In Afolabi v. Law Society of Ontario,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Law Society of Ontario’s (LSO) appeal and provided helpful analysis on the scope of procedural fairness owed in professional regulation licensing decisions. Central to the CA’s reasoning was its conclusion that the Divisional Court[2] misunderstood the regulatory structure governing the LSO’s response to compromised licensing exams and, in doing so, conflated the distinct roles of two LSO divisions.
Background
After learning that the integrity of the November 2021 barrister and solicitor licensing examinations had been compromised, the LSO initiated two parallel responses:
- the Licensing Department was tasked with protecting the integrity of the licensing process by reviewing exam results and candidate registration status; and
- the Professional Regulation Division, through external counsel, investigated potential ethical and good‑character concerns arising from the suspected misconduct.
Based on statistical analysis identifying anomalous exam results, the Licensing Department voided certain candidates’ exam results and registrations pursuant to By‑law 4. The Divisional Court upheld the exam invalidations but held that voiding the candidates’ registrations without an oral hearing breached procedural fairness.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that Divisional Court had misapplied the Baker factors, which determine the scope and content of procedural fairness owed.