Solution: The best answer is (a). A barrister should make appropriate arrangements for practice absences to account for practice interruptions, planned absences and unplanned absences. This is an entry-level barrister competency, and hence should be prioritized. The other options should not be prioritized over this. (b) is virtually impossible; in fact, lawyers have to follow certain identity and verification rules, which by their nature, require lawyers to collect personal information about their clients. (c) is a nice-to-have, but should not by any means be a priority, and is no where prescribed by the Law Society in either its Rules of Professional Conduct or By-Laws. Finally, (d) is also not necessarily a priority. It may make sense for Aleena to hire support staff first; but at the same time, it may make sense to hire lawyers first. As with (c), the Rules and By-Laws provide no guidance on this as it’ll ultimately depend on the lawyer, the lawyer’s skillset and the nature of their practice, among other things.

Solution: Since Karina told Guytano that she has recently been bankrupt, Guytano must verify that she is a discharged bankrupt before commencing an action on behalf of Karina, and hence (b) is the correct answer. Providing a retainer agreement is ideal for any client engagement, but is not a must (except for limited scope retainers), and hence, (a) is incorrect. For (c), asking whether Karina’s corporation has employees or independent contractors is of little use. Finally, for (d), while a lawyer should encourage a client to compromise or settle a dispute whenever possible, there is no requirement to hold a mediation session before commencing an action, unless the situation falls under R.24.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which is not clear in this case.

Solution: According to rule 16.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and case law (see for example Laframboise v Woodward (2002) 59 OR (3d) 338), a motion to dispense with service should be accompanied by an affidavit showing that all reasonable efforts have been made to locate and serve the party personally and that prompt service is impractical. Therefore, as (b) matches this language the closest, it is the correct answer. (a) is incorrect since cost is not relevant in such a motion (unless it makes it impossible, which is not the case here). (c) is incorrect because the affidavit should provide that all reasonable efforts have been taken. It would also be pointless to suggest an alternative mode of service since the motion sought is one to dispense with service. (d) is also incorrect as this is not what is said in r.16.04.

Solution: According to rule 5.2-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, along with its respective commentary, when a lawyer is ordered to act as a witness, the lawyer must testify and “entrust the conduct of the case to another lawyer.” Therefore, the best answer is (c). Accordingly, (a) blatantly violates r. 5.2-1. Furthermore, commentary [1] of r. 5.2-1 notes that the lawyer should not expect to receive special treatment because of their professional status, which is why (b) is not a good answer. Finally, (d) is incorrect because commentary [1] also notes that a lawyer should not express personal opinions when testifying.

Solution: A person has a “disability” in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure if: (a) they are a minor, i.e., under the age of 18; (b) the person is incapable of managing property or making personal care decisions; or (c) if they are an “absentee”, i.e. someone who’s usual residence was in Ontario, but has since disappeared, their whereabouts unknown and it is unclear if they are dead or alive.

Given this, the best answer is (c) an individual who is incapable of managing their property has a “disability”. (a) is wrong; the way “disability” is used does not refer to a physical disability of a person; (b) is wrong as a disability in terms of age only refers to those under 18; and (d) has no basis in the Rules.

Solution: The correct answer is (C). According to Rule 53.03(3)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a responding supplementary report must be served on every other party to the action at least 15 days before the commencement of the trial.

Solution: According to rule 3.2-4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must encourage their client to compromise or settle a dispute whenever possible. To do this, the lawyer must present their client with any offers to settle received from opposing counsel. Therefore, the answer is (c). Despite what Benny thinks, he must still present the offer to settle with Manuela. All the other answer choices are inappropriate given that Benny has not consulted with Manuela.

Solution: Since Ecrin’s claim was originally for $350,000, she would have had to use the ordinary procedure. Once she amended her claim to $125,000, she fell under the simplified procedure regime (which is for claims under $200,000). According to Rule 76.13(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, regardless of the outcome of the action, if the Rule applies as the result of amendment of the pleadings, under subrule 76.02(7), the party whose pleadings are amended shall pay, on a substantial indemnity basis, the costs incurred by the opposing party up to the date of the amendment that would not have been incurred had the claim originally complied with subrule 76.02(1). Therefore, the correct answer is (b).

Solution: According to r. 32.01(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for experiments or “testing” to be ordered, one has to prove that they are necessary for the proper determination of an issue in the proceeding. Therefore, the best answer is (b).

