OHTA.ca

In Ontario, you can represent yourself in court in as many matters per year as required.

In Ontario, you can represent a family member in court in as many matters per year as required (within the same limitations as a Class P1 paralegal license).

In Ontario, you can represent a friend or neighbor in court in up to a maximum of 3 matters per year (within the same limitations as Class P1 paralegal license).

Here is what the law says:

LAW SOCIETY ACT

Not practicing law or providing legal services

1. (8) For the purposes of this Act, the following persons shall be deemed not to be practising law or providing legal services: 3. An individual who is acting on his or her own behalf, whether in relation to a document, a proceeding or otherwise.

LAW SOCIETY ACT

Interpretation

1. (1) In this Act, "person who is authorized to provide legal services in Ontario" means, (b) a person who is not a licensee but is permitted by the by-laws to provide legal services in Ontario;

Exception, non-licensee practising law or providing legal services

26.1 (5) A person who is not a licensee may practise law or provide legal services in Ontario if and to the extent permitted by the by-laws.

Same

26.1 (7) A person who is not a licensee may hold themself out as, or represent themself to be, a person who may provide legal services in Ontario, if,

(a) the by-laws permit the person to provide legal services in Ontario; and

(b) the person specifies, in the course of the holding out or representation, the restrictions, if any,

(i) on the areas of law in which the person is authorized to provide legal services, and

(ii) on the legal services that the person is authorized to provide.

LSUC BY-LAW 4 - PART V - PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES WITHOUT A LICENCE

Providing Class P1 legal services without a licence

30. 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 neighbor

30. 4. 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.

Acting for family

30. 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 related person, within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada), and

iii. 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.

What I have not been able to pin down yet, is the specific definition of "practise law" and the specific definition of "provide legal services".

Hopefully it doesn't count each time we post here !

She only heard of a crying then stopped her car, finding a bicylist fell down behind her car after her turning right along a road from East to West then to North along Brimley Rd. A Police came to investigate the case one day after. He did not lay charge as no any reason and evidence could indicate the bicyclist was bumped by the car. My Mom's English is limited but the insrance company insisting on that I can't talk on behalf of her as I was not at the scene. So far, the company have not passed on any legal claim or lawyer's letter to us, and I am wondering what kind of the fake story the lawyer would make, and what purpose of the insurance company is for.

I will greatly appreciate useful advice in this case.

witty wrote:She only heard of a crying then stopped her car, finding a bicylist fell down behind her car after her turning right along a road from East to West then to North along Brimley Rd. A Police came to investigate the case one day after. He did not lay charge as no any reason and evidence could indicate the bicyclist was bumped by the car. My Mom's English is limited but the insrance company insisting on that I can't talk on behalf of her as I was not at the scene. So far, the company have not passed on any legal claim or lawyer's letter to us, and I am wondering what kind of the fake story the lawyer would make, and what purpose of the insurance company is for.

I will greatly appreciate useful advice in this case.

Your mother was not charged. What you're describing is not a court proceeding but a matter between an insurance provider and its policy holder. It sounds like they're looking for some sort of witness statement about the events. Of course, you were not there so your statement doesn't mean all that much to them. Maybe her provider can provide a translator upon request.

witty wrote:My Mom's English is limited but the insrance company insisting on that I can't talk on behalf of her as I was not at the scene.

That is correct. Since you are not independant, you cannot give an unbiased statement (since your mother was involved). The best bet, would be to ask the insurance company to provide a translator. Translators are considered to be unbiased since they are a third party, unaffiliated with both individuals.

If an insurance company is getting involved, then that means that the other party is stating that your mother hit them. Even though no charge was laid by police, she could still be considered at fault for the accident (whether she believed an accident occurred or not).

Just food for thought, maybe an accident occurred, but your mother didn't pay attention. I've seen a driver get followed by officers who had their sirens on for 7 mins, before another officer got involved and pulled the person over. My point being, is that you were not there, as were I. The only persons who know what really happened was your mother and the biker.

Many Thanks for both.

The problem is no witness at all in accident scene. And both sides had not had one word of any dispute at that moment. Only the following day the guy gave a call with a threat to call the police.

My Mom was inexperinced, nervous, and did not know she should have taken photos for the scene as there was no evidence the bike was hit by her car after all.

She falsely assumed the guy must be hit somehow by her car, eagerly checked if any injury was resulted. The guy happily took $50 from my Mom without his demand, as she thought the old man deserve that comfort.

