Solution: The best answer is (d). According to Rule 3.2-8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer who is retained by an organization to act in a matter in which the lawyer knows that the organization has acted dishonestly, fraudulently, criminally or illegally, shall report the matter “up the ladder” of responsibility within the organization until it is dealt with appropriately. Commentary [3] adds that such conduct includes acts of omission, and that conduct likely to result in substantial harm to the organization, as opposed to genuinely trivial misconduct by an organization, invokes this rule. In this case, ABC Corporation’s has incorrectly advertised its chocolate bar as being 0.10 grams heavier than it actually is. It is improbable that this would be conduct “likely to result in substantial harm to the organization”. Given this, withdrawing for such a minor error, or threatening to withdraw, as with choices (a), (b) and (c), defy the true intent of this rule. On the other hand, (d) would be the most logical way to proceed – asking Maria for more information (i.e., why they have yet to correct the disclosure or if they are taking any steps to do so) would make more sense, and is therefore the best answer.

Solution: The correct answer is (d). According to Section 17 of the Limitations Act, 2002,  there is no limitation period in respect of an environmental claim that has not been discovered. Given Yoruba only discovered the contamination this year, the limitations period would not start until this year. (a) is incorrect – it is irrelevant when Maximiliano discovered it. Stacy is the one looking to commence a lawsuit here, and she was unfamiliar with the contamination, it is when she discovered it that matters. (b) is incorrect – the fact that an inspection was offered is also irrelevant. He should have disclosed the fact that this property was contaminated. Finally, (c) is also incorrect. The fact stem says that Stacy found out about the contamination this year, so once again, the clock would start running this year.

Solution:  The correct answer is (c). According to Rule 16.02(1)(n) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service on a sole proprietorship can be made by leaving it with the sole proprietor or with a person at the principal place of business of the sole proprietorship who appears to be in control or management of the place of business. Therefore, since the fact stem does not make it clear whether any of the employees appears to be in control of the business, the best answer is (c) – as it uses very similar language to the Rule itself. (a) and (b) are incorrect since it’s unclear which employee, if any, seems to have control or authority over the business. (d) is incorrect since the Rule clearly provides an alternative to serving the sole proprietor.

Solution: The best answer is (b). Devin has misappropriated client funds, which is a serious breach of his ethical duties and Rule 7.1-3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall report to the Law Society the misappropriation of trust monies. (a) is not the best way to proceed; the bigger concern is that he allegedly misappropriated client funds. (c) is also incorrect as Rule 7.1-3 provides that a lawyer shall report the abandonment of a law or legal services practice. While Devin has noted that he may close down his law practice in the future, there is no indication that he plans to “abandon” it which is different. (d) is also incorrect since, as noted above, Rule 7.1-3 of the Rules clearly provides Srinika with a duty to report in this situation.

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) 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 (c). An application under the Pension Benefits Act is eligible to be listed on the Commercial List. Option (a) is incorrect as only Business Corporations Act (Ontario) and Canada Business Corporations Act-related matters can be heard before the Commercial List. Options (b) and (d) are incorrect because these are both eligible to be listed on the Estates List rather than the Commercial List.

Solution: The correct answer 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 – Rule 37.02(2)(c) specifically says a judge must hear a motion to abridge or extend a time prescribed by an order that an associate judge could not have made. It would therefore be accurate to say that a motion seeking to extend a deadline must be heard by a judge, as that is only the case where it is an order the associated judge could not have made. 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 dependents; 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 appliances 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 (c). According to Rule 3.6-6.1(1)(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the amount of the referral fee shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the fees paid to the lawyer or paralegal who received the referral for the first fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) of such fees for the matter and five percent (5%) of any additional fees for the matter to a maximum referral fee of $25,000. Since there are 6 matters, the maximum amount he could obtain from referring to all 6 matters is 6 x $25,000 = $150,000. Note that maximum referral fee is on a per matter basis, not a per lawyer basis. (d) is incorrect because the rule cited above explicitly notes the maximum for each matter is $25,000.