Solution: In accordance with the joint retainer rules in rr. 3.4-5 – 3.4-9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Linda should recommend that Choo receives independent legal advice. Therefore, the correct answer choice is (d).

Solution: According to Section 10(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, the Court of Ontario is made up of the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice. Therefore, the correct answer is (b).

Solution: The correct answer choice is (a). As noted in Rule 37.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an associate judge (formerly called a case management master) does not have jurisdiction to hear a motion for judgment on consent in favour of or against a party under disability, which includes a minor. The other options do not fall under any of the exceptions listed in Rule 37.02(2), and courts have explicitly found that associate judges have jurisdiction to hear such motions. See Metrin Mechanical v Big H (2001) for a motion relating to solicitor’s liens (b); see Ruby & Edwardh v Jaffe (1986) for a motion relating to set aside the report of an Assessment Officer (c); and see Cooke v Cooke (1985; 53 OR 2d) for a motion to stay an action on the basis of convenience of forum (d).

Solution: The correct answer is (a). According to section 2(1) of the Execution Act, certain personal property of a debtor that is not a corporation is, at the option of the debtor, exempt from forced seizure or sale. This includes any necessary clothing of the debtor and their dependent’s; household furnishings and appliances that are of a value not exceeding the prescribed amount and tools. Section 2(4) also adds that aids and devices owned by the debtor and are required by the debtor or their dependents to assist with a disability are exempt from forced seizure. (a) is correct because a high-end Gucci jacket is not “necessary clothing”; for someone that doesn’t have money, it is certainly not part of the exemptions provided by the Execution Act. (b) and (d) are both exempt, as they are applicants and tools, respectively, and below the prescribed amounts provided in O.Reg. 657/05. Finally, (c) is also exempt by section 2(4) of the Act.

Solution:Because Henrick is a cousin of the plaintiff, he is biased as a witness to support the plaintiff’s cause. Therefore, he can be discredited on this basis; (b) is the correct answer. With the facts given, there is no reason that he should be discredited on the basis of his age or  occupation as a chef.

Solution: According to rule 38.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an application must be made to a judge. This will be a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, unless it is an application for judicial review, which would be made to a judge of the Divisional Court of Justice. This does not involve a judicial review application, and hence it must be made to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. The correct answer is therefore (b).

Solution: R. 53.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a summons to a witness outside of Ontario to compel their attendance under the Interprovincial Summonses Act shall be in Form 53C. Therefore, (a) is the correct answer. (b) is only applicable when summonsing a witness located in Quebec.

Solution: Lawyers have a duty to respect human rights laws in force in Ontario, including the duty to accommodate unless doing so would cause undue hardship (see section 6.3-1.1 and commentary of the Rules of Professional Conduct) . Given the options, the best answer is (c). If Byung-ho is willing to have a virtual meeting, then that should avoid any type of problem associated with Elijah’s dog allergies. (a) is incorrect because it does not take into account the fact that Elijah may get a severe allergic reaction to the dog. It is likely this would indeed cause “undue” hardship to Elijah. (b) is also quite inappropriate at this stage. If virtual meetings would work (which is how many lawyer-client meetings are held in this day and age), then there is no reason to reject this retainer. Akira should at least attempt to find a solution before rejecting the retainer. Finally, (d) is also incorrect. It again does not sufficiently consider Elijah’s allergies. At the very least, Akira should tell Elijah to not be in the office during the meeting, but even then, it is unclear if this would allow Elijah to avoid any kind of allergic reaction. This option merely accommodates the client, but also potentially puts her colleague at harm.

Solution: For Naomi to continue her civil litigation action, as an undischarged bankruptcy, she would need the permission of the trustee-in-bankruptcy. Therefore, (b) is correct.

Solution: According to Mountain Province Diamonds v De Beers Canada Inc (2014 ONSC, citing Eastmont v CPR (2004), at paragraph 47), in assessing the reasonableness of collection of evidence through surveillance pursuant to section 5(3) of PIPEDA, a four-part test is applied:

• Is the collection, use or disclosure of personal information necessary to meet a specific need?;
• Is the collection, use or disclosure of personal information likely to be effective in meeting that need?;
• Is the loss of privacy proportional to the benefit gained?; and
• Is there a less privacy-invasive alternative to achieve the same end?

