Investigation and Public Protection: When the Law Society of Ontario Puts Words in your Mouth

Before being procedural in the sense of being applicable in form, impartiality, neutrality, objective objectivity and subjective objectivity are mental, meaning applicable in substance and depth. Yes, these are intellectual processes, intellectual faculties, mental faculties that consist of saying "I know nothing, I have everything to know and I act on this assertion". Consequently, when it comes to handling complaints, conducting investigations and protecting the public, the process must start with an unbiased understanding of the issues and the facts reproached (Read Vanessa Kaboré's article of July 2022, Monitoring and Law Enforcement: Two Distinct Levels of Mental Processes).

In the case of Vanessa Kabore's French complaint, this understanding did not take place. Moreover, the Law Society of Ontario, it is Complaints Entry and Resolution Service put words in her mouth and, what is more, this service is confirming its position.

In February 2023, Vanessa Kabore filed an ethics and professional conduct complaint with the Law Society of Ontario. Her French complaint, part 4.a read as follows: "The purpose of this complaint is to advise you of the inappropriate conduct of the paralegal, member of the Law Society of Ontario, [name and identification number of the person concerned deleted for reasons of confidentiality]. The objectif is to ensure that she understands that acting as she did does not bring honour to the profession, quite the contrary. She is English-speaking and acting on behalf of her English-speaking client. I am the defendant and I am a Francophone woman of African origin. She seems to consider that she is demonstrating integrity, professionalism and competence, while she ignores the fact that French is my mother tongue and prejudges my level of English. She seems to consider that she is demonstrating integrity, professionalism and competence when she ignores the fact that her inability to communicate with me in French is detrimental to her client. She seems to consider that she is demonstrating integrity, professionalism and competence while ignoring the fact that her inability to communicate with me in French is detrimental to me. She minimizes the impact of her actions by claiming that she is communicating with me as a courtesy.

In September 2023, in response to her complaint, Vanessa Kabore received a file closure letter from the Law Society of Ontario's Complaints Entry and Resolution Service stating: "Madam, I left a message in your voice mail on September 13, 2023, but you never returned my call [....]. "You allege that [name of member deleted for reasons of confidentiality] has failed to comply with the Paralegals' Code of Ethics regarding French language rights, has taken advantage of the fact that you represent yourself, and has been incivil towards you in his e-mail communications".

In her aforementioned complaint, did Vanessa Kabore allege that the member concerned failed to comply with the Paralegals' Code of Ethics regarding French language rights as expressly indicated by the Law Society of Ontario's Complaints Entry and Resolution Service? In the said complaint, did Vanessa Kabore refer to the Paralegals' Code of Ethics? In the said complaint, did Vanessa Kabore allege that she was representing herself and did she refer to a related issue as expressly indicated by the Law Society of Ontario's Complaints Entry and Resolution Service? In her complaint, did Vanessa Kabore allege that the member concerned had been incivil towards her in her e-mail communications?

In response to this closure letter, Vanessa Kabore wrote the following email: "As it seems that there have been challenges in terms of understanding and impartiality in the handling of the complaint made in February 2023, please note that this mail is in copy to the Office of the Complaints Resolution Commissioner. [Qualification and name of person concerned deleted for reasons of confidentiality], I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 19 September, written in the capacity of [job title of person concerned deleted for reasons of confidentiality] of the Complaints Entry and Resolution Service. As the issues in the complaint filed on 3 February 2023 are of the greatest importance, I wanted to inform you that I will take the time to read it carefully in order to assess whether it would be appropriate to request a review by the office of the Complaints Resolution Commissioner. It would appear that there have been challenges in terms of the understanding and impartiality of the complaints entry and resolution service. On first reading, it would appear that the complaint made was more or less understood, not to say little or not understood at all. The allegations retained by the complaints entry and resolution service correspond little and/or do not correspond to the facts set out in 6 points in part 4.a of the complaint form of 3 February 2023. Furthermore, it would appear that the file was closed 6 non-working days after you had tried to contact me without success, in other words without the Complaints Entry and Resolution Department having obtained or having ensured that it had obtained an objective, detailed and clear understanding of the facts alleged. Furthermore, the said closure of the file coincides with a communication sent yesterday in carbon copy to [name of the member concerned deleted for reasons of confidentiality], a communication linked to some extent to the complaint made. As I am abroad, my access to +1 438-270-2977 is limited to WhatsApp. However, I remain and have always remained contactable by email, the email you used to send me your closure letter. Thank you for your attention. Yours faithfully.

Vanessa Kabore received the following e-mail from the Complaints Entry and Resolution Service shortly after replying to the notice of closure: "Madam, I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. I will not be changing the outcome of my review and I wholeheartedly stand by my decision.

When it comes to mindsets change, capacity building and spirituality, it is important to remember that it is one thing for the Law Society of Ontario’s Complaints Entry and Resolution Service to reject Vanessa Kabore's complaint, it is something else to have given her adequate impartial treatment, or not, and it is another thing altogether to confirm discriminatory behavior.

Indeed, without going back over the lack of clarification of the alleged facts and the erroneous understanding of those facts, it should be noted that the notice of closure of Law Society of Ontario's Complaints Entry and Resolution Service provides indicators that make it possible to assess the level of consideration and impartiality accorded to the handling of Vanessa Kabore's complaint, as well as other behavioral elements of the service concerned and of the organization as a whole. The same applies to the statements following the closure notice: "Dear Ms Kabore, I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. I will not be changing the result of my exam and I wholeheartedly stand by my decision". These statements add to the possible evaluations by providing information on the level of discernment (for Vanessa Kabore's notion of discernment, see also the article from August 2022, Spirituality and Personal Development, Empowerment and Disempowerment), the state of mind and the emotional state existing at that given moment.

In addition, it should be mentioned that in Quebec self-regulatory organisations dedicated to overseeing the activities of their members and protecting the public, such as the Chambre de la sécurité financière (CSF) and the Organisme d'autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Quebec (OACIQ), organisations where Vanessa Kabore has worked as a Deputy Prosecutor/Assitant Syndic, Legal Officer-Analyst, Legal Officer-Investigator/Investigating Commissioner, as well as Associate Legal Officer/Paralegal, it is a winning practice to contact stakeholders by e-mail or, for those who are less comfortable with computers, by post, after trying to reach them by telephone. Yes, this is a fundamental analysis, examination or investigation process, given that a person may not be reachable temporarily or permanently at the number initially indicated in the complaint.

Yes, the stakeholder may have changed telephone number. Yes, the stakeholder may have travelled and not had access to their voicemail, as in this case. Yes, the party may have failed to return the call for a variety of reasons, such as a busy schedule. Yes, even more simply, the person may have difficulty using the telephone. Yes, the ability to consider that a person may not be reachable at a given number, temporarily or permanently, moreover, more than seven (7) months after having given the said number, is a mental faculty offered to minds in a neutral mode of understanding, to minds in an impartial mode of understanding. The same applies to the ability to carry out a minimal amount of analysis, examination or investigation by approaching stakeholders more than once. Yes, at the stage of understanding things, i.e. analysis, examination and investigation, it is a question of opening the doors of the mind in order to enlarge the field of probabilities, hypotheses, truths and realities.

© Vanessa Kabore, Master of Law, in NLP and Hypnosis, article Investigation and Public Protection: When the Law Society of Ontario Put Words in your Mouth, education and teaching in mindsets change, capacity building and spirituality, by author, narrator and editor of the French paperback book, audiobook and eBook La réponse est dans le comportement [The Answer Is in the Behavior] : les 48 clés du bien-être le plus élevé. (2022). Canada: LEYA.