Executive Summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• Validity of bringing a judicial review application before the Tribunal hearing had taken place

• Threshold for establishing “exceptional circumstances” that would permit early court intervention

• Scope of Rule 2.1.01 for dismissing an application as frivolous, vexatious, or abusive

• Alleged improper reliance by the LSO on untested complaints and correspondence from another jurisdiction

• Whether procedural fairness required the LSO to give prior notice or reasons for issuing the Notice of Referral

• Applicant’s ability to raise fairness and evidentiary issues during the forthcoming good character hearing

Facts of the case

Prem K. Sharma, an internationally trained legal professional, wrote the Ontario solicitor licensing examination in 2021. In early 2022, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) initiated a good character investigation into Sharma based on allegations of academic misconduct. Sharma denied the allegations but later, in 2023, expressed contrition and sought re-entry into the licensing process. After passing both licensing examinations and completing articling, Sharma’s articling principal submitted a proposed remedial plan in March 2025. On April 11, 2025, the LSO issued a Notice of Referral for a full good character hearing before the Law Society Tribunal.

Sharma filed an application for judicial review, seeking to quash the referral. He alleged that the referral had been made without procedural fairness, without notice or reasons, and based in part on an anonymous complaint and a non-binding letter from the Law Society of Saskatchewan. He further claimed that the LSO had failed to consider the remedial plan, had relied on untested evidence, and had acted with institutional bias.

The LSO moved to dismiss the judicial review under Rule 2.1.01, arguing that the application was premature, the Tribunal had not yet heard the matter, and all concerns could be addressed in the Tribunal process. The LSO also argued that it was improper for the court to intervene at this stage in an administrative proceeding absent exceptional circumstances.

Outcome

The court found the application for judicial review to be premature. It ruled that Sharma would have the opportunity to raise all relevant issues, including those concerning fairness and evidence, during the Tribunal hearing. The court determined that no exceptional circumstances were present that would justify interrupting the administrative process. Applying Rule 2.1.01, the court struck the judicial review application as an abuse of process.