Accordingly, the best answer is (c), which captures point (3) above. (a) is incorrect; the whole point of surveillance is that it’s done without the individual’s consent for a specific reason; (b) is incorrect and has no basis in the case law cited; and (d) is unnecessary as well.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). Rule 24.1.04(2) lists the actions where Rule 24.1 – Mandatory mediation does not apply. Note that 24.1.04(2)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that actions under the Construction Act, except trust claims, are not subject to Rule 24.1. Since answer choice (c) refers to actions involving a trust claim under the Construction Act, it therefore is covered by the mandatory mediation rule. (a) and (d) are explicitly listed in Rule 24.1.04(2) as actions that aren’t covered by Rule 24.1. With (b), rule 24.1.04(2)(b) states that all such actions where the mediation was conducted less than a year before the first defence do not have to undergo mandatory mediation; since this choice provides that the mediation was conducted three months before the first defence, Rule 24.1 therefore does not apply.

Solution: Non est factum is a contract law doctrine meaning the contracting parties mind “did not go with their signature”. It must be specifically pleaded as a defence. Here, Evangeline is essentially claiming that she was compelled to sign a document which was entirely different from what she believed she was signing, therefore, non est factum should be pleaded. The correct answer is (a). (b) is incorrect as this is only appropriate when claiming that an act is beyond the powers of a corporation; (c) is incorrect as no release was involved here; and (d) is incorrect as jurisdiction of the court is not an issue here.  See Bank of Montreal v Behan, 2021 NSSC 309 at paragraph 37 for a recent case which discusses the doctrine of non est factum.

Solution: According to rule 76.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, in an action proceeding via the simplified procedure, each party must include in its affidavit of documents a list of the names and addresses of each person who might reasonably be expected to have knowledge of matters in issue in the action, unless a court orders otherwise. Therefore, the best answer is (c), as it closely describes r. 76.03(2). (a) and (b) are too narrow – while the names and addresses of such individuals would be included, it should also include people who might reasonably be thought of having knowledge of matters in dispute in the action. (d) is incorrect as the last part, “even if the court orders otherwise” is not the same as “unless a court orders otherwise”, which is what r.76.03(2). In other words, if a court does order otherwise, then the affidavit does not have to include a list of the names and addresses of parties that are aware of issues in the action. Also note that the reference to “reasonably aware” is a bit different than “may reasonably be thought to have knowledge”, which is another reason why this is a weaker answer choice.

Solution: According to rule 3.2-9.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, when a lawyer receives a medical-legal report from a health professional that is accompanied by a proviso that indicates it should not be shown to the client, it shall be returned immediately unless the lawyer has received specific instructions to accept the report on this basis. Since there is no evidence Giselle received such instructions, the best answer choice is (b).

Solution:  According to rule 31.03(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, more than one officer, director, or employee of a corporation may be examined, either with consent of the parties or leave of the court. Therefore, only one can be examined without the consent and/or leave of the court, which is why (a) is the correct answer.

Solution: According to Section 6 of the Court of Justice Act, final orders of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice that exceed $50,000, inclusive of interest and exclusive of costs, can be appealed directly to the Ontario Court of Appeal. No leave to appeal is required. Here, the final order is well in excess of $50,000 ($90,000 in damages and $8,000 in interest = $98,000 overall. The $12,000 in costs is excluded but will not affect the answer in any case here. Therefore, the final order can be appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, with no leave required. (d) is the correct answer.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). According to section 487.051 of the Criminal Code, for offences such as human trafficking, there is a presumption that the court will make a DNA order unless the offender satisfies the court that the impact of the order would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest. As (b) best describes this, it is the correct answer. (a) is wrong because it is not mandatory for a human trafficking offence (though it is for some, such as murder or sexual assault). (c) is incorrect because the prosecution does not need to advocate such for human trafficking, though it does for secondary designated offences, including indecent act and assault. (d) is incorrect, because, as discussed, it is an offence which permits the court to make a DNA order.

Solution: According to section 718.04 of the Criminal Code, when a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances, including because the person is Aboriginal and female, the court must give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Therefore, the correct answer choice is (c).

Solution: The correct answer is (d). Section 638(1) of the Criminal Code lists out the grounds to challenge a juror, including (d) – if the juror is not a Canadian citizen. (a) and (c) have no basis in section 638(1), and (b) is incorrect because it should say not impartial. Note that according to 638(2) of the Criminal Code, only the grounds listed in section 638(1) of the Criminal Code can be used to challenge for cause.

