Law360 Canada (October 5, 2026, 1:21 PM EDT) -- An Ontario paralegal is pledging to continue the fight after the province’s top court dealt him a blow in his attempts to argue that he has a larger scope of practice in immigration matters than the law society allows.
Antonio (Tony) Caruso has been in conflict with the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) for nearly a decade over the scope of paralegals’ powers in immigration matters. For its part, the law society argues its bylaws only allow paralegals to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and to prepare documents for use at IRB hearings, and not draft documents or provide other legal services unrelated to those hearings.
But Caruso says the LSO’s position conflicts with the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which prohibits anyone from advising a person on a proceeding or application under the Act unless they are a lawyer, notary or — key to Caruso’s argument — “any other member in good standing of a law society of a province … including a paralegal.”
After several years of fighting with the law society outside the judicial system, Caruso decided to take his concerns to the courts, seeking a declaration that Ontario paralegals are allowed to practise in immigration matters according to the language in IRPA. However, he was dealt a setback in 2023 when a three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court ruled against him — a finding now upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
In the court’s unanimous decision, Justice David Paciocco wrote the LSO bylaws “identify a closed list of legal services that paralegals are ‘authorized to do.’”
“Where [Caruso] goes wrong … is in arguing that when an application or document is submitted to the IRCC [Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada] or the CBSA [Canadian Border Services Agency], or where advice is given to clients on IRCC and CBSA matters, those legal services are being provided for a ‘proceeding’ or at least an ‘intended proceeding’ before an IRPA ‘tribunal,’” he wrote. “[I]t it is plain when read in context that the term ‘proceeding’ is used in its grammatical and ordinary sense, to refer to matters that are before adjudicative bodies, as opposed to administrative decision makers.”
Justice Paciocco wrote he did not accept Caruso’s argument that any steps leading up to a possible hearing at the IRB should be viewed as an “intended proceeding” under the LSO’s bylaws.
“I recognize that any dealing with the IRCC or CBSA could potentially lead to a future hearing before an adjudicative body, but I am not persuaded that the ordinary grammatical meaning of the term captures any steps that might later result in litigation,” he wrote. “It seems to me that ‘intended proceeding’ is included in the definition of ‘proceeding’ to permit paralegals to prepare for proceedings that are in the process of being undertaken but not yet launched, and to validate legal services that are provided in cases where the intended proceeding is abandoned or otherwise fails to be held.”
Justice Paciocco was joined by Justices Julie Thorburn and Jonathon George in his ruling, which was issued Sept. 28 (
Caruso v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONCA 677).
In an interview with Law360 Canada, Caruso — who represented himself at both the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal — said he has already taken steps to bring his case before the Supreme Court.
“I filed my Supreme Court application and also raised a fundamental question about IRPA — when Parliament expressively included paralegals as members in good standing of the law society, did Parliament merely impose a status requirement, or did it silently incorporate every provincial scope restriction?” he said. “I believe that’s a very important question for Canada’s highest court now that has to consider this.”
Caruso said he feels the matter is one of national importance “because the public has the right to choose who they want to represent them.”
“The public has the right of access to justice and affordability,” he said. “I took an oath to fight for the public and to fight for access to justice. And if I just back away now, I’m going to look like a hypocrite.”
In an email, law society spokesperson Amy Lewis said the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the decision of the Divisional Court “speaks for itself.”
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Ian Burns at Ian.Burns@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5906.