Shaulov v. Law Society of Ontario

Shaulov v. Law Society of Ontario

The appeal was allowed in part: the Court held it was premature to dismiss the appellant's s.15 Charter and Code discrimination claims categorically and granted leave to amend those claims broadly (not limited to race/ethnicity); the motion judge erred in concluding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over administrative law claims commenced by action and the question whether the administrative claims should be struck under r.21.01(1)(b) is remitted to the motion judge; other dismissals and the costs order were upheld.

Citation
2023 ONCA 95
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Alexander Shaulov; Defendant (respondent): Law Society of Ontario; Defendant (respondent): Performance Assessment Group Inc.; Defendant (respondent): John Braham; Defendant (respondent): Michael Williams
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Judicial Review Converted to Action Involving Licensing and Constitutional/human Rights Claims / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order Dismissing Claims on Motion to Strike and From Costs Order; Remitted in Part to Motion Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: leave to amend s.15 Charter and Code discrimination claims granted; administrative law issue remitted to motion judge to decide whether to dismiss under r.21.01(1)(b); other aspects of appeal dismissed; leave to appeal costs granted but appeal from costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Charter S.15 Discrimination, Charter S.7 Liberty/security, Human Rights Code S.46.1(2), Motion to Strike (r.21.01(1)(b)), Leave to Amend Pleadings, Jurisdiction of Superior Court Over Administrative Claims, Licensing Examinations, Costs/leave to Appeal Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Professional Regulation Charter S.15 Discrimination Charter S.7 Liberty/security Human Rights Code S.46.1(2) +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Shaulov

Plaintiff (appellant)

Law Society of Ontario

Defendant (respondent)

Performance Assessment Group Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

John Braham

Defendant (respondent)

Michael Williams

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Judicial Review Converted to Action Involving Licensing and Constitutional/human Rights Claims / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order Dismissing Claims on Motion to Strike and From Costs Order; Remitted in Part to Motion Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in striking the appellant's claims under r.21.01(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether s.7 Charter protects pursuit of a profession/licensing requirements
  3. 3 Whether s.15 Charter and Code discrimination claims were dismissed without adequate leave to amend

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part: the Court held it was premature to dismiss the appellant's s.15 Charter and Code discrimination claims categorically and granted leave to amend those claims broadly (not limited to race/ethnicity); the motion judge erred in concluding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over administrative law claims commenced by action and the question whether the administrative claims should be struck under r.21.01(1)(b) is remitted to the motion judge; other dismissals and the costs order were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: leave to amend s.15 Charter and Code discrimination claims granted; administrative law issue remitted to motion judge to decide whether to dismiss under r.21.01(1)(b); other aspects of appeal dismissed; leave to appeal costs granted but appeal from costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Appellant granted leave to amend s.15 Charter and Human Rights Code discrimination claims generally
  • Remit to motion judge to determine whether the appellant's administrative law claims should be dismissed under r.21.01(1)(b)