Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, (2001) 157 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 18, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 157 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);2001 SCC 67;96 BCLR (3d) 1;205 DLR (4th) 577;189 WAC 50;[2001] 3 SCR 113;84 ACWS (3d) 584;[2002] 2 WWR 201;276 NR 339;[1998] BCJ No 2756 (QL);157 BCAC 161;48 Imm LR (2d) 170

B.C. Law Soc. v. Mangat (2001), 157 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);

    256 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.022

The Law Society of British Columbia (appellant) v. Jaswant Singh Mangat, Westcoast Immigration Consultants Ltd. and Jill Sparling (respondents) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General of British Columbia, The Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc., The Canadian Bar Association and The Association of Immigration Counsel of Canada (intervenors)

(27108; 2001 SCC 67)

Indexed As: Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

October 18, 2001.

Summary:

Immigration consultants acting as advo­cates or counsel for aliens, for a fee, in proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board were engaged in the "practice of law" contrary to s. 26 of the Legal Pro­fessions Act, as they were not members of the Law Society. The Law Society sought injunctive relief. The consultants submitted that ss. 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act empowered them to act, notwithstanding s. 26.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. C04, granted an injunction. The consultants appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 115 B.C.A.C. 50; 189 W.A.C. 50, allowed the appeal and vacated the injunction. Southin, J.A., allowed the appeal on the basis of interjurisdictional immunity. Mackenzie and Hollinrake, JJ.A., concurred in the result, but allowed the appeal on the basis of the doc­trine of para­mountcy of the federal legislation. Accord­ingly, s. 26 was inoperative respecting im­migration consultants. The Law Society appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court held that "ss. 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act and its associ­ated Rules and Regulations are intra vires Parliament and that s. 26 (now s. 15) of the Legal Profession Act is inoperative to non-lawyers who collect a fee acting under ss. 30 and 69(1) for the purposes of representation before the Adjudication Division or Refugee Division and the provision of services to that end".

Aliens - Topic 11

Definitions and general principles - Use of immigration consultants - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 6269.1 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 6269.1

Unauthorized practice - Offences - Acting as a solicitor - Exceptions - Immigration consultants - Immigration consultants act­ing as advocates or counsel for aliens, for a fee, in proceedings before the Immigra­tion and Refugee Board were engaged in the "practice of law" contrary to s. 26 of the Legal Professions Act, as they were not members of the Law Society - Sec­tions 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act permitted aliens to be represented for a fee by "a barrister or solicitor or other coun­sel" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 30 and 69(1) of the Immigra­tion Act (and its associated Rules and Regula­tions) and s. 26 of the Legal Pro­fession Act were validly enacted under the double aspect doctrine - The pith and substance of ss. 30 and 69(1) fell under both federal (naturalization) and provincial (property and civil rights, administration of justice) jurisdiction - Applying the doc­trine of paramountcy, s. 26 was inoperative re­specting non-lawyer immigration con­sult­ants who, for a fee, represented aliens before the Adjudication Division or Refu­gee Division and provided services to that end - See paragraphs 21 to 79.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 7606

Regulation - General - Validity of regula­tory legislation - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 6269.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 3614

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Over­lapping legislation - Conflict - What constitutes - [See Barristers and Solici­tors - Topic 6269.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 6400

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Naturalization and aliens - Provincial regulatory legisla­tion - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 6269.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7407

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Adminis­tration of justice (s. 92(14)) - General principles - Regula­tion of lawyers - [See Bar­ris­ters and Solici­tors - Topic 6269.1 ].

Words and Phrases

Other counsel - Sections 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, and its related Rules and Regulations, permitted aliens to be represented for a fee by "other counsel" in proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "other counsel" included immigration consultants who were not members of the Law Society - See paragraphs 55 to 67.

Cases Noticed:

Law Society of British Columbia v. Lawrie et al. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 142; 7 W.A.C. 142; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 12].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la securité du travail (Qué.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 20].

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 24].

Union Colliery Co. of British Columbia Ltd. v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Cunningham v. Homma, [1903] A.C. 151 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Brooks-Bidlake and Whittall Ltd. v. Brit­ish Columbia (Attorney General), [1923] A.C. 450 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Nakane and Okazake, Re (1908), 13 B.C.R. 370 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Singh (Narain), Re (1908), 13 B.C.R. 377 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Hildebrand, [1919] 3 W.W.R. 286 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Immigration Act and Munshi Singh, Re, [1914] 6 W.W.R. 1347 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Lafferty v. Lincoln (1907), 38 S.C.R. 620, refd to. [para. 39].

