The Law Society of Ontario’s Assessment of Capacity in Relation to Mental Illness: A Critical Analysis by David Andrew LeMesurier A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by David Andrew LeMesurier 2020 The Law Society of Ontario’s Assessment of Capacity in Relation to Mental Illness: A Critical Analysis David Andrew LeMesurier Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2020 Abstract Over the past 20 years, a number of studies across the globe have found that mental health issues—including substance abuse, depression, anxiety, and other forms of psychopathology— are especially acute in the legal profession. The Law Society of Ontario (“Law Society”), the regulator of the legal professions in the province, has a role to play in addressing these issues, particularly due to its statutory jurisdiction over the capacity of lawyers and paralegals (“licensees”). In this paper, I review in depth the Law Society’s current approach to licensee capacity concerns in its applications before the Law Society Tribunal. My critical examination of the current coercive processes is informed by their impacts on the autonomy interests of licensees. Ultimately, I argue that in light of these impacts, the Law Society’s authority with respect to licensee capacity must be strictly and narrowly interpreted, to the greatest benefit of the individuals at issue. ii Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to thank my SJD Advisor, Michaël Lessard, and my Supervisor, Professor Trudo Lemmens, both of whom provided a great deal of appreciated feedback on my initial drafts. Their assistance was invaluable and certainly improved the quality of my research and writing. I also learned so much from my fellow LLM students and would be remiss if I did not acknowledge their contribution (in particular, Ines Horn). Secondly, I would like to thank my family: Mom, Dad, Emily, Mike and Ian. Whether you were reading through my rough material, asking for updates, or just making me laugh, you were always there for me. Third, I could not have completed this draft without the support of my roommate Kathleen (and, by extension, Alysa). It’s difficult to overemphasize how comforting it was to come home to such a loving, kind, and supportive friend every night while I was working on this project. Finally, I was incredibly lucky to be able to take a leave of absence from the Law Society of Ontario while I completed my LLM. I am so grateful to my colleagues, who not only taught me everything I know about professional regulation, but also encouraged and supported me while I wrote this thesis. To A.K., Alex, Amanda, Amrita, Anna, Ayman, Bill, Cheryl, Danielle, Deborah, Elaine, Elizabeth, Holly, Ian, Kristina, Joshua, Leslie, Natasha, Owen, Rhoda, Sue, Suzanne, Tanus, Tushar and all the other incredible employees at the LSO (both past and present), thank you so much. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ III TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. V INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 PART I: STATUTORY CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................... 8 REGULATORY JURISDICTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 9 Conduct Proceedings ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Capacity Proceedings ......................................................................................................................................... 10 INVESTIGATIONS AND APPROVALS ........................................................................................................................... 10 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL .................................................................................................................... 12 STRUCTURE OF PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 13 PART II: LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT RE JURISDICTION OVER CAPACITY ....... 14 LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 14 POLICY DEVELOPMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 21 PART III: TRANSPARENCY IN CAPACITY PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................ 23 INITIAL APPROACH AND CALLS FOR CHANGE .......................................................................................................... 23 THE 2006 CAPACITY POLICY ................................................................................................................................... 24 TRIBUNAL RESPONSE TO 2006 CAPACITY POLICY ................................................................................................... 25 CURRENT APPROACH TO TRANSPARENCY ............................................................................................................... 30 PART IV: CAPACITY APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................... 32 THE MEANING AND TREATMENT OF SECTION 37(1) ................................................................................................ 32 The presence of a physical or mental illness, other infirmity, or addiction to or excessive use of alcohol or drugs ................................................................................................................................................................... 36 (1) Treatment of ‘Mental Illness’ and ‘Incapacitated’ in Other Legal Contexts .......................................................... 37 (2) ‘Incapacitated’ Adopts a Medical Frame and Requires Evidence .......................................................................... 40 (3) Drawing on Human Rights Law ............................................................................................................................. 41 The licensee is incapable of meeting any of his or her obligations as a licensee .............................................. 51 (1) Interlocutory Proceedings ....................................................................................................................................... 54 (2) ‘Significant Threat’ in the Criminal Context .......................................................................................................... 55 A nexus between the previous two clauses ......................................................................................................... 58 COMPELLING MEDICAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 39(1) ....................................................................... 60 PART V: CAPACITY ISSUES IN CONDUCT APPLICATIONS ....................................................................... 63 COMPLETE DEFENCE TO MISCONDUCT OR CONDUCT UNBECOMING ....................................................................... 64 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE ................................................................................................................................... 68 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 78 iv List of Appendices APPENDIX A: Table Analyzing Law Society Tribunal Conduct Orders from 2007 – 2019 APPENDIX B: Table of Conduct Decisions Addressing Capacity Issues from 2007 – 2019 v The Law Society of Ontario’s Assessment of Capacity in Relation to Mental Illness: A Critical Analysis David Andrew LeMesurier1 INTRODUCTION Like many others before me, I walked into law school with confidence and a little apprehension. While apprehensive about my prospects in a completely new setting with a suddenly much more competitive group of students, as I ran through the rain and into the Weldon Law Building in Halifax, Nova Scotia on the first day of orientation, I was also confident that, based on my academic experiences to date, if I set my mind to it, I would be able to excel in this new environment. As my first year of law school progressed, however, doubts began to take hold with increasing strength. I started to feel more and more like an imposter in a setting where I had previously thrived. I found the law alienating, and I felt like the dumbest person in the room. Slowly but surely, I began to withdraw, and feelings that had plagued me my whole life—that I was not interesting, smart, or good enough—came to a head. By the start of my second semester, I found it harder and harder to get out of bed, until I just stopped trying. Any time I did go out, I expended so much