Solution: According to Rules 7.1-4 to 7.1-4.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, if a lawyer’s client has a claim or complaint against an apparently dishonest lawyer, the lawyer must encourage the client to report the facts to the Law Society of Ontario. Furthermore, the lawyer must, among other things, obtain the client’s written instructions to proceed with the client’s claim without notice of the Law Society, inform the client of provisions of the Criminal Code (s. 141) dealing with concealment of an indictable offence in return for an agreement to obtain valuable consideration, and if the client wishes to pursue a private agreement with the dishonest lawyer, and such agreement constitutes a violation of s. 141 of the Code, withdraw from representation. The correct answer is therefore (c) – as this is one of the steps noted above that must be taken by the lawyer. (a) is incorrect because the new lawyer should only proceed to file a complaint with the consent of the client. (b) is wrong because it is worded too broadly by saying “under any circumstances”, as it should say “s. 141 of the Code”. Finally, (d) is incorrect – that is not the best way to proceed at this time.

Solution: According to Section 34(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a youth justice court may order a psychological assessment if any of several factors exist, including if there are grounds to believe that the young person is suffering from a physical or mental disorder. Therefore, (a) is the correct answer. The other choices are not relevant.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). According to By-Law 9, Section 12(2)(2.), when withdrawing money from a trust account by electronic transfer, the electronic transfer system used must produce a confirmation from the financial institution confirming certain data. The remaining options are not required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or by-laws.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). Under section 605 of the Criminal Code, counsel may apply to a judge of either the Superior Court of Justice or Ontario Court of Justice for an order for the release of an exhibit. Two affidavits must be provided, one by or on behalf of the applicant, and one from the person or agency proposing to conduct the testing. (a) is incorrect; Rule 21.02 of the Superior Court of Justice Rules states that applications should be made to a judge of the court in the region in which the accused is to be or is being tried. In other words, the court has to be the same, not the judge. (c) is incorrect; section 605 of the Code notes the order will be granted if there is an air of reality to support the contention that examination of the exhibit is likely to support a defence available to the accused. Finally, (d) is incorrect, as the SCJ Rules state the motion must be made on at least two days’ notice.

Solution: According to rule 40.11(6), in an appeal of a summary conviction, the respondent’s factum must be served on the appellant and filed with the court at least 10 days before the week in which the appeal is scheduled to be heard. The correct answer is therefore (c).

Solution: Where there is discrimination, there is a duty on the lawyer or law firm to accommodate members of the affected group up to the point of undue hardship (see Rules of Professional Conduct, r. 6.3.1-1 and commentary [12]). This contemplates that in attempting to accommodate members of the affected group, the firm may experience some form of hardship; therefore, (c) is the correct answer. (a) is incorrect; just because a policy may discriminate against a group, such as Muslims in this case, it does not mean it must be withdrawn. Rather, enacting a discriminatory policy may be permissible if individuals are accommodated up until the point of undue hardship. (b) is not necessarily true; a change in work hours may be permissible in some cases. (d) is incorrect; Mustafa need not consent to the policy for it to be permissible. For instance, the policy may be permissible if Mustafa insisted on a form of accommodation that would cause the firm undue hardship. In such a case, his consent would not be needed, and the policy could be enacted (assuming no one else at ABC LLP is discriminated against).

Solution: The Crown has a duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence, including recordings of witness statements. Therefore, (d) is the correct answer. The Crown typically does not have to disclose information that is protected by privilege, including public-interest privilege. Work product materials, including Crown counsel notes, memoranda, correspondence, and legal opinions are also protected by privilege and need not be disclosed.

Solution: The correct answer is (d). According to rules 3.4-40 and 3.4-41 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may act as surety for an accused if: (i) the accused is in a family relationship with the lawyer; and (ii) the accused is represented by the lawyer’s partner or associate. Since Justine is Tira’s partner, both criteria would be met here – the accused is in a family relationship with Tira; and Tira’s son would be represented Tira’s partner.

Solution: Section 4(1) of the Canada Evidence Act prevents an accused from being a witness for the Crown. The correct answer is therefore (b).

Solution: After police have already given the accused the right to contact counsel, there is no obligation for the police under s.10(b) of the Charter to stop the interview and permit contact with counsel again unless one of three scenarios are met, including whether there are new procedures involving the detainee that require further legal advice, i.e. participation in a polygraph test. Therefore, (d) is the correct answer.

Solution: The correct answer is (d). At this stage, police have wide discretion. (a) is incorrect; a preliminary inquiry is not always granted – therefore, it is possible for a pre-trial release to be granted without a preliminary inquiry. (b) is incorrect because a “judicial referral hearing” is not always engaged at this stage. Finally, (c) is incorrect because an accused can receive a pre-trial release once fingerprinted.

