Paralegal License Granted Despite Domestic Violence Conviction

The Tribunal Hearing Division of the Law Society of Upper Canada has granted a paralegal license to an applicant convicted of domestic violence

The applicant was born in India in 1971 and has been living in Canada since 1988.

In 2002, he returned to India where he got married. His wife joined him in Canada in 2003. She had been a dentist in India and was taking steps to qualify to practise in Canada. In 2006 their son was born.

The crimes

On November 3, 2008, the wife reported to the police that she had been assaulted. Ultimately, based on the wife’s statement, the applicant was charged with five counts of assault and one count of assault with a weapon.

The wife gave the following testimony at the criminal trial about the six incidents:

On November 6, 2003, the applicant grabbed her hair and hit her with the other hand.

On January 31, 2004 while in a library, the applicant stomped on her foot when she asked him about a call he had answered.

On January 31, 2004, after the library incident, the applicant attempted to strangle her with a cord (the assault with a weapon charge).

On July 31, 2004, the applicant kicked her several times while they were seated in the car, resulting in a large bruise. He then pulled her out of the car leaving her in torrential rain, returning for her later.

On December 31, 2004, the applicant gave her a black eye that required she go to the hospital.

                On November 3, 2008, (the incident that resulted in charges being laid) the applicant stopped the car they were in and hit her several times before driving off with their son.

The applicant was convicted on all six counts following a trial and on January 14, 2010 was sentenced to one year in jail, with two years of probation to follow.

The applicant maintained his innocence of these offences at trial and continues to maintain his innocence. However, he accepts that he has been convicted and has a criminal record.

Present character

The applicant’s integrity, empathy, and honesty were made clear through his witnesses, his letters of reference, and his own testimony. We accept this evidence and find that these words are an apt description.

Counsel for the Law Society raised the issue of candour. She noted the scant amount of detail in the answers to the questions related to his convictions on the application form and in his further explanatory letter to the investigator from the Law Society.

She also noted that some of his references did not have full details about his criminal offences. He did not talk about his offences while at paralegal college, nor did he inform his placement for his work requirement about the charges (at the time he was hired). He testified that he was not required to disclose that at the time.

Counsel raised a valid point. Lack of a frank, open approach to the investigation can make it appear like there is something to hide. However, the references had knowledge that the applicant had been convicted of criminal offences and were in a position to inquire further if they were uncomfortable providing letters. The two witnesses who appeared at the hearing had read the Agreed Statement of Facts before testifying.

We also took into account the applicant’s shy and reticent nature and understood his desire for privacy.

(Mike Frisch)