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451; [1982] 5 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 40].

Attorney General of Canada v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia.

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Product et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157; 231 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 40].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson - see Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Product et al.

Black & Co. v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; 93 N.R. 266; 96 A.R. 352; [1989] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 43].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 590; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 44].

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 44].

Gray, Administrator of MacDonald Estate - see MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.

Martin v. Gray - see MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.

R. v. McClure (D.E.) (2001), 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines Ltd. v. Quebec, [1982] C.S. 1146; 142 D.L.R.(3d) 512 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Fortin v. Barreau du Quebec (2000), 272 N.R. 359 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Hodge v. R. (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 48].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, refd to. [para. 49].

Stephens v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 823, refd to. [para. 49].

Mann v. R., [1966] S.C.R. 238, refd to. [para. 49].

Smith v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 49].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1894] A.C. 189 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Robinson v. Countrywide Factors Ltd., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 753, refd to. [para. 49].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1896] A.C. 348 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Barfried Enterprises Ltd., [1963] S.C.R. 570, refd to. [para. 49].

Papp v. Papp et al., [1970] 1 O.R. 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Rio Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Licensing Board (N.B.), New Brunswick (Attorney General) and Saskatchewan (Attorney General), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 59; 77 N.R. 104; 81 N.B.R.(2d) 328; 205 A.P.R. 328, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Furtney et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 89; 129 N.R. 241; 51 O.A.C. 299, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Lewis (1997), 155 D.L.R.(4th) 442 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Romanowicz (J.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 100; 45 O.R.(3d) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 66].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; 104 N.R. 110; 82 Sask.R. 120; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 193; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 361; 9 P.P.S.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 70].

M & D Farm Ltd. et al. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 961; 245 N.R. 165; 138 Man.R.(2d) 161; 202 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 71].

Crown Grain Co. v. Day, [1908] A.C. 504 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town) (2001), 271 N.R. 201 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 73].

Statutes Noticed:

Adjudication Division Rules - see Immi­gration Act Regulations (Can.).

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(25), sect. 92(13), sect. 92(14), sect. 95 [para. 10].

Convention Refugee Determination Divi­sion Rules - see Immigration Act Regu­lations (Can.).

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 30, sect. 69(1), sect. 114(1)(v) [para. 10].

Immigration Act Regulations (Can.), Ad­judication Division Rules, SOR/93-47, sect. 2 [para. 10].

Immigration Act Regulations (Can.), Con­vention Refugee Determination Division Rules, SOR/93-45, sect. 2 [para. 10].

Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1987, c. 25, sect. 1, sect. 26, sect. 100 [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bagambiire, Davies B.N., Canadian Immi­gration and Refugee Law (1996), p. 9 [para. 35].

Casey, James T., The Regulation of Professions in Canada (1994), pp. 2-1, 2-4 [para. 40].

Corey, Peter DeCarteret, A Framework for Regulating Paralegal Practice in Ontario (2000), p. 44 [para. 60].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 66].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2000) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, pp. 15-11, 15-12 [para. 49]; 15-40 [para. 35]; 16-6.1 to 16-7 [para. 71]; 43-2, footnote 4 [para. 35].

Waldman, Lorne, Immigration Law and Practice (Looseleaf Ed.), vol. 1, §§ 1.15ff [para. 35].

Counsel:

William S. Berardino, Q.C., and Elizabeth B. Lyall, for the appellant;

Jack Giles, Q.C., and Susan B. Horne, for the respondent, Sparling;

Richard R. Sugden, Q.C., and Craig P. Dennis, for the respondent, Mangat;

Urszula Kaczmarczyk, Kevin Lunney and Brenda Carbonell, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Michel Y. Hélie, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Rodney G. Garson, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Neena Sharma, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Jack Giles, Q.C., and Susan B. Horne, for the intervenor, the Organization of Pro­fessional Immigration Consultants Inc.;

Mira J. Thow, for the intervenor, the Canadian Bar Association;

Malcolm N. Ruby, for the intervenor, the Association of Immigration Counsel of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Sugden, McFee & Ross, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent, Mangat;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Van­couver, B.C., for the respondent, Sparling;

The Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

The Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

The Ministry of Attorney General, Van­couver, B.C., for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Van­couver, B.C., for the intervenor, the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc.;

Mayland McKimm & Associates, Victoria, B.C., and Zaifman Associates, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, the Cana­dian Bar Association.

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Associ­ation of Immigration Counsel of Canada.

This appeal was heard on March 21, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 18, 2001, Gonthier, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.