Solution: The correct answer is (a). According to section 672.22 of the Criminal Code, an accused is presumed fit to stand trial unless the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused is unfit to stand trial. Therefore, the burden lies with whoever seeks to raise the issue of fitness. In this case, the Crown is raising the issue; and must displace the presumption of fitness on a balance of probabilities.

Solution: According to section 683(5) of the Criminal Code, to stay a sentencing order, the judge must be satisfied that the stay is in the interests of justice. Therefore, (b) is the correct answer.

Solution: According to section 542(1) of the Criminal Code, for a confession to be admissible, it must be proven to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the correct answer is (b).

Solution: The best answer is (d). Note the question is asking which of the following tweets would contravene the Rules. (a) – (b) both may contravene the Rules. For example, in (a) – it contains an emotional appeal, which according to rule 4.2-1, commentary [2] of the Rules, may contravene the Rules. (b) markets past results – which again, may contravene the Rules. (c) there is no reason why this would be against the Rules. For (d), however, it seems that ACLD’s ranking is at least in part due to paying clients to provide feedback, which does contravene the Rules, according to rule 4.2-1, commentary [5(c)]. The fact that ACLD pays select clients to send feedback makes ACLD’s actions even more suspicious.

Solution: The mandatory life sentence for anyone convicted of murder is life in prison (Criminal Code, section 235(1)). Therefore, the correct answer is (a). Note that given that Elias is 16 years-old, he can likely apply for parole after 7 years; however, his sentence, which is what the question is asking, will remain life in prison.

Solution: According to rule 3.7-7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must withdraw when the client’s instructions require the lawyer to act contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, since a lawyer may not accept a contingency fee in a criminal law-related retainer (see rule 3.6-2 and commentary), answer choice (a) is correct. All the other options do not require Adhira to withdraw, though they may give her the option to. (see rule 3.7-1 and rule 3.7-2). Note that there are special withdrawal rules when it comes to lawyers acting in criminal matters. These focus on whether the withdrawal would give the client adequate time to retain another lawyer. This often depends on when the trial is. Note for answer choice (a), it says at the outset of the retainer, which means the trial will likely still be years away. Hence, it remains the best answer choice.

Solution: The correct answer is (d). According to Form 13.1 – Financial Statement, which must be filled out when making a claim for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, Part 8 of the form requires disclosure of disposed of property. The instructions specifically ask to “show by category the value of all property that you disposed of during the two years immediately preceding the making of this statement, or during the marriage, whichever period is shorter.” Since their marriage was shorter (it was only 11 months), that is the period of time for which he must disclose any dispositions of property, and that includes disposing of his cottage. (a) is incorrect – it is irrelevant the sale only occurred merely one month after the date of their marriage; it must still be disclosed. (b) is also incorrect. While the fact that it was sold for more than market value may result in the transaction receiving less scrutiny, it must still be disclosed in the financial statement. (c) is also incorrect, there is no specific requirement to disclose dispositions to family members.

Solution:  Retroactive awards are limited to three years prior to the commencement of the application, unless the court finds blameworthy conduct by the payor spouse. Therefore, given that the award was retroactive to four years prior to the date of the application, the correct answer is (a) – the court must have found blameworthy conduct by the payor spouse. Note that (c) is wrong because although one factor courts are to look at when deciding whether to give a retroactive award is whether the award will cause hardship, they do not look at whether the failure to issue the award will cause hardship.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). Enrique and Gorana are on opposing sides in this matter – Enrique is the applicant; Gorana is the respondent. Rule 3.4-3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer shall not represent opposing parties in a dispute, even if the party’s consent in accordance with rule 3.4-2.

Solution: The best answer is (c). A typical participation agreement will contain a commitment from both parties to not take advantage of any mistakes committed by the other party. (a) would be an unusual provision to include in a participation agreement and hence is a weaker answer; (b) would also be an unusual provision to include, although a typical provision would include the procedure for withdrawal; and (d) would also be unusual as lawyers are typically relied upon to reach a settlement.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). According to FNIMCYF, indigenous groups who develop their own legislation can exercise jurisdiction under FNIMCFYF through two ways, including informing the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Ontario government. Note that with (d), while the indigenous group will inevitably have to develop legislation, the question is asking what they need to do in order to exercise the appropriate jurisdiction under FNIMCYF. This would not help them do that.

