Solution: The correct answer is (b). According to Rule 3.6-3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in a statement of account delivered to a client, a lawyer shall clearly and separately detail the amounts charged as fees and disbursements. Moreover, Rule 3.6-2.1(2)(b) provides what must specifically be in a bill to a client that is being charged on a contingency basis, noting it must clearly itemize and identify disbursement costs, legal fees and taxes charged to the client. Since Chakrii has combined the legal fees and disbursements in his statement of account, he has breached this rule. (a) is incorrect – according to Rule 3.6-2 of the Rules, lawyers may charge a contingency fee in a matter except for family law, Criminal Code (Canada) or any other criminal or quasi-criminal matters, so there are no issues with charging a contingency fee in a real estate litigation matter. (c) is incorrect – HST should be included in a statement of account, whether or not charged on a contingency basis. (d) is incorrect since, as noted above, there is at least one issue with this statement of account.

Note that the question is asking what is an issue with the statement of account. Answer choice (b) provides one issue, but there are certainly more. For example, Rule 3.6-2.1(2)(b) also provides that the statement of account for a matter billed on a contingency basis must clearly show the total amount of the settlement or award and the net amount that the client receives (which the above does show).

Solution: The correct answer is (c). According to section 16(i) of the Limitations Act, 2002, a proceeding to recover money owed to the Crown in respect of taxes has no limitations period. In respect of such claim, the date of discovering the incident in question has no effect.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (c). 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: The correct answer is (a). The Age of Majority and Accountability Act states that every person attains the age of majority and ceases to be a minor at the age of 18 (s. 1). The Rules of Civil Procedure does not actually have a definition for “minor”, the Minority Act does not exist, and the Rules of Professional Conduct also does not have a definition for “minor”. Therefore, these choices are incorrect.

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: The correct answer is (c). 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: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (c). According to rule 25.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded. In this case, no material facts seem to have been pleaded to support his pleading that Jerry contravened the Police Services Act.

Solution: The correct answer is (a). An application under the Securities Act is eligible to be listed on the Commercial List. Options (b), (c), and (d) are incorrect because these are all eligible to be listed on the Estates List rather than the Commercial List.

Solution: The correct answer choice is (b). As noted in Rule 37.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an associate judge does not have jurisdiction to hear a motion under sections 4 or 5 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act. (a) is incorrect – while a judge must hear a motion seeking judgment on consent in favour of a person under a “disability”, a judge or an associate judge may hear a motion seeking judgment on consent in favour of an adult (provided the adult does not have a “disability”,  as defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure, and there is no reason to assume such is the case here). 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 for answer choice (c); and see Cooke v Cooke (1985; 53 OR 2d) for a motion to stay an action on the basis of convenience of forum for answer choice (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: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (a). 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: The correct answer is (c). 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: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (c). 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: The correct answer is (a). 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: The correct answer is (c). 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) says. 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: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (a). 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: The correct answer is (c). According to Section 19(1)(a) of the Court of Justice Act, final orders of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice that do not exceed $50,000, inclusive of interest and exclusive of costs, can be appealed directly to the Divisional Court of Justice. No leave to appeal is required. Here, the final order was $45,000 + $3,000 in interest = $48,000 in total. The $6,000 in costs is excluded. Therefore, the final order can be appealed to the Divisional Court of Justice, with no leave required. (c) is the correct answer.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). According to Section 501(3) of the Criminal Code, an undertaking may contain conditions, including to abstain from speaking with certain individuals. (a) is incorrect because according to Section 501(3)(i), the undertaking in this scenario can only be for up to $500. (c) and (d) are incorrect because Section 501(3)(j) says a condition may include to deposit money or other valuable security whose value does not exceed $500, if, at the time of giving the undertaking, the accused is not ordinarily resident in the province or does not ordinarily reside within 200 kilometers of the place in which they are in custody. (c) is therefore wrong because it lists a value over $500, and (d) is wrong because it provides that Trisha is ordinarily resident in Ontario.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). 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 the grounds to challenge a juror, including (d) – the juror does not speak the official language in which the trial is to be conducted. (a) and (c) have no basis in section 638(1), and (b) is incorrect because a juror can only be challenged on the grounds of being convicted for an offence if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more. 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: The correct answer is (c). 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: The correct answer is (a). 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: The correct answer is (c). 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: The correct answer is (c). 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 correct answer is (d). 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: The correct answer is (c). Section 14 of the Charter states that a party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

Solution: The correct answer is (d). 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: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (b). 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 posts 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 correct answer is (a). 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: The correct answer is (a). 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 (b). Schedule B in Form 13 must be completed if there is a claim for undue hardship, which is the case here. (a) is incorrect. This is an example of a contingent liability, and accordingly, Eetu cannot put the full amount of the guarantee as that would overstate the amount of his liabilities (and ultimately reduce his net family property). Instead, he should estimate the risk involved in this contingent liability and put that amount (i.e., putting $10,000, representing $100,000 as the amount of the contingent liability x a 10% chance of it actually becoming a liability, would be a more accurate number). (c) is incorrect as these are not expenses; instead, they should go into the land/general household items and vehicles sections. (d) is also incorrect as any real property in and outside of Ontario should be included.

