The Law Society Tribunal has revoked the licence of Windsor, Ont.-based paralegal after finding he engaged in professional misconduct by initiating and maintaining a sexual relationship with a student under his instruction and supervision during a mandatory field placement.
The panel concluded that V.P. abused his authority as both a college instructor and field placement supervisor, stating that his conduct posed serious risks to public trust in the legal profession and the integrity of the paralegal licensing process.
“The respondent egregiously abused his positions of authority and took advantage of a young person,” the tribunal wrote in its reasons for decision. “The respondent’s misconduct cannot be categorized as a momentary lapse in judgment.”
The panel issued its order following two hearing dates held by videoconference in December 2024 and February 2025. The revocation is effective immediately.
Misconduct admitted on eve of hearing
V.P. initially denied any wrongdoing throughout investigations by both the college and the Law Society. It was not until five days before the originally scheduled contested hearing that he signed an agreed statement of facts and admitted to professional misconduct.
The misconduct occurred between January and July 2020, when V.P. was teaching paralegal courses at St. Clair College and supervising the complainant, then a 21-year-old student, during her field placement.
According to the agreed facts, V.P. began making inappropriate sexual comments to the student during her placement, initiated non-consensual physical contact, and eventually began a sexual relationship with her. The complainant completed her final exam under V.P.’s supervision and was awarded a final grade of 99%.
“The respondent was a college instructor, field placement principal, and employer of the complainant… He escalated from inappropriate words, to inappropriate and unwanted touching, to touching of a sexual nature, and finally to a sexual relationship,” the panel stated.
The tribunal found that the relationship occurred in the context of a power imbalance and was initiated through coercive and unprofessional conduct.
No evidence of rehabilitation or remorse
The panel expressed deep concern about V.P.’s failure to acknowledge the seriousness of his misconduct, noting that his remorse appeared focused more on the personal consequences he faced than on the harm caused to the complainant.
“We are not satisfied that his remorse is really for more than the effect of his conduct on himself,” the panel said. “We are not satisfied that he has an understanding of the effect of his misconduct on others.”
The panel found that the respondent had taken no meaningful steps toward rehabilitation. While V.P. claimed to have watched YouTube videos and read online materials related to harassment, he was unable to recall any specifics about the content or sources. He also referenced speaking with his minister but provided no supporting evidence or testimony.
“The respondent provided no rehabilitation plan or any evidence of what rehabilitative efforts he was undertaking,” the panel wrote. “We cannot conclude that the respondent’s misconduct is unlikely to reoccur and that the public will not be at risk.”
Dishonesty prolonged investigation and harmed complainant
The tribunal emphasized that V.P. continued to deny the sexual relationship for nearly three years, during both the college’s internal investigation and the Law Society’s proceedings. His denials included attempts to discredit the complainant’s credibility and mental state.
“By not admitting from the outset to the allegations that he ultimately admitted were true, the respondent put the complainant through an ordeal that lasted over three years,” the tribunal stated.
The panel found that this prolonged dishonesty increased the seriousness of the misconduct and undermined confidence in self-regulation. It also rejected the reference letters submitted in support of V.P., noting that none addressed the issue of rehabilitation or were subject to cross-examination.
Revocation necessary to protect the public
Citing the importance of protecting paralegal candidates during their mandatory field placements, the tribunal emphasized the need for general deterrence and maintaining confidence in the legal professions.
“Maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the legal professions and their self-regulation requires that a licensee who… sexually harasses a candidate receives the appropriate penalty,” the tribunal wrote.
The decision referenced Law Society of Ontario v. Fathi, a similar case involving sexual harassment of a field placement student, in which revocation was also ordered. The panel distinguished this case from others where lesser penalties were imposed, noting the absence of mitigating factors and the seriousness of the misconduct.
“In the circumstances of this case, where there are no extenuating circumstances, no material efforts at rehabilitation, and little, if any, genuine remorse… the revocation of the respondent’s licence to provide legal services is the appropriate penalty,” the tribunal concluded.
Order and next steps
In addition to revoking the licence, the panel ordered V.P. to comply with the Law Society’s guidelines for former licensees. It also set a timetable for written submissions on costs, if the Law Society elects to pursue them.
For more information, see Law Society of Ontario v Piruzza, 2025 ONLSTH 43 (CanLII).
