Law Society of Upper Canada v. Chiarelli, 2014 ONCA 391

• Judge: Juriansz, Hourigan and Benotto, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 14, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2014 ONCA 391;(2014), 321 O.A.C. 116 (CA)

LSUC v. Chiarelli (2014), 321 O.A.C. 116 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.029

The Law Society of Upper Canada (applicant/respondent) v. Enzo Vincent Chiarelli (respondent/appellant)

(C56952; 2014 ONCA 391)

Indexed As: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Chiarelli

Ontario Court of Appeal

Juriansz, Hourigan and Benotto, JJ.A.

May 14, 2014.

Summary:

Chiarelli operated a business (Landlord Services) that provided a variety of property management services to property owners for a flat monthly fee, including appearing on the owner's behalf before the Landlord and Tenant Board. Chiarelli was neither a lawyer nor a paralegal. The Law Society applied for a permanent injunction prohibiting Chiarelli from providing, or holding himself out as able to provide, legal services.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a judgment reported [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1428, granted a permanent injunction prohibiting Chiarelli from providing legal services for which he was not licensed under the Law Society Act. The court rejected Chiarelli's argument that as a property manager he was the landlord's "personal representative" and therefore entitled to self-represent before the Board as a "landlord" as defined in s. 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act. Chiarelli appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Juriansz, J.A., dissenting in part, dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 6268

Unauthorized practice (incl. offences) - Acting as a solicitor - Exceptions - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 6270 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 6270

Unauthorized practice (incl. offences) - Acting as a solicitor - Agents and paralegals - Chiarelli operated a business (Landlord Services) that provided a variety of property management services to property owners, including appearing on the owner's behalf before the Landlord and Tenant Board - Chiarelli was neither a lawyer nor a paralegal, but argued that as a property manager, he was the landlord's "personal representative" and entitled to self-represent before the Board as a "landlord" as defined in s. 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act (i.e., not required to be a lawyer or licensed as a paralegal) - The trial judge allowed the Law Society's application for a permanent injunction prohibiting Chiarelli from appearing before the Board on a landlord's behalf, as such was providing "legal services" which Chiarelli was not licensed to provide under the Law Society Act - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, with the exception of allowing Chiarelli to self-represent before the Board if he was the property owner/landlord in that particular case - Chiarelli was providing unlicensed "legal services" under the Law Society Act - Chiarelli abandoned his argument that he was a "personal representative", therefore a "landlord" - Chiarelli claimed that he was a "landlord" under s. 2(1)(c) because he was a person "who permits occupancy of a rental unit" and/or because he was a person "entitled to possession of the residential complex and who attempts to enforce any of the rights of a landlord under a tenancy agreement or this Act, including the right to collect rent" - The court held that, assuming Chiarelli met the definition of "landlord" under the Residential Tenancies Act, that Act did not grant Chiarelli any right to self-represent - Nor did the Statutory Powers Procedure Act confer a right on Chiarelli, as "landlord", to represent the owners before the Board - Only the Law Society Act explicitly dealt with the right to self-representation - Chiarelli could represent himself on his own behalf before the Board (if he owned the property), but he could not represent his clients (owners) - Accepting Chiarelli's argument would create a conflict between the Residential Tenancies Act and the Law Society Act and would defeat the purpose of the Law Society Act (i.e., the oversight and regulation of legal services) - See paragraphs 1 to 37.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 201

The relationship - Who may be a landlord - General (incl. "landlord" defined) - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 6270 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. IPSCO Recycling Inc. et al. (2003), 243 F.T.R. 72; 2003 FC 1518, refd to. [para. 15].

Services aux enfants adultes de Prescott-Russell v. N.G. et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 146; 82 O.R.(3d) 686 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Torroni et al. (2009), 246 O.A.C. 212; 94 O.R.(3d) 614; 2009 ONCA 85, refd to. [para. 47].

CEL-30549-13-RV, Re, 2013 LNONLTB 1393, refd to. [para. 51].

Mitchell v. Fraser (1917), 40 O.L.R. 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Lachance v. Auzano Asset Management Inc. et al. (1999), 184 Sask.R. 107; 1999 SKQB 1, refd to. [para. 60].

Delcozzo v. Prompton Real Estate Services Corp., [2004] O.R.H.T.D. No. 4, refd to. [para. 60].

TST-10899-10, Re, 2011 LNONLTB 830; 2011 CanLII 34682, refd to. [para. 68].

TST-20332-11, Re, 2012 LNONLTB 339; 2012 CanLII 21616, refd to. [para. 68].

Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp. (2010), 266 O.A.C. 261; 102 O.R.(3d) 590; 2010 ONCA 468, refd to. [para. 72].

Price v. Turnbull's Grove Inc. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 1; 85 O.R.(3d) 641; 2007 ONCA 408, refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-8, sect. 1(5), sect. 1(6), sect. 1(7), sect. 1(8)(3), sect. 26.1(1), sect. 26.3(1) [para. 19].

Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 2006, c. 17, sect. 2(1), sect. 2(4), sect. 187(1) [para. 20].

Statutory Power Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-22, sect. 5, sect. 19, sect. 10.1 [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 68 [para. 70].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2013 looseleaf), paras. 3.265, 6.10 [para. 34]; 6.16 [para. 47].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 61, 62 [para. 70]; 412 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Joseph Kary, for the appellant;

Simon Bieber and Erin Pleet, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 10, 2013, before Juriansz, Hourigan and Benotto, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On May 14, 2014, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was released and the following opinions were filed:

Hourigan, J.A. (Benotto, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 40;

Juriansz, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 41 to 84.