Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court considered whether an appeal to the Law Society Tribunal's Appeal Division was an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review.
• Mr. Aujla's claim that wrong legal advice caused his delay was found unsupported by the correspondence in the record.
• Documented addiction treatment from January 23 to February 28, 2025 was accepted as a valid partial explanation for the delay.
• No satisfactory explanation was given for the periods from March to September 2025 or from October 2025 to March 2026.
• Prejudice to the Law Society of Ontario was presumed based on the public interest in finality of regulatory decisions.
• Costs were ultimately ordered against Mr. Aujla notwithstanding his self-represented status.

Facts of the case

Tarnjit Singh Aujla, a self-represented moving party, sought an order extending the time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision of the Hearing Division of the Law Society Tribunal dated January 20, 2025 (Aujla v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONLSTH 10). In that decision, the Hearing Division found that Mr. Aujla had made deliberate false and misleading representations on his 2015 application for an L1 licence, and his licensing application was refused as a result. Mr. Aujla filed his Notice of Motion for an extension of time on March 19, 2026. He did not appeal the Decision to the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal. His proposed grounds for judicial review included arguments about the interpretation of section 730 of the Criminal Code and the good character questionnaire, as well as allegations of unreasonable findings and breaches of procedural fairness.

Statutory provisions at issue

No contractual clauses were at issue in this matter, as the case concerns statutory and regulatory timelines rather than a contract. Subsection 5(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act requires that an application for judicial review be made no later than 30 days after the decision in question. Subsection 5(2) allows the Divisional Court to extend that time if satisfied that there are apparent grounds for relief and that no substantial prejudice or hardship will result to any affected person. Under the Law Society Act, a party may appeal a final decision of the Hearing Division to the Appeal Division on any grounds, but such an appeal must be commenced within 30 days, after which it may proceed only with the consent of the respondent or with leave.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Vermette concluded that an appeal to the Appeal Division constituted an adequate alternative remedy, noting that the Appeal Division has broad remedial powers, that the process would be less costly than judicial review, and that the Appeal Division is an expert tribunal. Turning to the length of and reasons for the delay, the court rejected Mr. Aujla's argument that wrong advice from his former lawyers caused the delay, finding this claim was contradicted by the lawyers' written communications, which clearly conveyed that a right of appeal existed. The court did accept that Mr. Aujla's participation in a Withdrawal Management Centre program (January 23–27, 2025) and a subsequent Intensive Day Addiction Treatment Program (February 3–28, 2025) provided a valid explanation for delay during that specific period. However, the court found the evidence for the following seven-month period (March to September 2025), described by Mr. Aujla as "physician-directed recovery," to be too general and vague to justify continued inaction, particularly since Mr. Aujla was able to work on preliminary reapplication documents during that time. Similarly, the court found the explanation for the final period (October 2025 to March 2026), during which Mr. Aujla said he researched his options, was extremely general and did not account for why he sought an extension for judicial review rather than for an appeal. The court also held that prejudice to the Law Society could be presumed given the public interest in the timely and final resolution of regulatory proceedings.

Ruling and outcome

Having found that none of the relevant factors favoured granting an extension, the court dismissed Mr. Aujla's motion for an order extending the time to commence an application for judicial review. The Law Society of Ontario was the successful party. Mr. Aujla was ordered to pay costs to the Law Society of Ontario on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.00, payable within 30 days.