Case information

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Administrative law — Appeals — Boards and tribunals — Law Society — Permits and licences — Applicant’s application for licensing refused by Hearing Panel of Law Society Tribunal — Licensing refusal upheld by Appeal Panel — Divisional Court quashing appeal from Appeal Panel decision for lack of jurisdiction — Court of Appeal refusing leave to appeal — Whether judges and lawyers should be allowed to appeal licensing decisions while denying articling students appeals of licensing decisions, contrary to Charter right of equality — Whether Divisional Court and Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to correct errors in law made by Law Society tribunals — Whether lower courts followed rule of law laid out by Supreme Court of Canada regarding self-represented litigants — Whether it is of national importance and importance to humanity as a whole to have coherent laws and reasonably defined parameters of what constitutes “good character” — Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, ss. 27, 49.31, 49.38 — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15.

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.

The applicant, Charles Polanski, applied to the Law Society of Ontario to be licensed as a lawyer. The Law Society referred his application to a panel of the Hearing Division of the Law Society Tribunal, to determine if he met the “good character” requirement under s. 27(4) of the Law Society Act. In September 2020, the Hearing Division dismissed Mr. Polanski’s application. In November 2021, the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal dismissed Mr. Polanski’s appeal from the licensing decision. Mr. Polanski then sought to appeal the Appeal Division’s 2021 decision, by way of an application before a single judge of the Divisional Court within the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Polanski’s appeal. The Court of Appeal refused to grant Mr. Polanski leave to appeal that decision.