An Ontario paralegal can stand up at the Immigration and Refugee Board and argue your refugee claim. The same paralegal, on that licence alone, cannot fill in and file your permanent residence application. On 28 September 2026 the Court of Appeal for Ontario explained why, in Caruso v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONCA 677.
The case was brought by Antonio Caruso, a paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) with a particular interest in immigration law. Representing himself, he argued that the LSO reads its own rules too narrowly. He lost: the Court of Appeal agreed with the LSO and the Divisional Court.
If you have an immigration problem and have found a paralegal, this decision answers a practical question: can a paralegal help with immigration, and with which parts? Below is what the court decided, what a paralegal licence covers, and how to check anyone's licence before you pay them.
What Mr. Caruso asked the court to decide
The LSO licenses paralegals under a rule called By-Law 4, and it publishes its reading of that by-law on a FAQ page on its website (para. 1). In the LSO's view, a paralegal may represent people before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and prepare documents for use at IRB hearings (para. 2). The FAQ is blunt about the rest: drafting and other immigration legal services "that are not related to an IRB hearing remain outside of a paralegal's scope of practice" (para. 22).
Mr. Caruso called that distinction "arbitrary" (para. 2). He argued that By-Law 4 lets paralegals offer the full range of immigration services, including preparing applications (para. 3), and that the LSO's narrower reading clashes with the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which lets law society members, "including a paralegal", represent or advise people for a fee (paras. 2, 13).
The Divisional Court dismissed his application in November 2023 (Caruso v. The Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 6744). The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on one question only: whether the by-law had been interpreted correctly. His arguments that the by-law was constitutionally inoperative or breached the Charter were not before it (paras. 4, 68, 75). Justices Paciocco, Thorburn and George heard the appeal on 6 May 2026. The decision was unanimous: Justice Paciocco wrote the reasons, and Justices Thorburn and George agreed. Several interveners also made submissions.
Who does what in Canadian immigration
The ruling makes sense once you know which federal body does what (para. 11).
| Body | What happens there | Kind of decision | Covered by an Ontario paralegal licence alone? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) | Most immigration applications | Administrative, made by an officer or the Minister | No |
| Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) | Some applications | Administrative | No |
| Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) | Refugee claims, and appeals from certain IRCC decisions | Adjudicative: a tribunal decides after hearing evidence and argument | Yes |
The last column turns on one distinction. IRCC and CBSA officers make administrative decisions. Among the bodies that administer IRPA, only the IRB decides after the presentation of evidence or legal argument (para. 36).
What the court decided
Section 6(2) of By-Law 4 sets out what a paralegal with a P1 licence, the licence Ontario paralegals hold, is "authorized to do" (paras. 8, 25). The court described it as a closed list, and every item on it is tied to "a proceeding" (para. 25). A paralegal may advise, draft and represent, but only in relation to a proceeding.
So everything turned on the word "proceeding". The court held that it means a hearing before an adjudicative body (paras. 28-29). An immigration officer reviewing a file makes an administrative decision. In the court's words, "The submission and processing of documents is not a 'proceeding'." (para. 28)
Mr. Caruso's next argument was about timing. The by-law also covers an "intended proceeding", and almost any dealing with IRCC could lead to an IRB hearing one day. The court disagreed. An intended proceeding is a hearing being set in motion but not yet launched. A step that might possibly end in litigation one day does not qualify. On the gap between "intended" and "possible", the court said: "There is a world of difference between the two." (para. 30)
There was a second reason. Many IRCC decisions, including humanitarian and compassionate applications, permanent residence and other visas, are not made by a tribunal established under an Act of Parliament at all, so even a broad reading of "proceeding" would not reach them (para. 32).
Then the federal question, which the court considered only for what it says about how to read the by-law (paras. 4, 75). IRPA lets a paralegal represent or advise for a fee only if they are in good standing with their law society (para. 93). The court found no conflict between the two laws. A paralegal who provides services beyond their licence is not complying with their regulatory requirements and so "is not in good standing" (para. 94). As the court put it, "IRPA effectively incorporates the limits imposed in By-Law 4" by leaving it to the LSO to regulate paralegals (para. 96).
The appeal was dismissed (para. 98). The court held that "Charney J., writing for the Divisional Court, correctly interpreted By-Law 4." (para. 5)
Why the line sits where it does
This is the curious part. Arguing a refugee claim sounds harder than filling in a form, so why is one allowed and the other not? That was Mr. Caruso's point. He argued it is arbitrary to let paralegals handle complex litigation, including at the IRB, but not file immigration applications (para. 67). The court's answer turns on the kind of work involved rather than how difficult it is.
Legal work has long been divided into two kinds. Barristers do advocacy: they litigate and argue cases. Solicitors give advice and work with documents meant to have legal effect, which the court said includes "preparing government forms" (para. 43). By-Law 4 was designed to let paralegals do advocacy work in lower courts and tribunals, while keeping them out of solicitors' work (para. 44). Applied to this case, the LSO intended paralegals to do "advocacy work, such as appearing before the IRB, but not solicitors' work before the IRCC and the CBSA" (para. 46).