Solution:  The correct answer is (a). According to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017,  a children’s aid society shall make all reasonable efforts to pursue a plan for customary care for a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child if the child meets three criteria, including if they are in need of protection. Age (answer choice b) and medical issues (answer choice d) do not fall under the criteria. With respect to not being a member of a band (answer choice c) this is actually the opposite of what is noted in the Act, (“...is a member of or identifies with a band, or is a member of or identifies with a First Nations, Inuit or Métis community”).

Solution: The correct answer is (c). According to rule 10(9) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, a surrogacy agreement is unenforceable in law, but may be used as evidence of intention. Therefore, the agreement can still be useful to Tola and Anetta (i.e., if they apply to the court for a determination of parentage). (a) is incorrect, because once again, the surrogacy agreement is not enforceable, so it would be untrue to say just because they entered into the agreement, the couple is entitled to and has the immediate right to take the child. (b) is incorrect; they do not have a right to take the child. If Linh is unwilling to give up parentage, then they must apply to the court for a determination of parentage. Finally, (d) is incorrect because, (i) it is unclear what the surrogacy agreement lays out, so we have no basis to conclude Linh must instantly give up her claim to parentage upon giving birth (and besides, as noted above, the surrogacy agreement is unenforceable so there would be no requirements generated as a result of it in any case); and (ii), the CLRA does stipulate this, so this has no factual or legal basis.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). Note that since LH4U is a non-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario, it meets the definition of a civil society organization (“CSO”). According to rule 3.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not collect fees directly or indirectly for services provided through the CSO. This is why (a) and (c) are incorrect. (b) is correct because lawyers may charge for disbursements – which in this case was $100.00. (d) is incorrect since lawyers shall not use trust accounts in connection with their dealings with CSO clients.

Solution: Given that the Spousal Support guidelines will apply here, the “without child” formula will be used given that Kim and Andre did not have children. Support will be indefinite if one of the following is true: i) Kim and Andre had been married for at least 20 years or (ii) the marriage lasted at least 5 years and when adding the length of the marriage to the age of the support recipient (Andre), it should add up to at least 65 years of age. The best answer is therefore (d). Since the length of the marriage (7) plus the age of the support recipient (60 years of age) add up to at least 65 (60 + 7 = 67), it is likely that the judge will require Kim to provide Andre with an indefinite amount of support. The rest are incorrect as they do not meet either of the conditions above. For (b), it is a weaker answer than (d). Andre’s age is not given so you would have to make an assumption that has no factual basis. For (c) – the key is the length of the marriage not the length of the relationship. Since the length of marriage is only 18 years (versus the minimum of 20 required to meet the condition), this would not qualify for indefinite support.

Solution: According to section 10(1) of the Change of Name Act, a person who believes that a change of name was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or for an improper purpose may apply to the Ontario Court of Justice for an order revoking the change of name. Therefore, (a) is the correct answer.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). According to rule 3.2-5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is not permitted to begin or continue a proceeding motivated by malice on the part of the client and brought solely for the purpose of injuring another party. There is some evidence that this is the case here. First, this is a bitter family law dispute. Second, the client’s comments about the inability of the other side to afford the services of a lawyer may suggest the client wants to take advantage of their superiority in wealth. Furthermore, the lawyer believes it is unlikely a motion for summary judgment would help in this case. Therefore, advising the client of the risks of the motion would certainly be prudent. Additionally, the lawyer knows the other side provided adequate financial disclosure; bringing a further motion, therefore, to compel disclosure would be an abuse of the tribunal process and contrary to rule 3.2-5.

Answer choice (a) is incorrect because, once again, following the instructions would be an abuse of the tribunal process. (b) is an “okay” answer choice, but (c) is clearly better. If the lawyer knows a summary judgment motion is unlikely to proceed, then advising the client on the risks of it, before bringing it, would be the better option. (d) is a poor answer. The lawyer should not bring a motion to compel financial disclosure when the lawyer knows adequate disclosure has been provided.

Solution: In Collaborative Family Law (CFL), lawyers should ensure that they temper their clients’ expectations, especially when they are unreasonable. Therefore, the correct answer is (b). (a) is incorrect because CFL should not be adversarial, so this approach does not correctly describe how a lawyer should act; (c) is incorrect because while avoiding disagreement may be nice, it is not necessary. However, a lawyer in CFL should use any disagreements to help them solve problems for their clients; (d) is incorrect because a lawyer partaking in CFL is explicitly not permitted to represent their clients in court, should the case end up in court.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). According to section 98(13) of the CYFSA, the court may draw any inference it considers reasonable from a person’s refusal to undergo an assessment ordered under section 98.

