R v Lippa

R. v. Lippa

2013 ONSC 4424
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Justice M.K. Fuerst | June 26, 2013

Background

Marian Lippa is a licensed paralegal who runs Lippa Legal Services and represents clients in criminal matters, including summary conviction court. On two separate occasions in 2010 and 2011, she appeared at a Newmarket courthouse and was told by the Justice of the Peace that she couldn't sit in the front section reserved for lawyers. The JP cited "safety reasons" and "tradition" going back hundreds of years, saying only lawyers could sit past the gate of the bar. Lippa had to sit with the public, and when cases involving paralegals were called, they had to wait until all lawyer matters were dealt with first.

Lippa was embarrassed by this treatment and claimed it hurt her business. One of her clients was worried their case was prejudiced by what happened. She filed an application seeking court orders to force equal treatment between lawyers and paralegals in courtroom seating and case calling order.

Issues

1. Did the Justice of the Peace exceed jurisdiction by restricting where paralegals could sit in the courtroom?
2. Did the Justice of the Peace breach natural justice by calling lawyer cases before paralegal cases?
3. Is the Barristers Act unconstitutional for creating a hierarchy between lawyers and paralegals?

The Court's Ruling on Professional Hierarchy

Justice Fuerst dismissed the application entirely, but his reasons reveal important distinctions between lawyers and paralegals. While paralegals are licensed professionals deserving of respect, they are not lawyers. The Law Society Act specifically limits what paralegals can do — they can represent people in summary conviction court, but with restrictions. For example, they cannot examine witnesses if the maximum penalty exceeds six months imprisonment, unless there's a special program (which doesn't exist in Ontario).

Crucially, section 29 of the Law Society Act states that only lawyers are "officers of every court of record in Ontario." Paralegals are not included. The Barristers Act establishes a clear order of precedence in courts: federal Crown, provincial Crown, Queen's Counsel by seniority, then all other lawyers by their call to the bar. This hierarchy doesn't include paralegals because they're not "members of the bar."

Courtroom Management Authority

The court found that judges have inherent power to control their own courtrooms, including where people sit and the order cases are called. This is essential for maintaining order and the integrity of court proceedings. The Justice of the Peace didn't exceed jurisdiction — she was managing a busy remand courtroom where people come and go constantly. Natural justice doesn't require judges to hear from every affected person before making basic courtroom management decisions.

However, Justice Fuerst noted that if seats are reserved for lawyers in small courtrooms, some accommodation should be made for paralegals and articling students so they're not relegated to waiting in courthouse hallways until called.

Key Takeaway

Paralegals have a legitimate role in the justice system, but they operate within a different tier than lawyers — and that's legally established, not discriminatory.

While this case involved criminal court, it clarifies that paralegals practicing in Provincial Offences Court should expect to be treated as legal professionals, but not necessarily with identical privileges to lawyers. Courts have broad discretion in managing their processes and calling order.