 2006,
c. 21, Sched. C, s. 98.
7|Page
2.0
Methodology
A documentation review was conducted. Primary sources included:

The Task Force on Paralegal Regulation Report to Convocation, September 23, 2004.

Report to the Attorney General of Ontario on the Implementation of Paralegal Regulation in
Ontario, January 2009 (The Law Society’s report on its two-year review of paralegal
regulation).

Five Year Review of Paralegal Regulation: Research Findings Final Report For the Law
Society of Upper Canada, May 6, 2012, STRATCOM Strategic Communications.

Report to the Attorney General of Ontario Pursuant to Section 63.1 of the Law Society Act
(The Law Society’s report on its five-year review of paralegal regulation).
Interviews and submissions were solicited with/from paralegals, lawyers, and legal
organizations. E-mail submissions were also solicited from members of the public through a
posting on the Ministry of the Attorney General’s website. Appendix A to this report lists
interviewees and submissions that were received and considered in developing this report.
3.0
Background to Regulation
In the interest of striking some form of balance between enhancing public access to justice and
ensuring protection for those receiving legal advice from non-lawyers, successive Ontario
governments had - since at least 1990 - considered the need for regulation of those offering
paralegal services in the province. Key issues included the permissible scope of paralegal
practice and the appropriate “home” of a regulatory framework.
In 1990, the Ianni Task Force recommended regulation from within the Ministry of Consumer
and Commercial Relations. Ten years later, Justice Peter de Carteret Cory would recommend
the establishment of a publicly-funded, free-standing regulatory agency.
An added sense of urgency was lent to resolving the matter in August 1999, just prior to the
Cory submission, when the Ontario Court of Appeal commented in the case of R. v.
Romanowicz:
A person who decides to sell t-shirts on the sidewalk needs a license and is subject to
government regulation. That same person can, however, without any form of
government regulation, represent a person in a complicated criminal case where that
person may be sentenced to up to 18 months imprisonment. Unregulated representation
8|Page
by agents who are not required to have any particular training or ability in complex and
difficult criminal proceedings where a person’s liberty and livelihood are at stake invites
miscarriages of justice. Nor are de facto attempts to regulate the appearance of agents
on a case-by-case basis likely to prevent miscarriages of justice.
In July 2001, a working group came together in the legal community, composed of
representatives from The Advocates’ Society, the County and District Law Presidents’
Association, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Metropolitan Toronto Lawyers Association
and the Ontario Bar Association, as well as the Professional Paralegal Association of Ontario,
representing the Paralegal Society of Ontario, the Institute of Agents at Court and the Ontario
Searchers of Record.
In April 2002, the group circulated A Consultation Document on a Proposed Regulatory
Framework that outlined agreement on key principles of a proposed framework.
To some extent, the proposed framework languished until early 2004 when the then-Attorney
General, the Honourable Michael Bryant, asked the Law Society of Upper Canada to consider
taking on responsibility for paralegal regulation.
The Law Society established a task force under the chairpersonship of Bencher William
Simpson. Using the earlier working group’s proposed framework as a starting point - and after a
summer of consultation with the province’s legal community and the general public - the task
force tabled a report containing 22 recommendations. The recommendations outlined a
regulatory framework and scope of practice. The Task Force on Paralegal Regulation Report to
Convocation was adopted by the Law Society on September 23, 2004.
Upon reviewing the task force report, the government introduced Bill 14. The bill expanded the
role of the Law Society to include regulation of paralegals – in fact, to include regulation of all
legal services in the province. The bill was given Third Reading and, on October 19, 2006, the
Access to Justice Act, 2006, containing amendments to the Law Society Act, received Royal
Assent.
The Access to Justice Act, 2006, gave the Law Society six months in which to put in place the
foundations of the paralegal regulatory framework. On May 1, 2007, the Law Society had put in
place a registration process, application forms, insurance requirements and rules of professional
conduct. During that same period, work was undertaken to develop a licensing examination and
fee structure.
9|Page
4.0
Key Findings and Observations
The Paralegal Sector at Year Five
By any reasonable measure, the first five years of paralegal regulation should be viewed as the
introduction of regulation - of getting the mechanics of regulation firmly established. And by any
objective measure, the introduction has been an unqualified success. This achievement is made
that much more remarkable for:

The cultural “shift” that one anticipates was required within the venerable Law Society of
Upper Canada as it broadened its regulatory role to include paralegals;