Solution: The correct answer is (d). To determine the required equalization payment, the difference between the two net family property values must be taken, and the resulting amount should be divided by two. Therefore, the difference is $30,000 – $25,000 = $5,000, which, when divided by 2, will equal $2,500. Since Fen has the higher net family property value, she will have to pay $2,500 to satisfy the equalization claim.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). Rule 7.2-10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states that when a lawyer receives a document that the lawyer knows was inadvertently sent, they should promptly notify the sender. The commentary for this rule goes on to indicate that “document” includes an email; and that determining whether privilege has been lost is beyond the scope of this rule. Therefore, according to the Rules, all the lawyer has to do is notify the sender. Here, it was Jackson who sent the email – and hence all Jessie must do is immediately notify him. (c) is therefore the correct answer.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). For D.J. to obtain an order for an unequal equalization, he must prove the normal calculation would lead to an unconscionable result.  (see section 5(6) of the Family Law Act).

Solution: The correct answer choice is (d). Since the amount is less than $50,000 and is a temporary order, the appeal must be made in the Divisional Court, but leave must first be obtained. See section 19 (1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Solution: During the initial consultation, Alejandra should discuss the various dispute resolution mechanisms available to Sade, including negotiation and mediation. Therefore, the correct answer is (b). (a) is incorrect; it would be inappropriate for Alejandra to seek Sade’s consent to contact Lillian at this stage. Instead, Alejandra needs to evaluate if she will even be retained by Sade, and hence contacting the “other side” at this point is far too premature. (c) is a weak answer; while bringing children into a meeting where a client is seeking divorce is not advisable, a lawyer cannot “restrict” a prospective client from doing so. Besides, note that Ronny and Melo are merely 1 year-old babies and would not understand what is happening. (d) is also incorrect since it is very premature to file an application when, once again, Alejandra does not yet know whether she will be retained by Sade.

Solution:  The best answer is (b). Lawyers should conduct a conflict check before formally accepting the retainer. Therefore, (b) should be what Alejandra does next, and prior to requesting a money retainer (hence why (c) is incorrect). Note that (a) is far too premature for Alejandra to do; also, filing a divorce application at this stage is still far too premature, which is why (d) is incorrect.

Solution: There is only one permissible ground for divorce in Canada – which is a breakdown of the marriage (Section 8(1) of the Divorce Act). Such a breakdown has occurred here, given that they seem to have lived separate and apart for more than a year. Therefore, a divorce application can be filed.

According to section 8(3)(b)(ii) of the Divorce Act, if a couple reconciles for 90 days or more, before separating again, the date of separation in the divorce application is the second date. However, in this case, Sade and Lillian only reconciled for about 65 days – from June 25, 2020 to September 1, 2020. Therefore, the date of separation should still be the first date they separated – which is May 1, 2020; (a) is hence the correct answer.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). By noting that Ashvaghosha’s name was a mouthful and asking for a nickname, his comments were microaggressions. Microaggressions are negative slights often made against historically marginalized groups, reinforcing the fact that they are an outsider. Note that (a) is incorrect because it was perfectly fine for Boris to ask Ashvaghosha how to pronounce his name. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, it can be said that is a microaffirmation, which is not a problem. (c) is incorrect because, as described above, his comments were microaggressions not microaffirmations (which are the opposite of microaggressions). (d) is also incorrect; microaggressions are microaggressions regardless of intent.

Solution:  Section 4(1) of the federal Access to Information Act gives the public the right to access records held by federal government institutions. (c) is therefore the correct answer.

Solution: Sections 18(5) and 18(6) of By-Law 9 provide the information that needs to be recorded in the general receipts and general disbursements journals, respectively. Both journals require keeping track of the date, method of payment, and the amount of money involved (among other information). However, only the general disbursements journal requires keeping track of the number of the document used to make the payment (i.e. cheque number). Therefore, (d) is correct.

Solution: According to Section 12 of the Evidence Act, leave is required when a party would like to use more than three experts in a constitutional case, such as those involving a Charter claim. Given that Rory seeks to use four experts here, leave would be required.  The correct answer choice is (a).