Solution: The correct answer is (a). 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. An age cut-off of under 10 (answer choice b) and medical issues (answer choice d) do not fall under the criteria. With respect to not identifying with 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 (a). According to section 22(1)(b) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, when a child is not habitually resident in Ontario, an Ontario court can make a parenting order with respect to a child if it is satisfied that:

(i)  the child is physically present in Ontario at the commencement of the application for the order,

(ii)  substantial evidence concerning the best interests of the child is available in Ontario,

(iii)  no application respecting decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child is pending before an extra-provincial tribunal in another place where the child is habitually resident,

(iv)  no extra-provincial order respecting decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child has been recognized by a court in Ontario,

(v)  the child has a real and substantial connection with Ontario, and

(vi)  on the balance of convenience, it is appropriate for jurisdiction to be exercised in Ontario

Note that (a) is correct as it accurately reflects what is in (v) above. (b) and (c) are incorrect as they have no basis in the CLRA. (d) is incorrect because it should say “…physically present in Ontario” (see (i) above). Remember that you have to always choose the best answer. In this case, since (d) was not specific enough, the best answer was (a).

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: The correct answer is (d). 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: The correct answer is (a). 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: The best answer is (b). The Rules of Professional Conduct defines “consent” as fully informed and voluntary consent after disclosure, among other things, orally, provided that each person consenting receives a separate written communication recording their consent as soon as is practicable. Therefore, after receiving Morris’ oral consent to disclose relevant confidential information to his new law firm, he should put this in writing to confirm their understanding for evidentiary purposes. (a) and (c) are incorrect – after a lawyer leaves a law firm, it is up to the client to decide what to do with the file (see rule 3.7-7A of the Rules). Therefore, no consent from or compensation to ABC LLP is required to permit the transfer. Finally, (d) is also incorrect because not all confidential information should be disclosed to XYZ LLP, but rather just the confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to detect and resolve conflicts (see Rule 3.3-7 of the Rules).

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 (c). 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 $90,000 – $60,000 = $30,000, which, when divided by 2, will equal $15,000. Since Fen has the higher net family property value, she will have to pay $15,000 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: The correct answer is (b). 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 correct 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: The correct answer is (a). 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, 2022 to September 1, 2022. Therefore, the date of separation should still be the first date they separated – which is May 1, 2022; hence, (a) is the correct answer.

Solution: The best answer is (b). According to Rule 6.3.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer has a special responsibility to respect the requirements of human rights laws in force in Ontario. Commentary [10] adds that the right to equal treatment without discrimination because of sex includes the right to equal treatment without discrimination because a woman is or may become pregnant. In this case, Andy – the chair of ABC LLP hiring committee – is explicitly telling Camila that she cannot advance within ABC LLP if she becomes pregnant, which is overtly discriminatory. (a) is incorrect because microaggressions are subtle and many times, the person making such statements are not even aware of them. Andy’s comments in this case were overt and clear – there was nothing subtle about them. Note that (c) and (d) are incorrect because the fact that Camila is not pregnant is irrelevant for the purposes of the Rules – they clearly say a woman has a right to not being discriminated against because she is or may become pregnant.

Solution: The correct answer is (a). In order to challenge the constitutionality of federal legislation (such as the Dental Benefit Act), one must give to the AG of Canada and to that of each province, notice at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. However, it is inappropriate for Ininaatig to give notice until Alessia is aware of her options and gives the go-ahead to proceed with the challenge.  Therefore, the correct answer choice is (a).

Solution: The correct answer is (d). 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: The correct answer is (a). 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: The correct answer is (a). Hospital foundation records are an example of records excluded under Ontario legislation (see s. 65(5.4) of the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)). Therefore, this is a good reason for the Ontario government to deny Borimir’s request. (b) is incorrect – generally speaking, a purpose does not need to be provided to make an access to information request; therefore, denying it on those grounds would not make sense. (c) is incorrect because the fact that a government institution did not create the record is not reason alone to deny disclosure. (d) is incorrect – whether records can be accessed through litigation does not affect the right of access to such records.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). 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: The correct answer is (b). 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, 2019 ONCJ 859, 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 best answer is (d). According to the Rules of Professional Conduct, the definition of a “client” is as follows: (i) consults a lawyer and on whose behalf the lawyer renders or agrees to render legal services; or (b) having consulted the lawyer, reasonably concludes that the lawyer has agreed to render legal services on their behalf. Further, commentary [1] of the definition of “client” notes that a solicitor and client relationship may be established without formality. In this case, Bill spoke to Dayna on several occasions. Furthermore, she provided him with a memorandum detailing his rights, which is legal advice. Therefore, he is most likely a client – regardless of the fact that no retainer agreement was signed, or money retainer was given (which is why (a) and (b) are incorrect). Note that (c) is incorrect because it is a weaker answer than (d). You have to pick the best choice. The fact that a lawyer meets several times with a client does not in and of itself, establish a lawyer-client relationship (though it can certainly help). However, a lawyer providing a client with legal advice (i.e., the memorandum in this situation) almost certainly does provide proof that a lawyer-client relationship has been established. This answer choice omits mention of the fact that Dayna provided Bill with legal advice, which is the number one reason why Bill is likely a client of ABC LLP.

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: The correct answer is (d).  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).