“Mistake On Representative”

I had to make a request for trial for her ticket for my mom since she's not in the country. I think I accidentally put my info down in the representative section and I don't know what to do. This is my first time doing this so I wasn't sure about what I was doing. I was confused about what it means so I wrote down my name and info on it.

It just means that you said you are going to represent her in court.

A friend or family is allowed to do this, you will just need a note signed by her saying that she wants you to represent her.

She can still hire lawyer or paralegal at anytime in the future if she wants, and she can choose to defend herself if she wants.

I don't think it is anything you need to worry about.

If you're not a lawyer or paralegal, you can only represent your mom for a guilty plea or adjournment in court; nothing else. You certainly cannot represent her at trial or any Charter motions. Section 82 of the POA allows a defendant to act by representative. However, section 1(1) defines "representative" as being a person authorized under the Law Society Act to represent a person in that proceeding. So, that only includes lawyers and paralegals.

Some courts are quite strict on this rule since allowing laypeople to represent defendants would create a loophole against the system of paralegal regulation. After all, anyone could then represent another in court; thereby negating the obligation of paralegal regulation. Unfortunately, some people think that because they saw a layperson enter a guilty plea on a defendant's behalf that means anyone can represent the defendant for the entire proceedings; they cannot.

That is incorrect ... a friend or relative can represent somebody at trial. The exception is for indictable criminal offences only.

The Law Society of Upper Canada By-Law 4, Part 5, Section 30, Sub-Section 5

By-Law 4 - Licensing

Part V - PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES WITHOUT A LICENCE

Providing Class P1 legal services without a licence

30.

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the following may, without a licence, provide legal services in Ontario that a licensee who holds a Class P1 licence is authorized to provide:

Acting for friend or neighbour

5. An individual,

i. whose profession or occupation is not and does not include the provision of legal services or the practice of law,

ii. who provides the legal services only for and on behalf of a friend or a neighbour,

iii. who provides the legal services in respect of not more than three matters per year, and

iv. who does not expect and does not receive any compensation, including a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, for the provision of the legal services

The Law Society Act and the Law Society's By-Laws are not the same thing. Section 1 of the POA is clear that only a person authorized under the Law Society Act to represent a person in that proceeding will qualify as a "representative" for POA matters. The Law Society Act therefore has to be clear and unequivocal on allowing a person such authorization. Yet, section 26(1) of the LSA only allows "Licensees" to practice law or provide legal services. It makes no exceptions (such as the Law Society by-law does!).

To hopefully clarify things, the by-law referred to is merely an internal governance rule for the Law Society of Upper Canada. And, by-law itself clearly mentions neighbours/friends as providing services "without a licence". In other words, they are NOT "licensees"; thereby not qualifying under Section 26(1) of the LSA and by extension also not meeting the definition of "representative" under the POA. Hence, only a paralegal or lawyer may provide legal services in POA proceedings. The moment anything beyond rudimentary matters are dealt with (e.g. trial and motions), that constitutes "legal services".

Leave it to lawyers to confuse everyone, now we need a lawyer to decipher if we need a lawyer.

The POA says your agent has to be "licensed" by the law society. The Law Society bylaw certainly does authorize a layperson under certain circumstances to act as a representative. The way I read it, it could be construed that the powers granted to a layperson are analogous to holding/granting a (limited) licence. The Upper Canada Law Society bylaws are not laws of the the province, but, at the very least I would say a compelling argument could be made (considering the fact the the Law Society is a self governing organization (empowered by the province) that exclusively authorizes who may practice law).

Please disregard my earlier post(s) on this thread---I'm wrong! jsherk is correct.

In reviewing the laws again, its clear that the Law Society DOES have authority to make by-laws as to who is able to provide legal services without being licensed (i.e. section 62(0.1)(25)). Accordingly, the exception set out in by-law 30(5) of the Law Society is indeed valid per section 26.1(5) of the Law Society Act, and by extension is an exception to the general prohibition under section 26.1. What that means is that those neighbours/friends meeting the conditions of the by-law exception ARE indeed authorized under the LSA; thereby qualifying them as a 'representative' under the POA.

In other words, my earlier posts were wrong. I'm glad I learned this. Regardless, my apologies to everyone for causing doubt and confusion. Thanks for the correction, jsherk!

I am not a lawyer or paralegal but I have represented my wife twice and a friend once at both trial and appeal (for highway traffic act offences). I presented arguments, made motions, cross examinied witnesses, etc. The Crown attorneys, justices of the peace and judges did not have any issues with me doing this.