A lawyer ignored key evidence. Reasonable for me to complain to the Law Society of Ontario?

Question

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.

1. 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.

2. 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 don't have a lawyer. I want to solve this outside Small Claims Court – don't want litigation stress! I read Limitations Act 2002.

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?

5.1-1.

[Commentary] [6] 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,

7.2-1 A lawyer shall be courteous, civil, and act in good faith with all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings in the course of their practice.

Answer 1

When acting as an advocate...

The key part in your quotation is "When acting as an advocate...". That duty is for the lawyer representing their client. You are not their client, they are not representing you - depending on the circumstances it might be argued that in this particular situation they're not representing anyone as an advocate, this doesn't seem to be a tribunal or an adversarial process, but if they are an advocate of someone, that someone definitely isn't you.

Furthermore, as the quoted code of conduct states, it's a violation to knowingly misstate the truth, and it's not prohibited to be sloppy and careless and unknowingly ignore your arguments - they aren't employed by you as your lawyer, they don't owe you the duty of care that's required towards a client, as you are not their client. Their employer might have some basis for complaint if that is negligence that's harming their interests, but not you.

Also, as you might consider contesting the decision of the agency employing that lawyer, it's worth noting the commentary of these rules clearly states "[3] The lawyer's function as advocate is openly and necessarily partisan. Accordingly, the lawyer is not obliged ([...]) to assist an adversary or advance matters harmful to the client's case." and accepting or openly admitting the validity of your arguments might obviously be harmful to their client's future dispute with you.