R v G.Y.L.

R. v. G.Y.L.

2009 CanLII 38516 (ON S.C.)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — McCombs J. | July 21, 2009

Background

G.Y.L., a young person, was facing four charges of assault and four charges of forcible confinement. His first court appearance was scheduled for April 23, 2009 at the Ontario Court of Justice on Jarvis Street in Toronto. Instead of showing up personally, G.Y.L. had a licensed and insured paralegal attend court with a properly executed designation under Criminal Code section 650.01. This designation appointed lawyer Daniel Stein as his counsel of choice and specifically designated his "counsel, articling student, or agent acting on his behalf" to appear for proceedings where his attendance wasn't legally required.

Justice of the Peace R. Quon looked at the paralegal and the paperwork, then ruled that only "a student of law or another lawyer" could act on the designation. He rejected the paralegal's appearance and issued a discretionary bench warrant for G.Y.L.'s arrest. G.Y.L.'s actual lawyer then brought an application for certiorari to quash the warrant, arguing the justice of the peace had exceeded his jurisdiction.

Issues

1. Can paralegals licensed and insured by the Law Society of Upper Canada appear in Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to a Criminal Code section 650.01 designation for routine remands on indictable offences?
2. Did Justice of the Peace Quon err in law by rejecting the paralegal's appearance and issuing a bench warrant?

The Paralegal Designation Issue

Justice McCombs concluded that licensed paralegals absolutely can appear under section 650.01 designations. He relied heavily on the earlier case R. v. Golyanik, where Justice Trafford held that articling students could appear pursuant to designations for routine remands. McCombs applied the same reasoning using modern statutory interpretation principles — looking at the purpose and context of the law, not just the literal words.

The key insight was that paralegals are now governed by the Law Society of Upper Canada, making them "trained professionals subject to similar if not identical standards of ethics and civility as are lawyers and students-at-law." Section 650.01 was enacted in 2002 specifically to streamline an overburdened criminal justice system by letting accused people designate representatives for routine court appearances. Excluding properly regulated paralegals would actually impede rather than enhance the efficient administration of justice.

McCombs emphasized that when the paralegal appeared, the applicant's interests were represented by "a duly licensed and insured paralegal acting with the express instructions of the applicant's lawyer." This wasn't some random person off the street — this was a regulated professional working under proper supervision.

Key Takeaway

Licensed paralegals can appear on Criminal Code section 650.01 designations for routine remands on indictable matters, and justices of the peace who reject them are exceeding their jurisdiction.

This decision clarifies that the definition of "counsel" in section 650.01 includes not just lawyers and articling students, but also licensed paralegals. If you're facing charges and have properly designated a licensed paralegal to handle routine court appearances, lower court justices cannot simply reject that representation based on professional status alone.