Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Constitutional law – Access to justice – Judgments and orders – Summary judgment – Applicant’s statement of claim seeking declaratory relief concerning regulatory regime governing paralegals ordered struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action – Whether court of appeal erred in concluding that Ontario Legislature had jurisdiction to promulgate By-law 4 amending the Law Society Act as part of Access to Justice Act, 2006 notwithstanding it unreasonably inhibited access to section 96 courts and imposed unreasonable restriction on affordable justice by limiting the scope of practice of more affordable paralegals and placing them under the control of a body elected by lawyers – Whether court of appeal erred in concluding that definitions contained in Competition Act could not be relied on as legislative facts in proceedings commenced by applicant.

Mr. Kopyto sought to be grandparented as a paralegal in the province of Ontario. The Law Society of Upper Canada ["LSUC"] initiated a good character hearing with respect to his application under the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 (“LSA”) in order to determine whether or not Mr. Kopyto ought to be licensed as a paralegal in Ontario. After a determination on judicial review that a Hearing Panel did not have jurisdiction to hear his motion to stay the good character hearing on the basis that the regulatory regime was unconstitutional, Mr. Kopyto issued a statement of claim seeking five declarations: that By-law 4 of the LSA constituted an "anti-competitive act" as defined in the Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34; that the LSUC had abused its position by restricting access to justice due to its assumption of regulatory jurisdiction over paralegals; that the LSUC acted in bad faith and was in a conflict of interest by dealing with the paralegal profession; that By-law 4 was not in the public interest because it restricted paralegals' practice, contrary to the enabling statute; and that By-law 4 violated the constitutional right of access to affordable justice. The LSUC brought a motion to have the statement of claim struck.