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 best answer is (b). According to Section 4 of the Innkeepers Act, no innkeeper is liable to compensate any guest for any loss of goods brought to the inn,…to a greater amount than the sum of $40 except, except where there is default or neglect or the goods were deposited for safekeeping. In this case, it would be wise for Si-woo to ask for more information to determine whether the exceptions in Section 4 of the Innkeepers Act are applicable, such as neglect (i.e., carelessness). (a) is not the best answer as at this stage, it is unclear if any of the exceptions are applicable. (c) is incorrect – while Bluma wishes to commence a claim, that does not mean Si-woo should act on her wish, especially since, depending on the circumstances, she may only be entitled to $40. (d) is also incorrect as there is not enough information given to conclude that Bluma has no proof that the incident was caused by the hotel or its employees. She believes she has good reason and therefore it would be Si-woo’s job in this case to inquire further into this belief of hers to determine whether a claim would be worthwhile.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). For Naomi to continue her civil litigation action as an undischarged bankrupt, 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 best answer is (c). The doctrine of res judicata can be used as a defence where a matter has already been adjudged. It can be used not only to points upon which a court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion or render a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at that time. In this case, the city could reasonably plead that Michael’s new claim was already adjudged before the OHRC, and bringing it through small claims court would run contrary to the doctrine of res judicata. The fact that Michael uses “disability” more broadly in this claim does negate the doctrine’s use, as that broader usage could have been used by Michael in the initial claim. (a) is incorrect since “want of authority” refers to where an agent lacks authority, which is not relevant here. (b) is incorrect as non est factum refers to someone who signed a document and was induced to believe they were signing a document of a different nature, which again is irrelevant to this fact set. Finally, (d) is incorrect as ultra vires refers to an action taken beyond one’s authority, which again, is not relevant here.

Note that this question is inspired by a recent case decided by the Small Claims Court of New Brunswick on February 28, 2025 (Murphy v Killingbeck et al., 2025 NBSM 5).

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 to have 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 (d). 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. Section 6(1) of the Courts of Justice Act says that an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, except for an order referred to in Section 19(1)(a). No leave to appeal would be required.

Here, the final order was $45,000 + $7,000 in interest = $52,000 in total. The $4,999 in costs is excluded. Therefore, the final order can be appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, with no leave required.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). Under Rule 4.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must make legal services available to the public in an efficient manner. Commentary [3] advises that if a lawyer knows or reasonably believes a client may be eligible for Legal Aid, they should advise the client to apply. Brynjar’s modest income, past receipt of Legal Aid, and immediate need for representation, combined with Shabana’s current capacity constraints, make advising him to apply for Legal Aid the most appropriate option. The fact that he may be promoted at work within a year does not change much – it’s unclear if he will actually be promoted and how much that would change his financial situation. Options (a) and (b) fail to address his urgent need, and (b) may also be impractical for Shabana to do. Option (d) is less helpful than directing him to a viable alternative.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). Officials must adopt a holistic approach when determining the release conditions for an Indigenous offender, one that goes beyond individual circumstances. Section 79.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act says they should consider broader systemic challenges, historical disadvantages affecting Indigenous communities, and the offender’s cultural identity. Option (b) best encapsulates this perspective, while the other options focus too narrowly on individual attributes or risk assessments.

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). Section 753(4.1) of the Criminal Code requires that a dangerous offender be given an indeterminate sentence unless the evidence demonstrates a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure (either as described in section 753(4)(b) or 753(4)(c)) will adequately protect the public from the offender committing murder or a serious personal injury offence. These “lesser measures” include, for example, imposing a sentence for the offence with a minimum of two years’ imprisonment and ordering that the offender be subject to long-term supervision for a period not exceeding 10 years (section 753(4)(b)), or imposing a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted (section 753(4)(c)). Given this, option (b) is an example of one of these measures, as provided in section 753(4)(c) of the Criminal Code. In contrast, option (a) is irrelevant since the offender’s age is not a deciding factor; option (c) is incorrect because a six-month sentence does not meet the two-year minimum in section 753(4)(b); and option (d) does not align with the statutory requirements for a lesser measure under section 753.