The six-month timeframe that was available to develop and implement the foundational
components of regulation (e.g. the registration process, insurance requirements,
professional development programs, etc.);

The processing of 2,230 paralegals under “grandparent” provisions of regulation – more
than double the highest estimates of the number of paralegals practicing prior to regulation;

Regulation having been introduced through a self-funding model.
As the bastion of Ontario’s legal community for over two centuries – in fact, since prior to
Ontario becoming “Ontario” – the Law Society of Upper Canada assumed the role of regulator
of paralegals - as well as lawyers - amid concern in some circles that the regulation of one
profession by another, particularly one with potentially competing interests, constituted a conflict
of interest.
The Law Society’s early adoption of the guiding principle that the regulation of paralegals should
mirror the regulation of lawyers wherever possible, has not only returned operational
efficiencies, it has chiefly muted such criticism.
The contentious issue of scope of practice was sidestepped – astutely, I suggest – for the
purposes of introducing regulation by allowing the boundaries of permissible practice to reflect
the scope already permitted to “agents” in legislation and case law.
As of mid-September 2012, there were 4,301 active paralegal licensees in the province, with
another 596 inactive and former licensed practitioners. Remarkably, one-quarter of all licences
issued have been issued since January 1, 2011. This leaves the sector somewhat evenly split
between “old hands” who were licensed through introductory provisions of regulation (e.g.
“grandparenting”), and recent graduates of accredited community college programs. The split
tilts increasingly in favour of the latter.
10 | P a g e
Major areas of paralegal practice include Small Claims Court, Provincial Offences Act matters
before the Ontario Court of Justice, Landlord and Tenant Board cases, and cases before
administrative tribunals such as the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
Forty per cent of paralegals who responded to a Law Society-commissioned survey are in
private practice as sole practitioners. One-quarter are in private legal/paralegal practice as
employees. Another 20 per cent list themselves as “Otherwise employed: Other employment.”
Areas of practice most frequently cited by survey respondents were:
Small Claims Court
Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Offences Act)
Landlord and Tenant Board
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Other major areas of practice
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
Other Tribunals
Summary Conviction Court (Criminal Code)
Financial Services Commission
Human Rights Tribunal
Not currently practicing
43 per cent
37 per cent
27 per cent
18 per cent
18 per cent
15 per cent
14 per cent
13 per cent
12 per cent
8 per cent
5 per cent
When asked to describe the nature of their practice, respondents reported:
In private practice: Sole practitioner
In private practice: Employee in a legal/paralegal practice
Otherwise employed: Other employment
Not employed in Ontario: Unemployed at this time
Otherwise employed: Government
In private practice: Partner
In private practice: Associate
Otherwise employed: Education
Not employed in Ontario: Retired
Not employed in Ontario: Reside outside Ontario
40 per cent
26 per cent
19 per cent
9 per cent
9 per cent
4 per cent
4 per cent
3 per cent
2 per cent
1 per cent
Licensing examinations are available three times annually. In addition to having passed the
examination, licensing candidates must be of good character – a standard that is consistent for
lawyers and paralegals.
No one who meets the other licensing requirements can be refused a licence on the basis of
good character without a hearing. Forty-five cases were referred to hearing during the
grandparenting and transitional processes of regulation introduction. In 22 cases, a licence was
denied.
11 | P a g e
Licensed paralegals are subject to much the same regulatory framework as lawyers. This
includes rules of professional conduct and requirements with respect to trust accounts,
insurance, continuing professional development, payment into a compensation fund, and a
complaints system that includes investigative and disciplinary processes.
Paralegals are also required to file an annual report that includes demographic data, areas of
legal services provided, trust accounts and other financial information, and an enumeration of
their continuing professional development activities.
Law Society resources that are available to paralegals include continuing professional
development programs, a practice management helpline, and mentoring services. The Law
Society has implemented a practice audit program that provides paralegals with practical advice
to improve their practices.
A quick review of professional fees in other sectors supports the Law Society’s position that
paralegals’ annual fees paid to the Law Society compare favourably with other sectors. The fee
structure fully funded the introduction of regulation.
Paralegals are integrated into the Law Society’s governance structure through the Paralegal
Standing Committee, established under the Law Society Act, consisting of five elected
paralegals, five elected lawyer benchers, and three lay benchers.
Research commissioned by the Law Society, which is presented comprehensively in the report
of its five-year review - the veracity of which I find no reason to challenge - indicates that threequarters of surveyed paralegals view the Law Society as the appropriate regulatory agency,
while only nine per cent do not. The remainder is unsure of the alternative.
Submissions to this review, even those that raised concerns with aspects of regulation, suggest
that the Law Society is universally viewed as the appropriate regulatory body within the broader
legal community.
The Law Society research, supported by key stakeholder submissions to this review and to the
Law Society’s five-year review, indicates generally high rates of satisfaction across multiple
dimensions of regulation within the paralegal sector.
Surveyed members of the public who have consumed paralegal services report similarly solid
levels of satisfaction with the services received. The Law Society acknowledges, however, that
awareness in the non-consuming public has not kept pace with changes in the legal services
sector. Submissions to this review, including one in which a veteran lawyer describes his
challenge in determining the permissible scope of paralegal practice, suggests that awareness
may be low, even within the legal community.
12 | P a g e
The Changed Role of the Law Society
Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Law Society Act follow:
Function of the Society
4.1 It is a function of the Society to ensure that,