Solution: The correct answer is (b). According to rule 3.6-2.1(2)(b)(iv), which was newly incorporated into the Rules of Professional Conduct in February 2022, the contingency fee bill rendered to the client must clearly state the client has the right to apply to the Superior Court of Justice for an assessment in accordance with section 28.1 o the Solicitors Act 1990 and specify the latest date for doing so. Note that (a) is incorrect – rule 3.6-2 only states that lawyers may not use a contingency fee arrangement in family law, criminal or quasi-criminal matters; a public law matters such as this one is fair game. (d) is also incorrect; contingency fees have no maximum (though note that referral fees in rule 3.6.6-1 do have a maximum of $25,000).

Solution: The correct answer is (a). As noted by section 25 of the SPPA, appealing a decision of a Tribunal will result in a stay of the Tribunal’s order. (b), (c) and (d) are contrary to the SPPA.

Solution: According to Section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, an application for judicial review must be made by the affected party within 30 days.

Solution: According to Vavilov, there is now a presumption that the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness. Therefore, (b) is the correct answer. Vavilov explicitly notes that conducting a contextual analysis to determine the standard of review is inappropriate, which is why (a) is incorrect. (c) is wrong since it is reasonableness, not correctness. (d) is incorrect because Vavilov notes that neither reasonableness nor correctness should be used to determine matters pertaining to procedural fairness; instead, the Baker factors should be used.

Solution: The correct answer is (d). The rights protected under section 35 can be asserted by aboriginal peoples against a private body, not just the government. (a) is incorrect because these rights may not be overridden by section 33 of the Charter. (b) is incorrect as section 35 rights cannot be limited by section 1 of the Charter. Finally, (c) is incorrect: Charter rights include fundamental freedoms (s. 2), Democratic Rights (ss. 3-5), Mobility Rights (s. 6), Legal Rights (ss. 7-14), Equality Rights (s. 15), Language Rights (s. 16-22) and Minority language education rights (s. 23). Sections 25 -34 of the Charter provide detail on how it works and to whom it applies to. Section 35 is outside of the Charter.

Solution: According to rule 5.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must not supress what ought to be disclosed. In particular, a lawyer may not deliberately avoid informing a tribunal of any binding authority that is relevant to the issue at hand. Here, the limitation period is relevant, and hence must be disclosed. Therefore, the best answer is (b). (a) is incorrect; Nuni does not need to assist the Crown with establishing a defence. (c) also fails to mention that Nuni should inform the Crown/parties about the limitation period. (d) is contrary to rule 5.1-2.

Solution: The best answer is (a). The fact stem notes that Busaba is merely considering filing a judicial review application. Therefore, the most appropriate way for Santiago to proceed at this point is to provide her with options and proceeding accordingly. (c) – (d) are all too premature at this point given that, once again, Busaba is still considering her options.

Solution: The best answer is (c). As noted in Eldridge v British Columbia, where a private actor is implementing a government program or initiative, it will likely be considered “government action” and subject to section 32 of the Charter. Here, CPA Ontario has been explicitly established to execute the government initiative of regulating professional accountants. Therefore, it will likely be subject to the Charter. Note that this answer choice reflects the decision of a recent case, see Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario v Gujral, 2020 ONCJ 307. (a) is incorrect because this is a private actor, and there is no evidence in the answer choice that they have been forced or mandated to do this by the government. (b) is incorrect because it has been established that the Charter does not apply to universities or hospitals that incorporate mandatory retirement practices. Finally, (d) is incorrect because, although it is funded by the Ontario government, there is no evidence that the university – a private body – is implementing a government program or initiative.

Solution: The correct answer is (d). The provinces may impose punishment to enforce their laws, including fines and terms of imprisonments, through section 92(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867. (a) is incorrect as this is the federal criminal law power. (b) – health, and (c) – criminal justice, while both provincial powers, are not the powers used by the provinces to impose punishment.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). 92(8) – Municipal Institutions in the Province, gives provinces exclusive jurisdiction over municipalities; municipalities only have powers that are given to them by provincial law.

Solution: In this case, the solicitor has made it clear that he or she has the right to refuse to disclose meeting records. This is an example of a discretionary exemption. This is different from an exclusion, where the records in question may be considered outside the jurisdiction of the statute. Therefore, only (b) and (d) – which refer to the records being denied due to an exemption, can be correct. Furthermore, the burden of proof for an exemption (as with an exclusion) lies with the municipality (see MFIPPA, s. 42). Therefore, the correct answer is (d).