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). Under Rule 6.3.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers have a duty to respect human rights laws and must not discriminate on certain listed grounds including family status, which is defined as being in a parent-and-child relationship. ABC LLP’s policy, which excludes candidates in such relationships, directly targets family status and therefore constitutes discrimination. Although marital status is also a protected ground, the policy specifically addresses family status, making option (c) the correct answer.

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 by 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 (b). Under section 515(2) of the Criminal Code, when a release order with conditions is issued, the order must include, as the case may be, an indication that the release order does not include the accused’s financial obligations, or a promise to pay a specified amount, the obligation to have a surety, or the obligation to deposit a sum of money or other valuable security, if the accused fails to comply with a condition of the release. (b) best describes the flexibility provided by the Criminal Code. (a) is incorrect – this statement would not be appropriate, for example, where a financial condition is imposed on Tom so it is not required; (c) is incorrect since the community service requirement is not listed in section 515(2) of the Criminal Code. (d) is incorrect since Section 515(2) does provide the option to furnish securities or a promise to pay.

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). Under section 683(5) of the Criminal Code, a court may suspend an order pending appeal if it considers the suspension to be in the interests of justice. Options (a), (c), and (d) do not reflect the standard set out in the Criminal Code. Option (a) suggests a higher threshold than required, (c) introduces a balancing test not found in the section, and (d) misframes the test by focusing on public interest rather than justice as a whole.

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 (d). According to Rule 3.3-4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, if a lawyer is alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a lawyer, they may disclose confidential information in their defense but must limit the disclosure to what is strictly necessary. In this case, Alvin had the right to defend himself since he was accused of forging Joe’s signature, which is an allegation that constitutes professional misconduct. However, by disclosing several of Joe’s medical records to Gorata’s lawyers, Alvin revealed more information than required. A single record displaying Joe’s signature would have sufficed. Moreover, given the sensitivity of medical records, Alvin should have exercised caution by redacting irrelevant or sensitive details. Options (a) and (b) are incorrect because, while Alvin was entitled to defend himself, disclosing multiple sensitive medical records exceeded what was necessary. Option (c) is incorrect because Rule 3.3-4 does not require the client’s consent to disclose confidential information when defending against allegations of professional misconduct.

Note that this fact scenario is partly based on a real-life case that was before the Law Society Tribunal – Hearing Division, in 2025.

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 option (a) is correct because it mirrors the language in (v) above. Options (b) and (c) are incorrect because they have no basis in the CLRA. Option (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 option (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 (a). To determine the equalization payment, the court calculates the net family property (NFP) for each party: Donghai’s NFP is $60,000 (assets) − $5,000 (liabilities) = $55,000, while Fen’s NFP is $95,000. The WSIB benefits are excluded from Donghai’s NFP, as it was determined in Lowe that WSIB benefits are not considered “property.” The difference between their NFPs is $95,000 − $55,000 = $40,000, and half of that difference is $20,000, which Fen, having the higher NFP, must pay to Donghai. Option (b) is incorrect because it wrongly includes the WSIB benefits in Donghai’s NFP, inflating his property value. Option (c) is also incorrect. If you chose this option you may have not subtracted Donghai’s liabilities when calculating his NFP. Option (d) is incorrect because Donghai, as the spouse with the lower NFP, is entitled to receive the payment, not pay it.

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 (a). Since the order is final and the amount is greater than $50,000, the appeal must be made in the Ontario Court of Appeal, and no leave is required. See sections 6(1)(b), 19(1)(a), and 19(1.2)) 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 one-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, 2023 to September 1, 2023. Therefore, the date of separation should still be the first date they separated – which is May 1, 2023; hence, (a) is the correct answer.

Solution: The correct answer is (b). Under Rule 3.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must provide legal services with the competence of a reasonably competent lawyer, which includes understanding and using technology relevant to their practice. Commentary [4] clarifies that the required level of technological competence depends on, among other things, whether the technology is necessary for the lawyer’s practice and responsibilities. Therefore, Joon should advise Kaori that she should consider whether AI-based technologies, like ChatGPT, are essential to her specific practice area in constitutional and public law. Option (a) is incorrect because it is contrary to Rule 3.1-2. Option (c) is less relevant, as the focus should be on the practical needs of her Ontario practice rather than on global usage trends. Option (d) is incorrect because the Law Society of Ontario does not prohibit the use of AI-based technologies.

