Paralegal License Denied

A paralegal license has been denied by the Tribunal Hearing Division of the Law Society of Upper Canada. 

The key elements of good character that are essential to a paralegal are: integrity, candour, empathy and honesty. A member of the profession must have the judgment and ability to do what is right, and to be forthcoming and truthful, even when it is not in one’s interest.

…at this stage, we are not satisfied that the paralegal applicant has met the onus upon him to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he is of good character.

The issues related to criminal conduct

The paralegal applicant’s character is at issue in this case because he pleaded guilty to criminal harassment as a result of text messages he sent to an ex-girlfriend. In addition, evidence at the hearing also raised questions about his honesty in the course of the paralegal licensing process.

Facts adduced at the hearing

The paralegal applicant and his former girlfriend (“G”) were involved in an intimate relationship for six years, from the time the paralegal applicant was 15 years old.

On July 8, 2013, G attended at Peel Regional Police, 21 Division to report historical assaults by the paralegal applicant, as well as recent criminal harassment.

G alleged that the paralegal applicant had assaulted her on two occasions, once in the summer of 2012 and once in November 2012. On the second occasion, a passing truck driver witnessed the altercation and contacted the police.

On both occasions, police attended and G denied any assault. There were no visible injuries and police did not lay charges. When she went to the police in July 2013, G stated that she had been untruthful about the assaults at the time, in order to protect the paralegal applicant.

[The criminal harassment charge was based on a series of text messages, phone calls and images from a pornographic website that the paralegal applicant sent to G between June 28, 2013 and July 4, 2013.

The text messages that the paralegal applicant sent to G reveal that he believed that she was having sex with other men and that he had seen her in videos on a pornographic website.

The text messages included comments such as: “your a whore;” “Ur such a dirty whore ☹;” “Like yo today the amount of videos like ur such a fuken whore man;” “Naked with another guy taking dick;” “your gonna get aids;” “your nephews will die;” “so will your parents;” “Ur worse than a typical Guyanese girl man;” “you’ll be whoring the rest of your life lol” “YOUR SUCHHHHH A whOREEEEE.”

There were also approximately 80 phone calls from the paralegal applicant to G over a 24-hour period that were blocked by G.

After character witnesses testified

When the hearing resumed, the paralegal applicant submitted copies of court documents that indicated that on February 15, 2013, he was charged with possession of a weapon, a hacksaw, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to s. 88 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c. C-46, and knowingly uttering a threat to cause death, contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

According to Mr. Pharmaha’s testimony, he went to the home of certain individuals because they had sent offensive text messages of a sexual nature to his sister. When he arrived and got out of his car, he claims that he was “jumped” or attacked by members of the family. He then went back to the car and took out a hacksaw from the trunk. Based on the occurrence report, and as the paralegal applicant acknowledged on cross-examination, he threatened to get a gun and shoot two of the individuals. The police were called and Mr. Pharmaha was arrested. His ex-girlfriend, G, was with him at the time.

Both charges were withdrawn on July 15, 2013. The paralegal applicant entered into a recognizance to keep the peace. The Justice of the Peace ordered Mr. Pharmaha to keep the peace and be of good behavior for 12 months, not to have contact with the individual or his family or to be within 500 metres of their home or place of employment, and not to possess any weapons.

This information was not disclosed on the paralegal applicant’s Paralegal Application Form, which was first submitted on November 14, 2014. As noted above, Mr. Pharmaha disclosed the criminal harassment conviction in response to the question: “Have you ever been found guilty of, or convicted of, any offence under any statute?” He responded “no” to the question: “Have you ever been sanctioned or had a penalty imposed upon you by a court, an administrative tribunal or a regulatory body?”

The paralegal applicant did not provide information about the previous criminal charges on the Amendment Form.

On cross-examination, the paralegal applicant stated that his lawyer told him that the previous criminal charges did not have to be disclosed since the charges were withdrawn, and that he need only disclose the previous matter if asked.

As to remorse

At the hearing, Mr. Pharmaha expressed regret and embarrassment at his past conduct toward G, which he described as “inappropriate.” He states that he has learned from his mistakes and has been working hard in his employment and in his studies to move forward.

While the paralegal applicant’s efforts in this regard are laudable and should be recognized, we find that the sentiments he expresses fall short of remorse. In his testimony, the paralegal applicant did not initially recognize the harmful nature of his conduct and its potential impact on G. The paralegal applicant appeared to view the conduct solely from his own standpoint and the impact it has had on him, his family and his future aspirations. It was only upon extensive questioning, in cross-examination and by the panel, that Mr. Pharmaha acknowledged that his actions would have had consequences for G. The paralegal applicant’s lack of recognition of the harm to G stands in contrast to the likely purpose for sending so many derogatory text messages.

[Remorse entails more than shame or embarrassment. The paralegal applicant is no doubt embarrassed about the nature and language of the text messages, which are highly offensive. By his explanations, he appears to attribute this to youth and emotional distress caused by the break-up of his relationship with G. While the end of a first relationship may be an emotional event, this does not inevitably lead a person to lash out in a verbally abusive and harassing manner, giving rise to a criminal charge.

[Mr. Pharmaha’s behaviour is all the more striking because the previous criminal charges resulted from an incident in which others had sent abusive and sexual text messages to his sister. This upset him so much that he went to confront, and then threatened, the individuals involved. The paralegal applicant clearly saw sending offensive texts as wrong and harmful when perpetrated against his sister, but this did not stop him from engaging in the same conduct himself. We find it troubling that the paralegal applicant was unable to view the conduct as objectively wrong, and to stop himself from subjecting G to the conduct that he saw as so harmful to his sister.

But

This is not to say that the paralegal applicant may not at a future stage be in a position to demonstrate these characteristics.

(Mike Frisch)