Issue involves LSO policy on what paralegals can do in immigration context
The Ontario Court of Appeal prevented a licensed paralegal from intervening in an appeal against the Law Society of Ontario (LSO), brought by a fellow paralegal who challenged restrictions on the permitted scope of practice for paralegals in immigration matters.
The LSO determined that its By-Law 4 did not allow a paralegal, in the immigration context, to draft documents or provide other legal services practices unrelated to an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing.
In 2023, the Divisional Court dismissed the application filed by Antonio Caruso, a paralegal assailing the LSO’s restrictions.
The Ontario Court of Appeal granted Caruso leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Divisional Court erroneously found the LSO policy a reasonable and correct interpretation and application of the relevant law, including:
Caruso asserted numerous appeal grounds. The appeal court scheduled the appeal hearing on May 6, 2026.
The Ontario Paralegal Association (OPA), the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC), the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA), and the Canadian Paralegal Alliance (CPA) moved for leave to intervene as friends of the court under r. 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
In a statement of claim issued on Mar. 21, 2025, another paralegal named Joss Covenoho brought her own action challenging the LSO’s authority in immigration matters.
On Apr. 8, 2025, in Caruso v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 270, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted the CICC, the CILA, and the OPA leave to intervene in the appeal.
However, the appeal court denied the CPA’s request to intervene. The appeal court ruled that the CPA could not assist it or provide a perspective distinct from the parties’.
Last Jan. 9, Justice Iacobucci stayed Covenoho’s action pending the result of the Caruso appeal, given the substantial overlap between the issues in the two proceedings.
In an affidavit sworn Feb. 1, Covenoho moved for leave to intervene in the Caruso appeal. She wanted to assist with the jurisdictional question of whether provincial regulators could use “scope of practice” instruments to narrow or negate Parliament’s explicit authorization under s. 91 of the IRPA.
Last Mar. 9, in Caruso v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONCA 177, the Court of Appeal for Ontario did not allow Covenoho to intervene. The appeal court did not order costs.
The appeal court noted that Covenoho sought to intervene long after the deadline for motions by proposed intervenors, even though she had known about the Caruso proceeding since at least March 2025.
The appeal court considered Covenoho’s claims against the LSO in her own action similar to those in Caruso’s claim.
The appeal court held that Covenoho failed to prove that she could offer a unique and beneficial perspective and assistance beyond what the parties and the approved intervenors would provide.
The appeal court pointed out that Caruso and the approved intervenors would address the relevant provincial and federal regulatory regimes.
The appeal court described Covenoho’s fresh as amended statement of claim, which was found to include inflammatory language and irrelevant statements, as difficult to follow. The appeal court added that her motion materials did not particularize her proposed arguments.
