Saskatchewan licensing panel distinguishes legal mentoring from supervised experience

The Law Society of Saskatchewan has upheld a refusal to admit Terry Kashuba as a limited licensee, finding that legal mentoring and years of practical exposure did not establish the specific education or supervised-experience requirements. In Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Kashuba, 2026 SKLSS 3, decided September 23, 2026, an appeal panel nevertheless preserved his ability to apply again with additional evidence or experience.

The decision draws a distinction between gaining knowledge through legal assistance and performing substantive legal work under professional supervision. It also addresses how much guidance a licensing body must give an applicant before rejecting incomplete evidence.

A broad application, but a specific threshold

Kashuba sought authority to provide services in several areas, including administrative tribunals, certain Provincial Court matters, estates, corporate and land-title work, family-related services, contracts and assistance to self-represented litigants. His application described approximately 30 years of experience in several legal and legal-adjacent fields, and approximately 10 years in family-related matters.

He relied on a 1998 ICS paralegal credential, mentoring and assistance from legal professionals, and favourable references. One lawyer described his research, drafting, organization and familiarity with municipal proceedings positively. Kashuba argued that his education and practical experience met the purpose and requirements of the limited-licensing system.

Rule 1006 provides alternative educational routes, including recognized legal or justice studies and specified professional qualifications. Another route requires a high-school diploma and five years of supervised, related substantive legal experience. Applicants must also complete the mandatory professional-conduct course before admission; meeting an experience threshold is not the entire licensing process.

The Law Society requested further information about the education, training and experience supporting each proposed practice area. After receiving additional materials, it refused the application on February 13, 2026. Kashuba appealed, arguing both that his evidence qualified and that the process was deficient.

Professional supervision was not established

The panel accepted that Kashuba had significant practical experience and strong support from a lawyer familiar with his work. It found, however, that general legal familiarity was insufficient. The record did not adequately explain the recognition, content or relevance of the ICS credential to establish an educational route.

Nor did the evidence establish five years in a professionally supervised role involving substantive legal work. The panel distinguished coaching, review and encouragement from supervision involving client-service responsibilities, ethical oversight and continuing assessment of competence. It characterized the favourable reference as describing limited legal assistance or coaching, rather than the necessary supervisory relationship.

Self-representation, advocacy, volunteering and community service may contribute to knowledge or suitability, the panel explained, but do not necessarily amount to supervised substantive legal experience. Its conclusion concerned the evidence in this application, rather than a finding that all informal experience is irrelevant.

Kashuba also challenged the refusal because admissions and education counsel signed it rather than the executive director named in the rules. The Law Society relied on delegated authority. The panel found no basis to treat the refusal as invalid: it communicated the decision, gave reasons and identified the appeal right that Kashuba exercised.

Clearer notice would have been better

The panel gave a qualified response to the fairness argument. Because refusal affected access to professional licensing, Kashuba was entitled to understand the requirements, have a reasonable opportunity to supply responsive material and receive reasons. An oral hearing was not required at the initial documentary stage.

The request for further information could have identified the deficiencies more precisely. In particular, the panel said fairness would have been better served by explaining concerns about the nature, duration, continuity and professional context of the claimed supervision, and allowing a defined opportunity to clarify them.

Nevertheless, the process as a whole was not unfair. The application identified a supervisor-affidavit form, and correspondence requested further information about qualifications and supervision. The burden remained on Kashuba to establish eligibility. The regulator did not have to instruct him how to prove his case or provide a preliminary assessment of every weakness. Failure to use the prescribed form was not itself the basis for refusal.

Fresh application remains possible

The panel confirmed the refusal and dismissed the appeal without sending the existing application back for reconsideration. It did not decide whether Kashuba was otherwise suitable to practise, because the threshold education or experience requirements had not been established.

A fresh or renewed application supported by further evidence or experience remains available. The panel expressly directed that no negative inference be drawn in a future application from this appeal. The outcome therefore does not impose a permanent licensing ban or establish that Kashuba is unsuitable to practise.

The Law Society announced release of the decision on October 7. That announcement is distinct from the September 23 decision date; the reasons resolve this application and do not establish the outcome of any later application.