Solution: The correct answer is (b). According to section 26(2)-(3) of the Carriage by Air Act, no action may be commenced against a carrier unless a notice has been sent to the carrier within three days of receiving the baggage. Since Ivan received the baggage on May 2, 2022, and it has only been two days, he can and should still provide a notice at this time. If, after providing the notice, the airline does not provide a satisfactory remedy, at that time he would be able to commence an action.

Solution: According to rule 5.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, no proceeding should be defeated by reason of non-joinder of a party, and the court may determine the issues in dispute so far as they affect the rights of the parties to the proceeding, and pronounce judgment without prejudice to the rights of all persons who are not parties. Given this, while Ashika may commence an action to recover damages from Toko, she will not be entitled to the full amount given that she jointly owns the painting with her roommate. If the full amount was granted, it would prejudice her roommate’s rights, contrary to r. 5.04(1). Therefore, the correct answer is (d). Note that (c) is incorrect because there is no basis to claim that Ashika may be contributorily negligent.

Solution: The correct answer is (b); one key consideration is whether the person served is in control or management of the place of business. (a) is incorrect, there is no such requirement; (c) and (d) are also incorrect because depending on the circumstances, a CEO or Managing Director may or may not be the right individuals to serve.

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: According to section 127(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the postjudgment interest rate is the bank rate at the end of the first day of the last month of the quarter preceding the quarter in which the date of the order fell, rounded to the next higher whole number where the bank rate includes a fraction, plus 1%. Therefore, 1.75% must be rounded up to 2.00%, plus 1% = 3.00%. The correct answer is (c).

Solution: According to R. 35.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, after a person is served with the questions in a written examination, they must reply to them within 15 days.

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: According to Rule 76.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the simplified procedure can be used in most civil proceedings. Exceptions include for actions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the Construction Act (except those involving trust claims), actions where a jury notice was provided, or family law proceedings. Therefore, because (c) involves a trust claim under the Construction Act, the simplified procedure can be used.

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: In most cases, costs are awarded on a “partial indemnity scale.” Therefore, (a) is the correct answer.

Solution: The correct answer choice is (b). Historically, a court or tribunal is unlikely to grant an adjournment because a party is merely “anxious” or is having second thoughts (see for example paragraph 6 of the 2021 Ontario Social Benefits Tribunal decision, 1907-05496 (Re), 2021 ONSBT 194). Joel should be advised accordingly. (a) is a weaker answer; such a filing should not be made until Joel is advised of the most probable outcome and consents to the filing. (c) is incorrect since proceeding strictly on Joel’s instructions here without warning him of the likely outcome could seriously prejudice him. Finally, (d) is incorrect – this does not provide grounds for withdrawal.

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: According to r.2.1-1 and commentary in the Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers have a special responsibility to recognize the diversity of the public they serve. Lawyers must comply with the human rights laws of Ontario, which includes not discriminating on several enumerated grounds, including age. Therefore, (b) is the best answer. By noting that Ronald is “older than other candidates” Ronald seems to have implied that age was a factor in the ultimate hiring decision, which would be a form of discrimination, and hence a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

With (a) – intent does not matter when it comes to discrimination, but rather it is the effect of the words that matter. (c) – it would be inaccurate to say they should have hired Ronald, although they should not have discriminated against Ronald in the hiring process. (d) – The firm took three weeks to provide feedback. While that does seem somewhat long, it would be a stretch to say ABC LLP had a duty to provide feedback sooner.

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 3.2-2B of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer shall not undertake to advise a client in the language of their choice unless the lawyer can otherwise competently advise the client and the client consents in writing. One way a lawyer may do this is through an interpreter, who ideally should be independent of the client to avoid any conflicts of interests. Therefore, the best answer is (b). (a) is a weaker answer; since Juwan is Janice’s partner, he is not independent and would raise the issue of a conflict. (c) is incorrect – just because Alina cannot speak Spanish it does not mean she cannot provide her with legal services. Finally, (d) is incorrect since according to Rule 3.2-2A of the Rules, clients have the right to be advised in the language of their choice.

Solution: There is a factual dispute in this situation – i.e., whether Janice agreed to a non-solicitation agreement, therefore, a motion for summary judgment makes sense here. The motions judge may order that oral evidence be presented by one or more of the parties, with or without a time limit (see R. 20.04(2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure). Hence, the correct answer is (a). (b) is incorrect because a defendant can only put forward a motion for summary judgment after submitting the statement of defence. (c) is incorrect because evidence is compulsory on a R. 20 motion (for summary judgment). (d) is incorrect because Janice can only use her own examination for discovery if all other party’s consent.

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 applicable amount is $62,000 ($65,000 with interest – ($3,000 in costs)). Therefore, the final order can be appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, with no leave required. (c) is the correct answer.

