Lisa Wilson is a licensed paralegal representing the respondent tenant, Daniel Stern, before the Landlord and Tenant Board. The landlord is seeking to evict Stern on the basis that his behaviour is interfering with the other tenants' reasonable enjoyment of the property. Based on several emails received from neighbouring tenants, the landlord alleges that Stern has several visitors at his apartment, many of whom arrive late in the evening and make excessive noise throughout the night. Furthermore, the landlord alleges that Stern's visitors have wandered throughout the building. On at least one occasion, they were reported to have knocked on random doors and invited the other tenants to "party." The landlord also alleges that Stern's dog has fleas, and that the animal's untreated infestation has spread to the animals in neighbouring units. Lastly, the landlord alleges that due to the unsanitary conditions inside Stern's unit, the entire floor had to be sprayed for cockroaches. When Stern first retained Wilson, the tenant advised her that another paralegal had initially represented him. It was this paralegal who had originally filed the response to the landlord's application. Wilson did not reach out to the first representative since all the relevant information was contained in the application and the response. Stern gave Wilson full disclosure, including a copy of the lease and the names of friends who used to live in the building. Wilson reviewed the contact information of the two potential witnesses. Witness X was an ex-roommate of Stern. Stern informed Wilson that they were estranged and had not been in contact for a few years. In fact, X had moved out after a disagreement with Stern over apartment expenses. Wilson decided not to reach out to X fearing that his testimony would be prejudicial against Stern. The second name provided was that of Witness Y, who had lived in the building two years prior to the hearing date. Stern did not have Y's contact information. Wilson felt that, even if she had been able to locate Y, their tenancy occurred so long ago that any information Y had about Stern's lifestyle would be of little or no significance to the current matter. Wilson instructed Stern that he should testify at the hearing. In order to prepare her client, Wilson reviewed the Board's procedure with Stern and went over the relevant documents (the originating application and the emails) with him.

Please Discuss the following: Take a firm position on the following statement and be prepared to present their arguments: Wilson adequately prepared for the hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board. Specifically, Wilson properly prepared her theory of the case. Answer the following: 1. Set out your position on the statement. 2. Should Wilson have attempted to locate and interview the two witnesses when Stern provided their names? Please explain your answer. 3. Was Wilson obligated to do so even if she felt that their testimonies would not assist her client during the hearing? Please explain your answer. 4. Has Wilson violated any Paralegal Rules of Conduct? If so, which one(s)? 5. Suggest the ways, if any, in which Wilson could have better prepared for the hearing. 6. Is there any case law that you found researching this matter with respect to similar allegations of professional misconduct? Give full citation. 7. What was the outcome of the case law you found? Provide a brief summary