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 (b). Courts reviewing administrative decisions, including the Federal Court, have the power to grant equitable relief, such as injunctions; however, as a general rule, injunctions cannot lie against the Crown unless the order relates to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Option (a) is incorrect because not all government actions automatically qualify for injunctive relief against the Crown. Option (c) is incorrect because of the exception under section 24(1) of the Charter. Option (d) is incorrect because both the Federal Court and the Divisional Court can issue equitable relief in judicial review cases.

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), 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 of 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 matter 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, subject to limited exceptions, 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 (c). The presumption is that the standard of review is reasonableness. There are only a few ways this presumption can be rebutted, one being by demonstrating that the issue is a general question of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole. Option (a) is incorrect because merely raising an important legal issue in the context of access to records does not automatically qualify as a general question of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole. Options (b) and (d) are incorrect because they do not reflect recognized exceptions to the presumption of reasonableness. The presumption can only be rebutted by demonstrating:

(i) a constitutional question,

(ii) a question of jurisdictional boundaries between decision-makers, or

(iii) a general question of law of central importance to the legal system.

Note that the fact pattern in this question is partially based on a recent case heard before the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (Teper v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 1717, dated March 20, 2025). In that case, the applicant unsuccessfully argued that the standard of review used should be correctness and focused on the importance of the question raised. In para [27] of the decision, the court noted “The question raised in this case may be an important legal issue, but the mere fact that there is a question on an important legal issue or of wider public concern is insufficient for a question to be a question of law of central importance.”

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 suppress 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 correct answer is (b). According to Section 310(1) of the Federal Court Rules, a respondent to an application must serve and file their record within 20 days after service of the applicant’s record.

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 previously decided 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 (c). According to Rule 3.4-5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must inform each client when acting for more than one party about the potential for a conflict and the possibility of withdrawing if the conflict cannot be resolved. (a) is incorrect since it is not required by the Rules. (b) is incorrect because Rule 3.4-5(b) states the opposite, which is that no information received from one client can be treated as confidential from the others. (d) is not required by the Rules, although it is good practice.

Note: This case set is partially based on real-life facts. As of spring 2025, the claimants’ challenge remains before the courts.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). For a law to be valid under the federal criminal law power in section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, it must include a prohibition backed by a penalty for a criminal law purpose. According to the Margarine Reference, a criminal law purpose can include matters related to health or morality. Given the Act contains prohibitions and penalties, the claimants can argue that these measures are for a criminal law purpose, making it a matter of federal jurisdiction. (a) is incorrect because provinces can impose penalties for violations of provincial laws under section 92(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867. For example, Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act imposes penalties, including jail time, for certain offences. (b) is incorrect because regulating the location of consumption sites falls under provincial jurisdiction, not business regulation. (d) is incorrect because while the Act addresses public health and safety, those matters do not exclusively fall under provincial jurisdiction, making it a weak argument. Overall, (c) presents the strongest jurisdictional challenge.

Solution: The correct answer is (c). To successfully challenge the Act under Section 7 of the Charter, the claimants must demonstrate not only that their right to life, liberty, or security of the person has been infringed but also that the law violates a principle of fundamental justice. According to R. v. Malmo-Levine, a principle of fundamental justice must: (i) be a legal principle, (ii) be widely accepted as essential to the fairness of the legal system, and (iii) provide a manageable standard for assessing deprivations of rights. (a) is incorrect because it introduces a reasonableness and justification element, which applies under Section 1 of the Charter, not Section 7. (b) is incorrect because it confuses the Section 1 justification test with the requirement to show a breach of a fundamental principle. (d) is incorrect because while gross disproportionality is one potential way to establish a violation of a principle of fundamental justice, it is not required. Thus, (c) is the correct answer.