(a) all persons who practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario meet
standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct that are
appropriate for the legal services they provide; and
(b) the standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct for the
provision of a particular legal service in a particular area of law apply equally to
persons who practise law in Ontario and persons who provide legal services in
Ontario. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 7.
Principles to be applied by the Society
4.2 In carrying out its functions, duties and powers under this Act, the Society shall have
regard to the following principles:
1. The Society has a duty to maintain and advance the cause of justice and the rule of
law.
2. The Society has a duty to act so as to facilitate access to justice for the people of
Ontario.
3. The Society has a duty to protect the public interest.
4. The Society has a duty to act in a timely, open and efficient manner.
5. Standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct for
licensees and restrictions on who may provide particular legal services should be
proportionate to the significance of the regulatory objectives sought to be realized.
2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 7.
As the regulator of two complementary professions, the duty expressed in section 4.2 (2) of the
Act – “to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario” – does not simply expand upon the
role of the Law Society as Ontario’s centuries-old, self-regulating college of lawyers, it
profoundly alters it.
It is now incumbent upon the Law Society to drive the provision of legal services to the most
accessible, appropriate level of the professions it regulates. Its challenge is in doing so without
compromising its function as defined in section 4.1 or its duty to protect the public interest as
defined in section 4.2 (3).
With the mechanics of paralegal regulation firmly - and admirably - established, the opportunity
presents itself for the Law Society to perhaps more directly address the challenge inherent in its
13 | P a g e
legislated duties. This observation frames my findings and the recommendations that I offer many of which are offered in support of initiatives that are already underway.
Exemptions from Regulation
Subsection 1 (8) of the amended Law Society Act excludes from Law Society jurisdiction
individuals acting on their own behalf, other regulated professions that engage in paralegal-type
of activities in their normal course of work, in-house employees preparing documents for their
employer, and trade union representatives acting in the interests of their members. It also
extends the authority to the Law Society to grant other exemptions through its by-laws. It has
granted a number of such exemptions in sections 28 to 30 of By-Law 4 of the Law Society Act.
Certain exemptions appear easily justified with respect to facilitating access to justice without
compromising protection of the public interest. Law students providing services through a pro
bono program, under the direct supervision of a lawyer, is a case in point.
However, certain of these exemptions, such as those granted municipal prosecutors, appear
difficult to justify as anything but a fee-saving allowance granted to the individuals and/or their
employers. These exemptions foster a double-standard that serves to undermine the legislated
functions and duties of the Law Society.
Recommendation 1: That the Law Society continues to pursue elimination of exclusions to its
regulation that cannot be justified in terms of facilitating access to justice and/or protection of the
public interest.
Law Society Governance
As previously noted, paralegals are integrated into the Law Society’s governance structure
through the Paralegal Standing Committee, established under the Law Society Act, consisting of
five elected paralegals, five elected lawyer benchers, and three lay benchers.
Two of the five paralegal members may be elected as Convocation benchers. The committee
chair, elected from among the paralegal members, may attend Convocation with a voice but no
vote, unless s/he is also one of the two elected paralegal benchers.
Approximately 44,000 licensed lawyers elect 40 voting members of Convocation – a ratio of
1,100:1. Approximately 4,300 paralegals elect two voting members – a ratio of 2,150:1.This
under-representation of paralegals is widely acknowledged, and is attributable to the
underestimation of the number of practicing paralegals at the time of the introduction of
regulation.
14 | P a g e
Proportionally equitable representation is not simply just from a governance perspective, it is
critical in allowing the Law Society to act impartially as it drives the provision of legal services to
the most accessible, appropriate level of the professions it regulates – as its duty-bound
obligation to facilitate access to justice requires of it.
Recommendation 2: That the Law Society Act be amended to provide for proportionally equal
representation of lawyers and paralegals in its governance structure.
Exclusionary Language in Statutes
References in certain statutes to “barrister”, “solicitor”, “member of the bar”, etc. that predate the
introduction of paralegal regulation can serve to exclude paralegals, even when that exclusion
might, in fact, impede public access to justice and/or protection of the public interest.
Provision in the Barristers Act with respect to the order of precedence at the bar, for instance,
could prejudice clients’ right to be heard if they exercise the right to be represented by a
paralegal.
Exclusionary language in the Legal Services Act, 1998 prevents paralegals from directly
accepting Legal Aid Certificates, even in matters that fall within the permissible scope of
paralegal practice. This not only constitutes an unlegislated barrier to practice, denial of client’s
right to legitimate representation of his/her choice could most certainly be viewed as denial of
access to justice.
A variant on the matter of exclusionary language has to do with provisions in the Justices of the
Peace Act that provide for the Law Society to recommend to the Attorney General a shortlist of
lawyers from which appointments are made to the Justices of the Peace Appointments Advisory
Committee and the Justices of the Peace Review Council.
Although a preponderance of paralegals represent before justices of the peace – far more than
lawyers, suggests one submission to this review – the Act does not provide for the
recommendation or appointment of paralegals to either body. It bears mention that the Law
Society has indicated its support for the appointment of paralegals to the Justices of the Peace
Appointments Advisory Committee.
In the report of its five-year review, the Law Society identifies the following statutes that have
been or are being considered for amendment.






