‘Dishonest’ paralegal in Sudbury, Ont., has license revoked

A veteran paralegal in Sudbury has had her license revoked after she admitted to serious misconduct in a number of cases, many of which involved small claims court. (File)

A veteran paralegal in Sudbury has had her license revoked after she admitted to serious misconduct in a number of cases, many of which involved small claims court.

Cheryl Lisa MacKinnon opened a paralegal practice in Sudbury in 2012. In 2018, she had offices in Sudbury and North Bay specializing in landlord-tenant disputes.

She was contracted to work for the City of Greater Sudbury as a prosecutor in October 2018, and court documents of MacKinnon’s case said eight of the 10 cases of misconduct occurred while she was transitioning from her practice to working for the city.

An investigation began in June 2020 and she has not worked as a paralegal since March 2022.

“The incidents of misconduct pertained to 10 different individuals (nine clients and staff A) and all deal with violations of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct (the PRC),” the Law Society Tribunal said in its decision.

“The misconduct shows a concerning dishonesty and lack of integrity.”

One case dates to January 2016 when MacKinnon represented a Sudbury couple in two small claims court cases. She agreed in November to dismiss both cases without telling her clients, who thought she was moving the matter forward.

“The clients only learned that their matter had been dismissed when they contacted the court to confirm the adjournment of their settlement conference,” the tribunal said.

“Client A retained new representation.”

BLAMED MAIL STRIKE

In August 2018, she was hired to sue a contractor who didn’t complete home renovations. She received a $1,000 retainer and told her client the suit was filed Oct. 5, but it actually wasn’t filed until Nov. 29.

Between Oct. 5 and Nov. 29, she told her client that she hadn’t received a response from the defence because of the mail strike. On Nov. 28 she told her client that he had received an offer to settle, even though she still hadn’t filed the lawsuit.

“After noticing discrepancies in the information provided by the respondent, client C started questioning her version of the events,” the tribunal said.

“In February 2019, client C made repeated requests to meet with the respondent and for copies of receipts for funds which he had provided to her. The respondent failed to comply with these requests. In February 2019 she advised client C that his case was being transferred to another paralegal practitioner.”

In another case in January 2018, she was hired to represent someone having a dispute with a contractor. Her client suggested the case go to the Superior Court because was seeking $35,000.

However, paralegals can’t represent people in Superior Court, but MacKinnon didn’t inform her client. Instead, she told him that “small claims court would be the cheapest, most efficient option for proceeding.”

DEMANDED FULL REFUND

When the contractor filed a lawsuit in Superior Court, her client “received documents regarding the Superior Court action, but he did not understand what they were. He delivered them to the respondent, who failed to explain the documents, and failed to refer him to a lawyer.”

The client eventually learned what was going on when he hired a new paralegal, who informed him he would need a lawyer for the Superior Court case.

“He wrote to the respondent on July 5, 2019, requesting a full refund,” the tribunal said. “The respondent did not reply.”

In another case from January 2014, a client paid MacKinnon a $1,000 retainer to represent her in a dispute with a former employer. Without telling her client, MacKinnon offered to settle for $2,000.

She eventually told her client about a “settlement offer” in March 2015, without revealing the fact MacKinnon was the one who made the offer.

The client agreed, if the settlement was expanded to include her legal costs. But MacKinnon agreed to the $2,000 settlement – but her client didn’t receive any settlement money.

FORGED AFFIDAVIT

In another incident, MacKinnon forged the name of one of her staff members on an affidavit in 2018. In December 2017, she took a retainer to file a statement of claim, which was never filed.

She was hired to file a statement of claim against a contractor, which she was supposed to file in September 2018. When the defence moved to dismiss the case, MacKinnon produced an affidavit that said “she had left the statement of claim with the defendant’s administrator, Helen, at the defendant’s place of business on Feb. 26. 2019.”

“The defendant’s evidence was that the claim could not have been served on Helen on Feb. 26 … as Helen was out of the country on that day and the defendant’s office was closed,” the tribunal said.

“Further, the postal code on the affidavit of service was wrong.”

When asked to produce another affidavit to clarify the information, MacKinnon “refused to do so.”

• Download our app to get local alerts on your device
• Get the latest local updates right to your inbox

With no one disputing the facts in all 10 cases of misconduct, all parties agreed the appropriate penalty would be to revoke MacKinnon’s licence.

“In at least seven of those matters the respondent clearly failed to act with integrity,” the tribunal wrote.

“She falsified documents such as invoices and affidavits to mislead her clients. She failed to properly advise her clients of the true state of their files and failed to get appropriate instructions. In one case she failed to put retainer fees into trust. In every case, she failed to communicate openly and honestly with the persons affected.”

Read the full background on the case here.