Presentation at FRDRIO Conference, Nov. 21, 2016.

1. As the Walls Come Down
Who is providing what services in the future, and where?
Courts, community, paralegals, mediators, lawyers and
technology
Omar Ha-Redeye
AAS, BHA (Hons.), PGCert, JD, LLM
CNMT, RT(N)(ARRT)

2. The New Legal Profession
•Bill 14, May 1, 2007 – creation of
regulated paralegals
•Also carved out scope of practice
•Paralegals previously used to do
some family law work, but were
unregulated in doing so

3. Concerns Over Training
• 5 year review (Morris Report) in 2012 identified
interest in expanding scope to family law based on
access to justice
• Need to balance with concerns over education, training,
professionalism
• Contained significant critique of current paralegal
education, especially relating to these areas
• New accreditation announced in 2015
• Introduced changes to improve quality of education

4. A Rescinded Power Move
• Motion introduced to May 2013 Convocation
• Would expand paralegal scope of practice to
family law
• Introduced only by small group of paralegals
• Reaction was widespread animosity by the
bar
• Large scale mobilization, massive turnout
expected
• Motion withdrawn last minute
• Return to diplomatic negotiations instead

5. LSUC and MAG Consultation
• February 2016, Justice Bonkalo led a consultation on
whether “a broader range of legal services providers”
should provide family law
• Also based on promoting access to justice
• Paralegals were always the elephant in the room
• Reaction from the bar
• Concerns over quality could actually be more ineffective and
more inefficient
• Improper training could actually hinder access to justice

6. A Question of Competence
•Competence is required for both
lawyers and paralegals
• R 3.1 of the Lawyer Rules of Professional
Conduct (the “Lawyer Rules”)
• R 3.01 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct
(the “Paralegal Rules)

7. Competence Defined
•Both require “relevant knowledge, skills
and attributes”
•Paralegals have a different standard
• “…the standard of a competent paralegal.”
•Implications of R. v. Bilinski

8. Animosity Clouds the Judgment
•Paralegal Guidelines (used to interpret
the Paralegal Rules)
• Explicitly mentions conduct between
paralegals and paralegal and lawyers
•No such guidelines for lawyers
• But can still be inferred

9. Duty to the Public
•Competing duties at play
1. Improve the legal system
2. Protect the public
•Concerns are legitimate
•Doesn’t preclude potential reform

10. Tools to Improve Accountability of
Licensee
•Summary judgment motions
•Post Hyrniak effect
•Strengthening cost consequences
•Submission R 24(9) of Family Law
Rules

11. Summary
• Reform can be achieved, but cautiously
• Limited scope, mandatory training, support from the
entire bar
• Focus:
• Increased reliance on summary matters
• Increased accountability for counsel
• Ensure that civility remains, and sharp practice is
excluded

12. Contact
• omar@fleetstreetlaw.com
• @omarharedeye
• https://ca.linkedin.com/in/torontolawyer