Justices of the Peace Act
Commissioners for Taking Affidavits
Notaries Act
Solicitors Act
Barristers Act
Juries Act
15 | P a g e

Other Statutes identified and potentially requiring amendment
o Insurance Act
o Private Security and Investigative Services Act
o Legal Aid Services Act
Recommendation 3: That language in statutes that serves to exclude paralegals, when that
exclusion cannot be justified in the interest of facilitating access to justice or protecting the
public interest, is amended so as to include paralegals.
Paralegal Education and Training
The most striking aspect of this review was the universality of criticism of paralegal education.
Among the most vociferous of critics are paralegals.
Criticism centres around:




Absence of prerequisite education, work and life experience, and/or demonstrated
aptitude (i.e. an equivalent to an LSAT) for acceptance to the accredited two-year
college programs;
Inattention to the basic language skills that graduates will need to work effectively as
paralegals;
Inattention to the substantive legal knowledge graduates will need to work competently
as paralegals, particularly with respect to advocacy and the presentation of evidence;
Absence of any meaningful period of apprenticeship as a condition of licensure.
The current education standard provides for an Ontario high school graduate to enrol in a twoyear community college paralegal training program that includes a three-week, unpaid work
placement. Ethics and practice management are the key components of the training, which,
following graduation, allows candidates to write a 100-multiple-choice-question licensing
examination that focuses on these same areas.
A freshly-licensed paralegal is then permitted to hang out a shingle advertising “Legal Services
and Advice,” underscored by “Licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.”
The Paralegal Rules of Conduct prohibits one from practicing in areas where one is not
competent, however, there may be little in the paralegal’s education, work or life experience that
alerts him/her to his/her incompetency.
It is telling that 70 per cent of paralegals responding to a survey commissioned by the Law
Society as part of its five-year review indicated they were satisfied that their college program
was adequate preparation for the licensing examination. Only half of the respondents were
satisfied and 26 per cent were dissatisfied that their college programs adequately prepared
them to practice as paralegals. We are, as it is said in pedagogical circles, teaching to the test.
16 | P a g e
I quote from an external assessment report of the Paralegal Education Diploma program at
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, which, submissions to this
review suggest, is one of the more highly regarded in the province. The report was written by
Small Claims Court Justice Pamela Thompson and paralegal Gary Parker:
“No other professional programme encourages twenty-year-olds to start a business on
their own where the future of the client can be impacted financially (as with courts and
tribunals) or socially (as with criminal & POA courts)….[We] have serious concerns
about the maturity of paralegal graduates from colleges and private schools. We are also
troubled by the poor ability in English of paralegals who must navigate a system where
spoken and written language is so important.”
In contrast to paralegal training, a freshly-licensed lawyer will generally have completed an
undergraduate degree; three years of law school, during which s/he may have had the
opportunity to intern over summer months with a law firm; and a ten-month articling period
under the supervision of a lawyer, during which s/he is prohibited from providing the legal advice
a paralegal is permitted to offer after two years of community college. This will be topped off
with comprehensive, if not grueling, licensing examinations.
Recommendation 4: That the Law Society undertakes a comprehensive review of the paralegal
training and examination regime, beginning with a re-assessment of the competency profile that
is appropriate for the legal services that are permissibly offered by newly-licensed sole
practitioners.
Recommendation 5: That the Law Society considers implementation of sub-classes of paralegal
licences and/or other forms of accreditation to which, following specialized and substantive
training, is attached the right to practice in specific areas of law (e.g. Small Claims Court).
Professional Conduct
The second most striking aspect of this review was the near-universal criticism of professional
conduct within the paralegal sector, particularly with respect to unethical advertising practices.
Again, paralegals are among the most vociferous of critics.
Criticism revolves around:



