August 24th 2026. Former Law Society of Upper Canada volunteers or employees are criminally vicariously liable for the society's persistent, admitted "Racialism" and for "Fraud." A regulatory body—such as a Law Society—failing to follow its own internal rules or enabling procedural unfairness raises distinct administrative, constitutional, and criminal law considerations under Canadian jurisprudence. By Ashanika Watarudoinghah. Click here.

 August 24th 2026. 

Former Law Society of Upper Canada volunteers or employees are criminally vicariously liable for the society's persistent, admitted "Racialism" and for "Fraud." 

A regulatory body—such as a Law Society—failing to follow its own internal rules or enabling procedural unfairness raises distinct administrative, constitutional, and criminal law considerations under Canadian jurisprudence.

By Ashanika Watarudoinghah. 

Click here.  

1. Administrative Law

When a Law Society breaches its statutory framework or rules of procedure, the primary remedy lies in Administrative Law via judicial review. Administrative bodies are bound by the duty of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice.

• Procedural Unfairness: Denying a party adequate notice, fair hearing, or proper process can cause a tribunal's decision to be set aside on judicial review.
• Jurisdictional Error: Acting outside the authority granted by the governing statute (e.g., the Law Society Act) makes the decision ultra vires (beyond its legal power) and voidable.

2. Constitutional Claims under the Charter

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Law Societies because they exercise statutory authority delegated by provincial legislation (R. v. Blencoe, 2000 SCC 44).

• Section 7 (Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person): To establish a Section 7 breach, a claimant must demonstrate a deprivation of liberty or security of the person that fails to accord with the principles of fundamental justice.
  • Economic/Professional Interests: The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held that pure economic rights or the right to practice a profession are not protected under Section 7 (Attorney General of Canada v. Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554).
  • Serious Psychological Harm: If administrative delay or misconduct causes state-imposed psychological stress rising above ordinary anxiety, Section 7 security of the person may be engaged, though the legal threshold remains exceptionally high.
  • 
    
• Section 15 (Equality Rights): A Section 15 claim requires demonstrating that the Law Society's action creates a distinction based on an enumerated ground (e.g., race, sex, disability) or an analogous ground, and that this distinction perpetuates disadvantage or stereotyping. Merely breaking an internal rule does not automatically constitute discrimination under Section 15 unless differential treatment on a protected ground is proven.

3. Criminal Law Thresholds (Criminal Code)

Crossing from administrative non-compliance to criminal liability requires meeting specific legal standards set out in the Criminal Code:

• Criminal Mischief (Section 430): Requires proving an intentional act to destroy, damage, or obstruct the lawful use or enjoyment of property. Administrative missteps, rule breaches, or unreasonable decisions do not meet the actus reus or mens rea for criminal mischief.
• Criminal Harassment (Section 264): Requires proving that a person repeatedly communicated or engaged in threatening conduct, causing another person reasonably to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. Regulatory proceedings or official administrative acts, even if flawed or heavy-handed, generally do not meet this standard without clear evidence of intentional, dangerous conduct.
• Misconduct in Relation to Official Duties: In rare instances involving public officers, section 122 (Breach of Trust by Public Officer) penalizes officials who commit fraud or a breach of trust in connection with the duties of their office. However, this requires proving intentional corruption, bad faith, or dishonesty—not mere procedural error or misapplication of regulations.