That choice has a history. In 2004 an LSO task force recommended against non-advocacy work for paralegals (para. 57). People who could not afford litigation needed help, but there was "no evidence of a scarcity of solicitors". A tribunal can supervise the advocacy done in front of it, a safeguard solicitors' work lacks. And stakeholders could not agree on a wider scope, so confining paralegals to advocacy let regulation begin without waiting for a consensus. Given those reasons, the court held, "there is nothing arbitrary about the interpretation" (para. 71).
You may still think the line sits in the wrong place. Whether paralegals should be allowed to do more is a policy question for the LSO and, in immigration, for the federal government: "It is not our role as a court to venture a policy-based opinion" (para. 39, footnote 9).
Can a paralegal help with immigration? What the licence covers
Here is the practical line for someone who holds an Ontario paralegal licence and nothing else.
What a paralegal licence covers
- Representing you before the IRB, for example at a refugee hearing or an immigration appeal (paras. 2, 11, 46).
- Preparing documents for use in that IRB proceeding (paras. 2, 25).
- Advising you about the IRB proceeding or its subject matter (para. 25).
- Preparing for an IRB proceeding that is intended but not yet launched (para. 30).
What it does not cover on its own
- Drafting or submitting applications to IRCC or CBSA, such as permanent residence and visa applications, when the work is not related to an IRB hearing (paras. 2, 22, 27-28, 32).
- Giving advice on those IRCC or CBSA matters, again when they are unrelated to an IRB hearing (paras. 2, 27).
The limit attaches to the paralegal licence. The LSO has described its reading as limiting the work of paralegals "who are not also federally licensed immigration consultants" (para. 64). The court saw nothing wrong with the LSO expecting paralegals to obtain the extra training that comes with a licence from the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC) to do immigration consultants' work (paras. 40-41).
A hypothetical shows how this plays out. Suppose someone in Ontario wants to sponsor their spouse. Filing that sponsorship application with IRCC is application work, outside a paralegal licence on its own. If it were refused and the refusal could be appealed to the IRB, the appeal would be a proceeding a paralegal may handle. Same family, same file, two different licences.
Why an RCIC licence matters, and why I hold both
IRPA sets out who may represent or advise people for a fee in immigration matters. The list includes lawyers, other members in good standing of a law society "including a paralegal", and members in good standing of the CICC (para. 13; IRPA, section 91). The CICC regulates federally licensed immigration consultants (para. 14), who practise as Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants, or RCICs.
An Ontario paralegal licence covers work before the IRB. An RCIC licence covers the application and advice work before IRCC and CBSA. Many matters begin as an application and can turn into an appeal or a hearing, which is why the two licences fit together.
For clarity about my own position: I have been licensed by the LSO as a paralegal since 2013, and I am also a licensed RCIC. You can read more about my background as a paralegal and RCIC, and about the immigration services I offer.
How to check who you are hiring
Before you ask a paralegal what they charge, ask whether their licence lets them do the job at all.
- Ask which licence they hold, and which licence they will rely on for your task: an application, a hearing, or both.
- For a paralegal or lawyer, search the Lawyer and Paralegal Directory on the Law Society of Ontario's website, which shows licence status and practice restrictions.
- For an immigration consultant, search the CICC's public register of licensed consultants, which shows whether someone is a licensee in good standing.
- Be cautious with anyone who cannot give you a licence number you can look up yourself.
If you are not sure whether your matter needs a paralegal, an immigration consultant, or both, get in touch and we can work out which licence your situation calls for. This is the first article in our newsletter; to get the next one, subscribe to the newsletter.
Frequently asked questions
Can an Ontario paralegal help me with my work permit, study permit or permanent residence application?
Not on a paralegal licence alone. Those applications go to IRCC, and the court held that submitting and processing documents there is not a "proceeding" under the paralegal by-law (para. 28). A paralegal who is also a licensed immigration consultant can do this work under that second licence, because IRPA separately allows members of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants to represent and advise for a fee (para. 13).
Can a paralegal represent me at my refugee hearing?
Yes. Refugee claims are heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, a tribunal that decides after hearing evidence and argument (paras. 11, 36). Representing you before the Board, preparing documents for the hearing and advising you about it all fall within an Ontario paralegal licence (paras. 2, 25, 46). The Supreme Court of Canada's 2001 Mangat decision, which Mr. Caruso relied on, involved exactly this kind of work (para. 84).
My immigration application was refused. Can a paralegal help?
It depends on where the matter goes next. Some IRCC decisions can be appealed to the Immigration and Refugee Board (para. 11). An appeal there is a proceeding before a tribunal, and a paralegal may handle it. A new or revised application to IRCC is application work, outside a paralegal licence on its own (para. 28). Ask which route applies to your refusal and which licence covers it.
Does this ruling change anything for people who already hired a paralegal?
The court did not create a new rule. It confirmed the reading the LSO had already published on its FAQ page, the same reading Mr. Caruso challenged and the Divisional Court upheld in 2023 (paras. 1, 5, 22). If a paralegal is helping with your immigration matter, it is reasonable to ask which licence covers the work and to check it on the public registers above.
Is this the final word on paralegals and immigration work?
It is a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the province's highest court. A party can ask the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to appeal, and whether that will happen here is not known at the time of writing. If it does, we will update this page. Until then, this decision governs how By-Law 4 is read in Ontario.
This article is general information about a court decision, current as of its publication date. It is not legal advice and does not create a paralegal-client or consultant-client relationship. Immigration rules and licensing requirements change; speak with a licensed professional about your own situation.