Paralegals advertising legal services they are prohibited from offering (and in some cases,
then charging fees to “refer” unwary clients to duty counsel).
Paralegals and paralegal offices advertising themselves as lawyers and law offices,
particularly in languages other than English and French;
Paralegals using business names and advertising campaigns that strain, if not violate, ethics
with respect to the advertising of contingency fees.
17 | P a g e
The introduction of paralegal regulation was hailed by then-Attorney General of Ontario Michael
Bryant as “the birth of a new profession.” As the Law Society notes in its five-year review:
“In spite of extensive communications work by the Law Society, public awareness has
not kept pace with changes in the legal services market, particularly with respect to
awareness of the distinction between services provided by lawyers and services
provided by paralegals.”
In such an environment, a complaints-based disciplinary system inappropriately shifts
responsibility for protection of the public interest to an ill-equipped public. Beyond the risk to the
public, the opportunity is lost to instill in the fledgling sector the culture of professionalism that
could foster self-policing.
Recommendation 6: That the Law Society undertakes a public education program that raises
awareness of the legal services options available to Ontarians and the protection offered its
consumers.
Recommendation 7: That the Law Society allocates the necessary resources to actively enforce
within the paralegal sector adherence to its standard of professional conduct.
Recommendation 8: That paralegal licensees of the Law Society are required to include a Law
Society-authorized description of their licence class (e.g. “Paralegal”) and/or subclass in all
marketing and communications materials.
Recommendation 9: That paralegals are required at their first meeting with a client to obtain and
file on record the client’s acknowledgement of disclosure of the scope of the paralegal’s
services and legal advice. (To note: Ontario Real Estate Association’s “Working with a Realtor:
The Agency Relationship” might serve as a useful model.)
Scope of Practice
As noted earlier, the contentious issue of scope of practice was sidestepped for the purposes of
introducing regulation by allowing the boundaries of permissible practice to reflect existing
provisions for “agents” in legislation and case law.
In 2002, the federal government amended the Criminal Code, one effect of which was the
prohibition of agents from appearing on “super summary” matters where the maximum sentence
is 18 months imprisonment. In 2008, when the maximum penalty for impaired driving increased
to 18 months, paralegals lost access to a notable segment of the legal services market.
There is an appetite in the paralegal sector for the business opportunities that would come with
a broader scope of practice. Areas of interest most often mentioned are:
18 | P a g e






Family Law – preparing documents, drafting uncontested divorces
Preparing simple wills
Handling straight-forward real estate transactions
Appearing on super summary matters
Appeals of Small Claims Court decisions to Divisional Court
Appearances in the Superior Court of Justice for the purpose of making or responding
to an application for relief, pursuant to section 140 of the Provincial Offences Act.
While it is the duty of the Law Society to facilitate access to justice, it is also its duty to protect
the public interest. Calls for broadening of the scope of paralegal practice simply cannot be
reconciled with the seemingly widespread criticism of the current paralegal education and
training regime and standards of professional conduct.
It is equally difficult to accept the seemingly pervasive rationale that deficiencies in professional
standards and/or the meeting of professional standards is somehow acceptable when the
potential consequence of incompetence is “only” six months imprisonment, rather than 18, or
the forfeiture of “only” $25,000 rather than $25,001.
Recommendation 10: That the Law Society continues to actively pursue opportunities to
facilitate greater access to justice through broadening of the scope of permissible paralegal
practice, but that such broadening is directly linked to the recommendations above with respect
to paralegal education and training and professional conduct.
Recommendation 11: Consistent with Recommendation 5 above, that the Law Society
considers implementation of sub-classes of paralegal licences and/or other forms of
accreditation to which, following specialized and substantive training, is attached the right to
practice in specific areas of law that might currently fall outside of the scope of permissible
paralegal practice.
5.0
Conclusion
At year five, with the mechanics of paralegal regulation firmly - and admirably - established, the
opportunity presents itself for the Law Society to more directly focus on the policy objectives that
prompted its introduction.
In the interest of facilitating access to justice and protection of the public interest:


