Next In Line
The Ontario Law Society Hearing Division denied a paralegal license on character and fitness grounds.
The applicant is from Ukraine. She was born April 13, 1981, and worked as a paralegal in Ukraine, although she testified that there is no paralegal licensing in that country. She worked for at least a decade in a government department and was responsible for debt collection.
Criminal charges
The applicant attended virtual proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice on December 8, 2021, and pled guilty to stealing a wallet and committing fraud in the amount of $191.88. She was present and through the paralegal she had retained to represent her, she admitted to the facts read into court, which included the following:
1. On or about July 12, 2021, the police attended at complainant RS’s address. RS reported her wallet was missing and that her credit/debit cards had been used.
2. RS told the police that she had last had her wallet at Sobey’s on July 10, 2021, as she made a purchase at 8:28 p.m.
3. The next morning on July 11, 2021, RS received multiple emails from Scotiabank advising her that her debit card had been used multiple times, starting at 10:03 a.m. This is when RS realized that her wallet was gone.
4. Police attended Sobey’s in Chatham to review videotapes. While reviewing video, police observed RS drop her wallet while cashing out at Sobey’s. The applicant was the next person in line and can be seen picking up the wallet and leaving the store with it. She made no attempt to return it to RS or the store staff members.
5. Police then followed the trail of where RS reported her card being used. The first was Esso located at 410 Queen Street where a card was used at 10:03 a.m. for the amount of $58.20. The applicant was viewed on video at Esso paying for gas using one of the stolen cards. Police were able to get the licence plate from the vehicle which is registered to the applicant. Using this, police were able to positively identify the applicant.
6. Police then attended the Bulk Barn located at 408 St. Clair Street in Chatham, where RS reported a charge of $82.29 at 10:30 a.m. Police were able to locate a transaction of the same amount at the exact time.
7. Police then attended Shoppers Drug Mart located at 420 Queen Street in Chatham where RS had reported a charge of $49.59 at 10:11 a.m. Police were able to locate a transaction of the exact amount at the exact time. Police also observed the applicant on video at the Shoppers Drug Mart checking out.
8. At 2:09 p.m. police attended the applicant’s residence. In the parking lot was the same car. In plain view on the passenger side floor was RS’s stolen wallet. The wallet was retrieved by the applicant’s daughter. Inside the wallet were many cards with RS’s name on them.
9. At 2:29 p.m. police located the applicant and placed her under arrest for the above charges.
The applicant plead guilty to theft under $5,000 and fraud. The penalty was a conditional discharge upon the successful completion of a one-year community probation, payment of restitution and a no contact order with the victim of the crime.
Character
The hearing was an opportunity for the applicant to admit her wrongdoing, as she has previously done, and to provide evidence of her current good character. She did not avail herself of the opportunity. Rather, she deflected blame to a third person who was apparently with her when the bank card was used. She offered contradictory versions of events and minimized her behaviour. She repeated the negative impact of the misconduct upon her. She only acknowledged the impact of her misconduct on the victim when she was specifically asked that question in cross-examination. She denied that her conduct affected the public in anyway. She does not appreciate the impact that this behaviour has on the public’s perception of the profession.
In short, we do not doubt that the applicant regrets what transpired because it has had negative consequences to her, but she does not appreciate that her conduct was wrong, especially how wrong it was, and the impact that it had on both others and her chosen profession.
Offense not disqualifying
The criminal conviction does not automatically disqualify the applicant from obtaining a licence. The law recognizes that people can change and improve themselves. Past actions are not necessarily indicative of current or future behaviour. We must decide whether the applicant is currently of good character. It is emphasis on the present which is central to our task.
No costs were awarded. (Mike Frisch)