This story was printed on

Landlord & Tenant Board Upholds Moak Law @ Kingston Hearing 053019

The Landlord and Tenant Board supported Moak Law and enforced the Law Society Act at a recent hearing in Kingston Ontario.

This decision, EAL-80406-19, clearly states that only the owner or someone authorized under the Law Society Act may select,draft, or complete, any document used in an application to the Landlord and Tenant board, regardless of whether it’s a landlord or tenant application.

I hope that going forward the Landlord and Tenant Board, and its users will abide by this principle as failing to do so whether you are a landlord or a tenant. Only authorized legal representatives should be used. Otherwise it will be extremely financially costly.

James Moak – Paralegal

The hearing was adjudicated by Member Dawn Sullivan reversing a previous decision of hers on the same issue. The previous decision was appealed to divisional court and the respondent as of today has consented to the appeal thereby dismissing the Landlord application.

In her decision she wrote:

“LD (sic the Property Manager) is not authorized to provide legal services to the Landlord with respect to matters that arise under the Act. As LD is neither the Landlord nor an individual licensed under the Law Society Act, the application is not properly before the Board.”

Essentially, Moak Law means that owners and tenants, if not representing themselves, must use a representative authorized under the Law Society Act.

Mr. Moak, who has been practicing Landlord and Tenant law in Ontario for forty years, has been championing this issue for ten years.

For anyone with doubts as to what the law is: Mr. Moak suggests that you read the law society act section one from start to finish where it clearly defines the definition of providing legal services or practicing law.


(6) Without limiting the generality of subsection (5), a person provides legal services if the person does any of the following:

1. Gives a person advice with respect to the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of the person or of another person.

2. Selects, drafts, completes or revises, on behalf of a person,

i. a document that affects a person’s interests in or rights to or in real or personal property,

ii. a testamentary document, trust document, power of attorney or other document that relates to the estate of a person or the guardianship of a person,

iii. a document that relates to the structure of a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership or other entity, such as a document that relates to the formation, organization, reorganization, registration, dissolution or winding-up of the entity,

iv. a document that relates to a matter under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada),

v. a document that relates to the custody of or access to children,

vi. a document that affects the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person, other than the legal interests, rights or responsibilities referred to in subparagraphs i to v, or

vii. a document for use in a proceeding before an adjudicative body.

3. Represents a person in a proceeding before an adjudicative body.

4. Negotiates the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person.  2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 2 (10).

Representation in a proceeding

(7) Without limiting the generality of paragraph 3 of subsection (6), doing any of the following shall be considered to be representing a person in a proceeding:

1. Determining what documents to serve or file in relation to the proceeding, determining on or with whom to serve or file a document, or determining when, where or how to serve or file a document.

2. Conducting an examination for discovery.

3. Engaging in any other conduct necessary to the conduct of the proceeding.  2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 2 (10).

To find out more about Moak Law, or to speak with Mr. James Moak, you can dial 613 937 0347 or visit his website,

This story appeared in The Cornwall Free News ( on May 30, 2019. It has been republished with permission.

This story was printed on CFN.


Cornwall Paralegal James Moak Featured in Law Times Over Unauthorized Practice of Law

Cornwall Ontario – For Cornwall, Kingston, and now Ottawa Paralegal James Moak it’s been an interesting fight to see unauthorized practice by unlicensed people appearing before the Landlord & Tenant board of Ontario and other courts.

He was recently featured in the LAW TIMES twice (HERE & HERE)  The weekly news bible reviewed his battle that stems from the case LSUC v Chiarelli and paralegal regulation since its inception.

Essentially Mr. Moak believes that Paralegals and Lawyers are the only people allowed to provide legal services.  Legal services includes preparation and filing of documents and appearing for a party.  The Law Society of Ontario and the Social Justice  Tribunals Ontario   have ignored this issue which places the general public at great risk.

Members of LSO are held to a very high standard including qualifications, insurance, and ongoing training.

Unlicensed people are not held accountable by any governing body or standards.

From the Law Times story:

Donna Mrvaljevic, a spokeswoman for the LTB, says the board asks representatives to include their law society number if they are filing an application on behalf of someone but that the absence of that number does not necessarily mean they do not have standing before the board.

She pointed to an exemption for in-house legal services providers, which, she says, property managers often claim when appearing before the LTB.

Mrvaljevic adds that the definition of a landlord in the Residential Tenancies Act is also very broad and includes the owner of a rental unit or anyone who permits occupancy of a rental unit.

Mr Moak responds to this quote:

The Chiarelli case clearly states that only licensed people may represent and representing is defined clearly in the law society act.   Contrary to Ms Mrvaljevic, she has totally continued to perpetuate incorrectly, the Chiarelli decision.  In a nutshell, if you are not licensed as a paralegal or a lawyer thou shall not provide legal services as defined by the Law Society Act.   The Social Justice ??? is mandated by the statutory powers and procedures act to control their own process which to date they are refusing to do. 

The Law Society of Ontario must step up and clearly state to the public that only licensed paralegals or lawyers may provide legal services and that this includes preparation of documents used in a proceeding as defined by the law society act. 

Too much time has passed with this issue being ignored by the powers that be. 

The final point is from Gabrielle Giroday who wrote in her editorial on the subject:

The real test of the depth of the problem would be litigation that arises from these matters, and Moak has raised a valid alarm about what could potentially transpire as a result.


Legal Decisions Defines Licensed Legal Professional in Ontario – Paralegals See Victory in Court Case

Added by admin on March 29, 2013.
Saved under CrimeHeadlinesNewsOntario Provincial PoliticsPolitics

EnzoCFN –  I’ve always been told that the law is a living thing and that by cases heard by learned judges case law develops into accepted practice.
As our court systems become more and more bogged down, and less people can afford legal services, Paralegals have evolved here in Ontario and other jurisdictions and a case recently heard was a victory for them as the court system accepts them more and more with each passing year and helps defines their boundaries.
With Small Claims courts now awarding amounts as high as $25,000 Paralegals are working on more complex cases.
One of the areas of practice for them are landlord and tenant cases.   While there’s a basic tenant in law that you can always represent yourself the definition of who can represent you legally just saw a victory for the Paralegal profession.
The Law Society of Upper Canada just saw such a victory in their case VS Enzo Vincent Chiarelli who was acting for a landlord, but was not a licensed Paralegal or lawyer.
The key question in front of the Court was the definition of Landlord in regard to appearing in front of the Landlord and tenant Board. The grey area until now was the definition of Landlord and unlicensed people, usually property managers, were claiming they were exempt as they met the definition of Landlord.
This decision clearly states that they meet the definition of landlord for the the purposes of collecting rents etc. BUT NOT EXEMPT AND NOT ALLOWED TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES SPECIFICALLY ACTING FOR LANDLORDS AT THE BOARD.
Paragraph 16 refers to Section 26.1 of Law Society Act which states only licensee shall provide legal services.   Legal services is also defined.
Paragraph 19 finds that RTA clearly distinguishes between a landlord and an agent
This decision also coins a new phrase- LICENSED LEGAL PROFESSIONAL- this puts Para Legals in the same class as Lawyers.
The above question has been hanging around for five years and finally  a binding decision has been made which will greatly help provide protection for the public from unlicensed people.
The decision also extends to preparation of documents(notice of rent arrears etc) this meets definition of providing legal services-(LSUC ACT) this is very important for the profession as it will provide work for the many new graduates.
Secondly it will provide much needed area of practice for paralegals especially the many new ones.   It also  will also stop unlicensed people from preparing the forms as this meets the definition of providing legal services.
To learn more about Paralegals and some of the services they offer call one today!