ON Solicitor Exam common mistakes
ON Solicitor Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a limitation-period question as a single-step lookup: reading the claim type, recalling the basic two-year period under the Limitations Act, 2002, and selecting that answer without analysing discoverability or whether a special statutory limitation period displaces it.
Candidates memorise the two-year basic period early in study and then pattern-match on claim type. Under exam time pressure, the comfort of a known number crowds out the two-step analysis the question actually tests: when the claim was discovered, whether the presumptive discovery rule or a postponement applies, and whether a special period (for example in planning, municipal, or construction-related statutes) governs instead.
What to do instead
Before answering any limitation question, write three short items on scratch paper: (1) the claim and remedy sought, (2) whether a statute specific to that claim type sets its own period, and (3) the discovery date on the facts. Only if no special period applies do you run the basic period, and then explicitly test discoverability and any suspension or tolling agreement raised on the facts. Practise with fact patterns where the injury date and the discovery date differ.
Drafting or reviewing a commercial contract clause in isolation, without checking whether the clause is internally consistent with the definitions, the entire agreement clause, and the remedies provisions elsewhere in the same document.
Exam questions often present one clause and ask what it means or how to fix it. Candidates analyse the clause as a standalone text and miss that the defined term it relies on is defined differently, that the entire agreement clause would exclude the collateral assurance the client is relying on, or that a limitation of liability clause undercuts the indemnity they just drafted. This reflects how candidates study: topic by topic, clause type by clause type, rather than document as a whole.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed cross-reference routine for every contract question: identify each defined term used in the clause, check the remedies and liability provisions, and check the entire agreement and amendment clauses. When asked to draft, state in your answer that you would confirm consistency with the definitions and the liability regime, and name the specific clauses you would check. Build a one-page contract checklist and use it on every practice question.
Answering a corporate authority question by naming the correct organ (directors or shareholders) but failing to state the source and limits of that authority, such as whether the power is granted by statute, articles, or bylaw, and whether a unanimous shareholder agreement has shifted it.
Candidates learn a simplified division of powers and stop there. Exam questions frequently add a unanimous shareholder agreement, a share provision, or an articles restriction that reallocates decision-making, and a bare answer naming the organ is incomplete or wrong. The habit comes from summary study materials that present the division of powers as a fixed rule rather than a default that private ordering can alter.
What to do instead
For every authority question, answer in three parts: who decides, under what instrument, and subject to what restriction or delegation. Explicitly check for a unanimous shareholder agreement, restrictions on transfer or issue in the articles, and any statutory approval threshold. Practise by redrafting summary statements into the three-part form until it becomes automatic.
On a real estate transaction question, identifying the correct legal principle but ignoring the practical step that protects the client, such as the timing of requisition dates, title search and off-title search windows, and the consequences of missing them.
Candidates focus on substantive doctrine (for example, the distinction between patent and latent defects, or the effect of a planning restriction) because it feels like the law being tested. Transactional questions, however, are often about deadlines and risk allocation in the agreement of purchase and sale, and a correct principle applied after a deadline has passed produces the wrong advice.
What to do instead
For every real estate fact pattern, build a short timeline before analysing: offer acceptance, requisition date, search windows, completion date, and any extension. Then place each issue on the timeline and state whether the client still has a remedy. Review the standard agreement of purchase and sale form structure so you can locate the relevant clause quickly and describe its effect.
In an estates question, conflating the validity of the will with the administration of the estate, so that a question about executor duties, dependant support, or testamentary capacity is answered using the wrong analytical framework.
Estates law bundles several distinct tests (formal validity, capacity, intention, undue influence, interpretation, and dependant relief) that all appear in the same fact pattern. Under time pressure, candidates latch onto whichever test they recognise first and then answer a question that was not asked. The overlap in vocabulary across these tests makes the error easy to miss.
What to do instead
Before writing, classify the question into one of: validity, interpretation, administration, or dependant relief. Then apply only that framework and note in one sentence why the others are not engaged. For capacity questions, separately address the legal test and the evidentiary burden, since examiners frequently test who bears the onus. Drill with mixed fact patterns that raise two issues at once.
In a family law question, calculating an equalization or support figure without first characterising the property or income item, so that excluded property, pre-marital value, or a deduction is applied to the wrong base.
Candidates jump to arithmetic because numbers in the fact pattern signal a calculation question. Characterisation (is this property excluded, is this income, is this a debt date issue) determines the base, and skipping it produces a confidently wrong number. The habit is reinforced by practice questions that supply clean figures and never test the characterisation step.
What to do instead
Enforce a two-column method: first list every asset, debt, and income item with its characterisation and the reason, then calculate. Where the facts are ambiguous, state the assumption and show the alternative result. For support, identify the legal test and the relevant factors before computing anything, and state the guideline range rather than a single figure where the inputs are uncertain.
In an insolvency question, applying the wrong priority rule because the candidate has not identified which regime governs (federal bankruptcy and insolvency legislation versus provincial enforcement), or has not fixed the relevant date for the claim.
Priority questions look like a list to memorise, so candidates recall a ranking without anchoring it to the regime and the date. Secured claims, deemed trusts, statutory liens, preferred claims, and wage claims are ranked differently depending on the proceeding and on when the interest arose, and a ranking recited from memory without that anchor is unreliable.
What to do instead
Answer priority questions in a fixed sequence: identify the proceeding, identify the date the rights crystallised, list each claimant with its legal basis for priority, then rank. Where a deemed trust or statutory lien is asserted, state whether the governing statute creates the priority and whether it survives the proceeding. Build a comparison table of the regimes and redraw it from memory until the sequence is automatic.
On an employment law question, giving advice on the common law notice entitlement without addressing the statutory minimums, the validity of the termination clause, and the duty to mitigate, or the reverse.
Candidates tend to answer employment questions with the framework they studied most recently, usually common law reasonable notice. Statutory entitlements and the enforceability of contractual termination provisions are separate analyses that frequently change the outcome, and a termination clause that fails to meet the statutory minimum can be void and leave the employee with common law notice.
What to do instead
Use a three-step template for every termination question: statutory minimums, contractual provision and its enforceability, then common law notice with mitigation. State each step even where it produces no issue, and flag where the contract attempts to contract out of the statutory minimum. Review the leading tests on enforceability of termination clauses and practise applying them to short clauses.
In an administrative law question, identifying the standard of review and then failing to apply it, so the answer states the standard but never explains what the reviewing court would actually do with the decision.
Standard of review analysis is heavily emphasised in study materials and is easy to state as a formula. Candidates treat naming the standard as the answer and stop, when the marks lie in applying it to the specific error alleged. This is especially costly where the question asks for the likely outcome of judicial review.
What to do instead
Structure every answer as: decision under review, ground of review, standard, application, outcome. In the application section, state what the decision-maker did, what the standard permits, and whether the decision survives. Practise writing the application paragraph first and the standard second, so the analysis drives the framework rather than replacing it.
Managing time by answering every question in order with equal effort, leaving long-form or multi-issue questions to the end where they are answered in a rush or not at all.
Candidates fear leaving blanks and so spend disproportionate time on early short questions, often over-writing to demonstrate knowledge. The exam rewards completed analysis across all questions, and long-form questions carry weight that a rushed final answer cannot recover. The behaviour is a stress response rather than a knowledge gap.
What to do instead
Before starting, scan the paper and allocate minutes per question in proportion to marks, writing the allocation down. Answer the highest-value question first while fresh, keep to the allocation with a visible timer, and leave a fixed block at the end for review. In practice sessions, use a timer and mark your own paper to see where the overrun occurs, then correct that specific habit.