Now the $50 kindly given become the only surporting evidence of my Mom is responsible for the accident, a typical case of kind heart rewarded by an unkind heart.

Is my Mom deserving a copy of a claim letter from the claiming lawyer?

I am confused. Who contacted your wife?

Did the police contact your wife?

Did your insurance company contact your wife?

Did a lawyer for the person on the bike contact your wife?

jsherk wrote:I am confused. Who contacted your wife?

Did the police contact your wife?

Did your insurance company contact your wife?

Did a lawyer for the person on the bike contact your wife?

I am confused as well. Who said wife. The guy never once said wife in the entire post.

How did he get your mom's number? Obviously if she felt she caused the damages, she would give it out. Secondly, NEVER pay out money for an accident unless the insurance company tells you to. By doing so, your mom is essentially admitting guilt. You even said "Without his Demand" which means she offered it to him. If I didn't hit someone with my car, first, I wouldn't give them my number, let alone $50. I would give them my plate, tell them to **** off, and to call the cops if they had a problem.

There's more to this story than what's being posted. First you post how the insurance companies are coming after you. Now you're talking about lawyers. Regardless, if your mother has insurance and is sued civilly, the insurance should cover the damages.

Tell him to call the police, and your insurance company but fire off a letter to the insurers with the background of the incident.

This sounds like a fraudulent claim.

I was driving in Regina many years ago following a car which struck another vehicle which had turned in front of it. I stopped and gave my name and number to the driver I'd been following who was an elderly poor-English speaker. The other car had 3 Caucasian youths. Amazingly I was called to testify at a civil case that the three guys brought against the old fellow and they had concocted some story to put him at fault. I took the stand and gave a police style witness testimony which resulted in justice.....but might have been tough if the old fellow (who couldn't afford a lawyer he said) had been left on his own.

Your mother may be being set up for something similar. Tell them to pound sand.

Exactly as you sais, argyll. That's why the police did not lay charge against my Mom after listening to the both sides.

Refer to Section 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act. 193. (1) When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

How to interprate reason here? Is it truely as the insurer said the bicyclist needn't provide with any proof for his claim but all burdens are on driver?

The driver had stopped at stop sign first. After habitually checking the both sides safe, she proceeded the right turn from East to West then to North. After hearing a cry from rear, the driver stopped car instantly and stepped out finding an old man with a bike was trying to stand up on the ground within a couple of meters behind the car.

1, As the car initially started moving West then turning North. The bike must move East or South direction for a possible bump with the car.

2, The bicyclist must illegally rode on the left part (or the side way) of main road from North to South. And after being hit, it had to fly over the car, then landed on at the South side behind the car.

3, Or crazily doing a 90 degree angle turning, the bicyclist was heading East from the central line of the main road into the small road the car originally had come from.

4, In all other possibly moving directions, the bike seemed no way being bumped by the Northern heading car. Unless the bike moved much faster than the car also to North and chasingly bumped the car behind in same moving direction.

Sorry I meant mother not wife.

Okay so I see my original thread got hijacked... but back to the original topic...

I asked the Law Society of Upper Canada about the definition of "practice law" and "provide legal services" and this is what I got back:

You are asking the Law Society for the definition of "practice law" and "provide legal services".

As you may know, The Law Society of Upper Canada is the governing body for lawyers and paralegals in Ontario. The Law Society regulates the legal professions in the public interest according to Ontario law and the Law Society's rules, regulations and guidelines.

For your information, subsections 1(5) to 1(7) of the Law Society Act (the "Act") detail a number of services, which are legal services. These services may be provided by a lawyer. Section 6 of the Law Societys By-Law 4 details a limited number of legal services that may be provided by a person licensed to provide legal services (a "paralegal"). A lawyer may provide all of those services detailed in subsections 1(5) to 1(7) of the Act, a licensed paralegal may only provide those services detailed in By-Law 4, section 6.

A person who is not a licensee cannot provide any legal services, or hold out that he/she may provide any legal services, unless they are among the classes of persons who may provide limited legal services (i.e. "paralegal services") without a licence under Part V of By-Law 4, or the services that they provide are deemed to be non-legal services under subsection 1(8) of the Act or Part IV of By-Law 4.

All information about the licensing and regulation of lawyers and paralegals, including the Act and By-Law 4, is available on our website at www.lsuc.on.ca