LAWS 17995 Assignment 3: Legal Research and Writing - Summer 2018

This document presents a comprehensive solution to a Legal Research and Writing assignment, focusing on the analysis of legal cases related to paralegal ethics and professional conduct. The assignment addresses key questions arising from Law Society of Upper Canada v. Lee (2017) and Law Society of Upper Canada v. Adams (2018), examining issues such as trust account contraventions, penalties imposed by tribunals, and mitigating factors in disciplinary proceedings. The solution explores the factors considered by tribunals, the misappropriation of funds, and the licensee's actions. It also delves into the duty to accommodate individuals with disabilities, referencing relevant legal precedents like Bishop v Law Society of Upper Canada and Law Society of Upper Canada v Czernik. Furthermore, the assignment covers the establishment of the Paralegal Standing Committee and the consequences of license revocation. It also includes references to the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, and other pertinent legal authorities. The solution provides a detailed examination of the legal principles and considerations involved in these cases, offering a valuable resource for students studying law and paralegal studies.

LEGAL RESEARCH AND
WRITING
NAME OF THE STUDENT
NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY
AUTHOR NOTE

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Lee,
2017 ONLSTH 210
Question 1
Mr Lee contended
 Paralegals should not be considered as lawyers in
respect on trust account contravention
 Trust account was the account of legal firm and the
lawyer should held accountable for any shortcomings
associated with its operations
 He had no proper knowledge about principles of trust
and trust funds

Question 2
Penalty imposed by the tribunal in this case is revocation
because in the absence of any exceptional circumstances;
Question 3
Three essential factors that the tribunal had taken into
consideration:
 The complexity of the matter;
 Amount of money at issue that is, the amount
misappropriated;
 Duration of the hearing;

Law Society of Upper Canada v.
Adams, 2018 ONLSTH 20
Question 4
 Licensee or Ms Adams misappropriated over $300000
in trust funds over a two-year period from July 2011
to July 2013
 failed to maintain her records and books
 misled the Law Society in annual reports
 Licensee made such misappropriation of funds with
an objective of covering the deficits
 She was aware that the transferring of money out of
trust was wrong

Question 5
Financial desperation or situation of duress or medical evidence
are certain examples that are used mitigating factors amounting
exceptional circumstances (Bishop v Law Society of Upper
Canada [2014] ONSC 5057 at para 31);
In this case:
 Licensee made two instalments during the investigation period
and co-operated by signing the ASF;
 She further identified what wrong she had committed and
expressed her repentance for committing the misappropriation
 Licensee provided extensive character evidence from the
Barrie community and legal community at large
 The licensee holds a good reputation in the eyes of the
authors of the letters and have medical evidence

Question 6
Duty to accommodate must apply if any form of disability is
established (Law Society of Upper Canada v Czernik [2010]
ONLSHP 122);
Personal circumstances such as disability of an individual often
lead to hindrances to fulfil professional obligations.
The individual must be accommodated by the Law and Society
unless such accommodation shall result in hardship by way
causing harm to the public interest. (Ontario Human Rights
Code)
In this case:
 Public opinion concerning legal profession shall be
considerably undermined if Ms Adams is permitted to continue
with legal practice;
 Confidence of the legal profession shall be significantly
undermined if Ms Adams were permitted to continue to
practice
 It is essential to maintain the reputation of the profession of

Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8
Question 7
A standing committee shall be established to be known
as the Paralegal Standing Committee, section
[25.1(1)] of the Act;
Committee shall have 13 members who shall be
accountable for matters as the by-laws relating to
regulation of persons providing legal services in Ontario,
section [25.1 (2) (3)];
A person is a licensee who meets the qualifications of
by-laws and other requirements stipulated under this
Act and a license is issued to such person [27(3)] of
the Act.

Question 8
Licence of the licensee shall be revoked or permit the licensee to
surrender his or her license, section [35(1)];
Licensee shall impose a fine of not more than $10000 that is
payable to the Society, section [35(4)];
Any person that has been appointed by Convocation may revoke
a licence of the licensee, section [48 (1)] of the Act;
Question 9
On an application made to the Hearing Division, it may make an
order that requires the licensee to undergo psychological
examination by one or more Psychologists or Physicians, section
[39(1)];

REFERENCES
1. Bishop v Law Society of Upper Canada [2014] ONSC
5057 at para 31
2. Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8
3. Law Society of Manitoba v Maclver [2003] L.S.D.D.
No. 29
4. Law Society of Upper Canada v Czernik [2010]
ONLSHP 122
5. Law Society of Upper Canada v Lee 2017 ONLSTH
210
6. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Adams, 2018
ONLSTH 20