I don't want to be identified or give out too many details. Thus let's assume the facts of this case. Mine is pretty similar.
He bought a used car on 5-30-2011 for $10K from a Toyota dealership in ON. A month after, the car exhibited mechanical issues. He paid the dealership's repair shop to repair them multiple times, but the issues kept recurring, and in 2013 he sold it back to the dealership for $3K.
I obtained the Carfax report that lists several accidents and repairs. I perused the Contract of Sale that didn't disclose them. He confirmed to me that the saleswoman never disclosed them or showed him Carfax.
I called Pro Bono Ontario. The telephone responder said I can claim for damages for misrepresentation, and I ought to read Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1.
I complained to an ON gov't agency and attached a Car Proof report. They rejected my complaint. This legal counsel works just for the ON gov't agency – not the car dealer.
She wrote – You have provided no objective evidence of the car's previous accidents and damage.
I replied – Why haven't you brought up my Car Proof Report, not even once? It is undoubtedly "objective evidence of the used car's accidents and damage".
Her – We closed your file and have nothing to add.
Me – Aren't you ignoring my Car Proof Report that is "objective evidence of the used car's accidents and damage"? It is unjust to ignore key evidence.
Her – This will serve as our final answer. There will be no need to contact us again about your case. We will not correspond further.
This lawyer is fibbing! She did ignore my Car Proof Report!
Did she breach the rules beneath from the LSO's Rules of Professional Conduct?
[Commentary]  When opposing interests are not represented, for example, in without notice or uncontested matters or in other situations in which the full proof and argument inherent in the adversarial system cannot be achieved, the lawyer must take particular care to be accurate, candid and comprehensive in presenting the client's case so as to ensure that the tribunal is not misled.
5.1-2 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall not . . .
(e) knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct,
(f) knowingly misstate the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the substance of an argument, or the provisions of a statute or like authority,
(g) knowingly assert as true a fact when its truth cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence or as a matter of which notice may be taken by the tribunal,