Maureen Boldt Case Study

Maureen Boldt, a local mediator in Ontario who was brought forth in the Superior Court of Justice, on March 22, 2006 for being alleged guilty of breaching the injunction order of Bolan J. Ms. Boldt was accused for authorized practice of the law which contradicted section 50 of the Law of Society Act. Considering that section 50 of the law clearly states that “no person, other than a member who’s rights and privileges are not suspended, shall act as a barrister or solicitor to hold themselves out as or represent themselves to be a barrister or solicitor.” Ms. Boldt knowingly disregarded this act and still chose to provide solicitor and barrister service to her clients under the business of a paralegal mediator. As well, she mislead her clients, …show more content…
Boldt was incarcerated for civil contempt this penalty is usually imposed on criminal sanctions since it is an offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards court of law and it presents a behaviour that defies authority, justice and dignity of the court. Notably, Ms. Boldt was charged for civil contempt since she abused the rules and responsibilities of her position as a mediator, set by the government and still proceeded to break the rules knowingly for over eight years. Ms. Boldt was placed under house arrest for four months, with some exceptions such as; every Saturday from 9 a.m. to noon she can leave the house for three hours to carrying out any personal business she may have. As well she is permitted to travel directly to and from medical and religious services, lastly she is also allowed to observe holiday events from December 24, 2007 from noon to December 25, 2007 at 8p.m. This penalty was given to Ms. Boldt because she mislead her clients into assuming that she was permitted to prepare and draft separation agreements. Correspondingly she used the misconception of her clients to her advantage by fooling her clients and providing them with agreement documents that are not legal in the eyes of law from which she gained profit. Ms. Boldt was able to do this by changing the name of the documents from “Separation Agreement” to “Mediation Agreements” however the content of the agreement was similar if not identical to the separation agreements. …show more content…
Boldt levied for was that the terms and decisions made by her case would be published publically. This penalty that Ms. Boldt was fined with caused her many more consequences. Some of the consequences caused by this penalty was that Ms. Boldt lost her position has the elected city Councillor for the city of North Bay, this is since the penalty stated the Law Society will draft a letter setting out the terms and the findings of contempt and the penalty Ms. Boldt was charged with. Not only that but by law a copy of this notice was to be sent to all the members of the North Bay city Council and also to all the members of the committees and boards on which Ms. Boldt was a part of. In conclusion, the outcome of this penalty is that it has resulted Ms. Boldt to be dishonoured which has caused her to loss her position in the city council and also possible lost her involvement in the other committees and boards she was a part of prior to the court