Solution: According to rule 3.7-3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may withdraw after reasonable notice for non-payment of fees, unless it causes serious prejudice to the client. Alina did not provide reasonable nor appropriate notice here, since (i) she only gave Janice about one day to replenish her retainer; and (ii) it was verbal, not in writing. Furthermore, even if her notice was reasonable, withdrawing would cause serious prejudice since her appeal is imminent. Therefore, Alina has a duty to continue representing Janice until the serious prejudice passes. The best answer is therefore (c). (a) is incorrect since, as discussed, withdrawing right now would cause Janice serious prejudice. (b) is inappropriate. There’s no need to report her client to the Law Society of Ontario. (d) is incorrect, because, as with (a), withdrawing prior to her appeal would cause serious prejudice given it is imminent (though providing notice in writing is an improvement here over the initial verbal notice).

Solution: According to rule 5.1-5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer shall be courteous, civil and act in good faith to the tribunal and with all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings. Murray most clearly breached the rule to act with courtesy and civility – therefore, (b) is the correct answer.

The fact pattern mimics a case before the Law Society of Ontario Tribunal (Hearing Division), see Law Society of Ontario v Corcoran, 2018 ONLSTH 113

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: The correct answer is (d). Lawyers must keep all information received from both prospective and actual clients in confidence. Therefore, Lori must keep the information received from Kumar during the meeting in confidence, despite the fact that, at this point, he is merely a prospective client.

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 objective of the Ontario Court of Justice Rules is to have proceedings dealt with in a just and efficient manner (see r. 1.1). (a) best describes this; hence it is the correct answer.

Solution: The maximum term of a single probation order is 3 years (see Section 732.2(2)(b) of the Criminal Code). Therefore, (d) is the correct answer.

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)). However, because Elias is 16 years-old, he can likely apply for parole within 7 years. Therefore, (d) is the correct answer.

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 financial information rules relating to insufficient information were modified in July 2021. Rule 13(11)(a) of the Family Law Rules state that if one party believes the other has provided insufficient financial disclosure, the first step is that the party shall make a written request for additional information. Therefore, the correct answer is (b).

Solution: According to r. 3.6-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, contingency fees are not permitted in family law matters. Accordingly, because Bruna is suggesting being paid on a contingency basis (contingent on Gary receiving an equalization payment of $250,000 or more), this fee arrangement is not permitted. Therefore, the best answer is (d). (a), (b) and (c) overlook the fact that this contingency fee arrangement is not permitted in the first place, and hence are all incorrect.

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 (b). According to section 5.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a mediator may give both parties legal information. (a) is incorrect because communications between a mediator and parties are not protected by confidentiality, as no lawyer-client relationship exists; (c) is incorrect since the lawyer may not give parties legal advice under any scenario; and (d) is incorrect because the lawyer may discuss the consequences if the mediation fails.

Solution: The correct answer is (d) – 30 days.

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 choice is (a); a participant expert offers expert evidence limited to their participation and/or observation of events they observe. (b) is incorrect because such expert cannot be used in litigation;  (c) is incorrect because they can provide expert opinion evidence;  and (d) is incorrect because they are not inferior to litigation experts.

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, 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 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 best answer is (b). According to rule 3.2-7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, commentary [4], a bona fide test case may be permissible and a lawyer may advise a client to proceed with a test case “so long as no injury to the person or violence is involved” and the client “in good faith and on reasonable grounds, desires to challenge or test a law and the test can most effectively be made by means of a technical breach giving rise to a test case. In all situations, the lawyer should ensure that the client appreciates the consequences of bringing a test case.” Therefore, while advising a client to act contrary to the law is generally a breach of a lawyer’s professional obligations according to rule 3.2-7, this is the one exception. This is why (a) is incorrect. (c) is not based on the Rules, and as noted above, (d) is incorrect because while it would be “illegal”, there is a possibility such actions may be appropriate to challenge legislation.

Note that although the question stem never explicitly said the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is a federal tribunal, it can be inferred based on the fact that it says “Canadian” in its name.

Solution: The best answer is (b). According to rule 5.6-3 and commentary of the Rules of Professional Conduct, if a lawyer receives information that leads them to reasonably believe that a dangerous situation is likely to develop at a court facility, the lawyer must notify the persons having responsibility for security at the facility and give particulars. The lawyer may even suggest solutions, such as enhancing security. (a) is a weaker answer for two reasons – first, the lawyer should call individuals having responsibility for security over the court, not just merely call police, and second, divulging “all details” may be contrary to a lawyer’s obligation to keep all information confidential, unless it falls within the “prevent death or serious bodily harm” exception – which there is no proof of in the fact pattern. (c) and (d) are not stipulated by the Rules.