Why the Law Society of Ontario v. AA Matters: Setting the Bar for Lawyer “Good Character” and Public Trust
In a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, the benchmark for determining whether a lawyer meets the “good character” requirement under the Law Society Act faced intense scrutiny. The case underscored how public confidence and trustworthiness sit at the very heart of legal licensing, reshaping how demographic restrictions and licensing conditions are judged.
This ruling also reasserted the framework established in Canada v. Vavilov for reviewing administrative decisions, showing that tribunals must rigorously engage with statutory context and public interest. It touches on transparency issues too—ordering anonymity protections when child safety concerns are at stake.
Judicial Review and Reasonableness: Tribunal Decisions Must Address Public Trust
Why it matters: The Court reminded tribunals that their findings around good character cannot ignore the public trust that lawyers hold. If a tribunal’s decision is internally inconsistent or fails to engage with these broad concerns, it risks being deemed unreasonable.
- The tribunal’s “good character” ruling lacked coherence due to an inconsistent licensing condition.
- The Divisional Court wrongly applied the reasonableness standard, per the appeal decision.
- The Court of Appeal applied the proper reasonableness principles and sent the case back for reconsideration.
Law Society Act s. 27: Good Character Cannot be Achieved by Imposing Demographic Conditions
Why it matters: The ruling clarifies that “good character” licensing is about true public confidence, not simply ticking boxes tied to demographic criteria. Licensing conditions based on demographics are not a shortcut to establish good character.
- A demographic restriction was found incompatible with the concept of good character under s. 27.
- The “Armstrong factors” commonly used in such cases are not mechanical scoring tools — decision-makers must consider the broader context.
- Public confidence and an individual lawyer’s trustworthiness remain central to the good character analysis.
- Consequently, the demographic condition imposed was ruled unreasonable and inconsistent with good character.
Statutory Interpretation Must Be Grounded in Text, Context, and Public Interest
Why it matters: The Ontario Court of Appeal reinforced that tribunals must interpret statutory terms like “good character” to reflect the purpose and context of the law, especially the embedded goal of protecting the public interest.
- The Tribunal’s interpretation of “good character” under Law Society Act ss. 27, 4.2 failed to consider key constraints established in Vavilov.
- Public confidence is a core element of s. 27’s analysis and cannot be sidelined.
- Because of these interpretive errors, the Tribunal’s decision was found unreasonable.
- The decision was set aside and sent back to be reconsidered in line with correct principles.
Protection of Identity in Open Court Proceedings: Balancing Transparency and Privacy
Why it matters: The appellate court emphasized its control over its own records and affirmed that anonymity or publication bans can be justified to protect vulnerable individuals, such as child sexual assault victims, even in open court.
- Serious public interest concerns justified protecting the identity of a child sexual assault victim.
- The court balanced the benefits of non-publication against potential harms and found the benefits outweighed them at this stage.
- This followed guidance from Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25.
What This Signals for Parents
While this case focuses on the legal profession, it highlights a broader principle: public trust and good character are essential for those in positions of responsibility. For parents, it’s a reminder that trustworthiness and integrity remain critical standards in professional and institutional decisions—standards that courts will rigorously enforce. It also illustrates how courts carefully balance transparency with protection, especially when children’s privacy is involved.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
How will this decision reshape the way licensing bodies assess good character in future cases?