Exemptions to Law Society regulation for those providing legal services should be
minimized;
The governance structure of the Law Society should be amended to reflect its requisite
impartiality to the professions it regulates;
19 | P a g e



6.0
Exclusionary language in the statutory environment that serves to unnecessarily impede
access to justice should be amended;
Initiatives should be undertaken to improve the standard of learning, professional
competence and professional conduct of the paralegal sector, as well as public
awareness of the sector; and
Opportunities should continue to be sought to broaden the scope of paralegal practice,
but in lock-step with improvements in the standards of learning, professional
competence and professional conduct of the paralegal sector.
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1: That the Law Society continues to pursue elimination of exclusions to its
regulation that cannot be justified in terms of facilitating access to justice and/or protection of the
public interest.
Recommendation 2:That the Law Society Act be amended to provide for proportionally equal
representation of lawyers and paralegals in its governance structure.
Recommendation 3: That language in statute that serves to exclude paralegals, when that
exclusion cannot be justified in the interest of facilitating access to justice or protecting the
public interest, is amended so as to include paralegals.
Recommendation 4: That the Law Society undertakes a comprehensive review of the paralegal
training and examination regime, beginning with a re-assessment of the competency profile that
is appropriate for the legal services that are permissibly offered by newly-licensed sole
practitioners.
Recommendation 5: That the Law Society considers implementation of sub-classes of paralegal
licences and/or other forms of accreditation to which, following specialized and substantive
training, is attached the right to practice in specific areas of law (e.g. Small Claims Court).
Recommendation 6: That the Law Society undertakes a public education program that raises
awareness of the legal services options available to Ontarians and the protection offered its
consumers.
Recommendation 7: That the Law Society allocates the necessary resources to actively enforce
within the paralegal sector adherence to its standard of professional conduct.
Recommendation 8: That paralegal licensees of the Law Society are required to include a Law
Society-authorized description of their licence class (e.g. “Paralegal”) and/or subclass in all
marketing and communications materials.
20 | P a g e
Recommendation 9: That paralegals are required at their first meeting with a client to obtain and
file on record the client’s acknowledgement of disclosure of the scope of the paralegal’s
services and legal advice. (To note: Ontario Real Estate Association’s “Working with a Realtor:
The Agency Relationship” might serve as a useful model.)
Recommendation 10: That the Law Society continues to actively pursue opportunities to
facilitate greater access to justice through broadening of the scope of permissible paralegal
practice, but that such broadening is directly linked to the recommendations above with respect
to paralegal education, work experience, and professional conduct.
Recommendation 11: Consistent with Recommendation 5 above, that the Law Society
considers implementation of sub-classes of paralegal licences and/or other forms of
accreditation to which, following specialized and substantive training, is attached the right to
practice in specific areas of law that might currently fall outside of the scope of permissible
paralegal practice.
21 | P a g e
Appendix A – Submissions Received
Groups and Organizations
The Advocates’ Society
County and District Law Presidents’ Association
Criminal Lawyers’ Association
Law Society of Upper Canada*
LawPRO
Legal Aid Ontario
Licensed Paralegals Association of Ontario
Office of the Chief Justice, Ontario Court of Justice*
Office of the Fairness Commissioner
Ontario Bar Association
Ontario Society of Collection Agents
Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
Paralegal Society of Ontario
Paralegal Standing Committee, Law Society of Upper Canada*
Peel Law Association
Toronto Lawyers Association
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
Individuals
Mark Brown
Angela L. Browne
Donna Chaplow
Paul Duarte
Charles Foster
Lee-Anne Gadd
William L. Grimmett
Henry Lowi
Dan McIntyre
Stephen Parker
Michael Pawlowkski
Oleksandr Pichugin
Ronald Rybowski
Pamela Thomson & Gary Parker
John Tory
Shawn Weston
Marshall Yarmus
Anonymous
* These groups were consulted but did not provide written submissions
22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e