Harry Kopyto

Prosecutors Crack Whip over Blight Panel

The Law Society case against Kopyto is proceeding full steam ahead. Multiple hearing dates and witnesses against him have been lined up. Investigator Adrian Greenaway (a savvy ex-cop) is on the stand. On top of all this, public access to the hearings may be at threat.

The wind is in the Prosecutors’ sails. The Divisional Court decided October 11, 2011 to back up the Law Society Hearing Panel chaired by Margot Blight for refusing to hear Harry’s challenge to its jurisdictional authority.

Harry argues that the Panel functions as part of a scheme that denies affordable justice. He argues that the Blight Panel’s authority derives from a constitutionally flawed statute.  By-law 4 of the Law Society Act restricts access to affordable justice by allowing lawyers to govern their more affordable paralegal competitors. Already, the scope of practice of paralegals has been dramatically shredded by the By-law. Just another hostile takeover by a price-fixing monopoly.

The Law Society prosecutors were cracking their whips fast and furious over the Blight Panel’s heads on Thursday October 13, 2011.  There is a new bounce in their footsteps.  All of Harry’s prehearing motions, except some of his demands for disclosure, have been denied unanimously by the Panel.  The initiative is now with the prosecution.

Read the rest of this entry »

Harry follows Blight’s advice

Harry Kopyto wants an answer.  He wants to know where he can challenge the independence of the Hearing Panel that is deciding if he has the good character to continue working as a paralegal. Is that a lot to ask?  Not really, no. In fact, the Panel agrees that he deserves an answer.  It agrees he should get someone to hear his objection. But not us, they tell him. Why?  Because they just can’t handle his challenge to its authority. Oh yes, they agree that they are “implicated” in his argument that they function as part of a constitutionally flawed regulatory scheme. But they also say that they are not “institutionally competent” to hear his motion.  How come?  They’re smart people.  After all, they know the ropes.  Blight even advises major corporations and the Ontario government. Anyway, they recommend he take his issue to the courts.  And Harry, who is an agreeable fellow by nature, is following their advice.

Basically, Harry has asked Blight to disqualify the Panel. He argues that the Panel is not legitimate.  It is not independent.  It was appointed by lawyers. Lawyers have a conflict with the Law Society’s mandate to serve the public interest.  Paralegals used to do much of the same work lawyers do.  And cheaper.  So lawyers took control of paralegals. They carved out the most lucrative work paralegals were previously allowed to do exclusively for themselves. They barred paralegals from doing everything else.  The Law Society is run by lawyers.  It’s just another monopoly engaged in a hostile takeover.  In price-fixing.  In abuse of a dominant position in the marketplace.  In eliminating its own more affordable competition.  At whose expense was this done?  At the expense of the public’s access to affordable justice.

Read the rest of this entry »

Harry’s Security and Liberty Interest at Stake

On July 7, 2011, the Blight Panel sitting at Osgoode Hall concluded its tenth and likely last day of sittings on preliminary motions brought by Harry Kopyto since January in the proceedings brought by the Law Society (LSUC) to convince the Panel’s three members that he has does not have the good character needed to continue working as a paralegal.

Harry argued before the Panel that it had to be certain of its assessment of his character and not base their decision on evidence that was only probably reliable.  He also asked the Panel to place the burden of proof that he lacked good character on the Law Society giving him a presumption of innocence similar to the one in the criminal courts.  Kopyto is seeking a ruling that the existing law devised by the LSUC lawyer-appointed panels which denies him such protection, is inapplicable in his case because of his unique situation which requires “fundamental justice” as guaranteed by the Charter.

His argument was that these procedural safeguards are justified because of the seriousness of the personal consequences of a refusal to allow him to continue to work as a legal advocate.  He argued that s. 7 of the Charter of Rights protects his “liberty” interest which guarantees freedom and autonomy to make personal choices of fundamental importance in his life. He also argued that the right to “security” of the person protects him from serious psychological harm and infringement of his identity that would befall him if the Panel denied him the right to continue his lifelong pursuit of justice through legal advocacy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Kopyto faces the Law Society (LSUC) again on Thursday July 7, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. at Osgoode Hall, Museum Room.  As before, he will appear before the three-person panel headed by Margot Blight which will determine if he has the good character to continue working as a paralegal.

The July 7^th hearing will deal with the final pretrial motion to be brought by Harry.  Most of his motions have been argued over several days of hearings held during the last winter and spring.  Some additional motions were deferred to be dealt with after the hearing of the evidence against him. The disclosure motions brought by Harry were almost entirely decided in his favour after the prosecution stonewalled the production of documents vital to Harry’s defence for almost two years.

Read the rest of this entry »

Law Society design of By-law 4 contains conflict of interest

Will Margot Blight even allow Harry Kopyto to challenge the hostile takeover of the paralegal profession by their competing profession of lawyers?  The tag team of two lawyers assigned by Big Law to bury him professionally is trying to block him from arguing his challenge to the law that authorized the takeover.  It may succeed. And Harry may appeal.

The three-person Blight panel spent most of the last two hearing days (April 27^th and May 9^th 2011) listening to arguments on this issue back and forth. The legal issue is all about the Panel’s jurisdiction.  Harry argued that the design of the takeover law was flawed.  This law permits lawyers (42,000 of them) to elect 40 or so Law Society (LSUC) Directors (Benchers) every four years, while the 3,500 paralegals like him who have been forced to join the LSUC have no say. Harry and his fellow paralegals are nothing more than a disenfranchised internal colony of their competing profession who decide whether he and his colleagues can continue to work as paralegals.  Who suffers from this monopoly over legal services? The public. In whose name is this fraud perpetrated?  Why, “the public interest”, of course.

Read the rest of this entry »